Hong Kong Referee

Dangerous Play: Rory Delap

2012-03-02T01:00:00.023+08:00

The following incident occurred during the FA Cup fifth round match between Crawley Town and Stoke City on 19 February 2012. The match finished 0—2.

In the 17', with the score at 0—0, Stoke's Rory Delap (blue/black) and Crawley's David Hunt (red) challenged for the ball on the pitch side near the technical area. The 4th Official is positioned at the halfway line and possibly helped provide assistance to Referee Mike Jones. The reason for this opinion is because Mike Jones initially indicated a throw-in to Crawley Town but then sent off Delap. Here are the freeze frames:

This next sequence shows another camera angle, probably from the vicinity around the halfway line near where the 4th Official is also standing. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Mike Jones initially signals for a throw-in, but then sends off Stoke's Rory Delap for serious foul play. Did the 4th Official play a part?

NOTE: The 4th Official is Lee Probert (this blog has already analysed his recent performances (e.g. here and here) and 'unfortunately' there is still more to say about him in a future post).

Stoke City coach Tony Pulis was incensed by the decision and appealed. The Potters' assistant manager Dave Kemp said:

"The fourth official [Lee Probert] said [the sending-off] was for excessive force. That's a very debatable subject. There was no danger to the opponent. It's football and it's been played for years that way."

Also, Tony Pulis previously mentioned:

"We have to clear up what is a sending-off and what isn't? We are watching games at times and we are getting different decisions being made for different teams and different players, but similar incidents."

Follow Up
Stoke City's appeal was successful and the FA Disciplinary Committee has withdrawn Rory Delap's three-match suspension.
Q: What does this say, if anything, about Lee Probert's decision to 'overrule' Mike Jones' initial decision?

From HKRef: Looking at the direction of the challenge, Stoke City's Rory Delap is not lunging directly at his opponent. Compare this with team-mate Robert Huth's direct lunge at an opponent (Serious Foul Play: Robert Huth) and also the analysis associated with Similar Similar Means Different Part 3.

The 4th Official, apparently, had a better view of the incident than the match Referee and probably should have been able to better decide whether Delap's challenge was aimed directly at his opponent (or not, as the case turned out to be).

If EPL Referees are not all on the same page, then it will not help matters. Consistency in getting the big decisions right is key. Apparently, PGMOL chief Mike Riley has given a DVD to all premiership clubs to show them what is and isn't allowed in tackling. It is assumed that all EPL Referees are aware of this DVD too!

Serious Foul Play: Robert Huth

2012-02-25T01:00:00.012+08:00

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Stoke City and Sunderland on Saturday 4 February 2012. The match finished 0—1.

Stoke's Robert Huth (red 4) makes a challenge directly at his opponent, Sunderland's David Meyler (blue 18). Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Martin Atkinson sent off Robert Huth for serious foul play. Stoke City coach Tony Pulis claimed there was "no intent" and would appeal the decision.

Follow Up
The FA rejected Stoke City's appeal and upheld Referee Martin Atkinson's decision (see BBC Sport).

Note: This post will be linked with another send off for a Stoke City player, Rory Delap, during a match held 15 days later on 19 February 2012.

Studs Alert: Benoit Assou-Ekotto

2012-02-21T18:00:00.011+08:00

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Tottenham Hotspur and Wigan Athletic on Tuesday 31 January 2012. The match finished 3—1.

In the 73' minute Spurs defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto (white 32) goes over the top of the ball when challenging against Wigan's Franco Di Santo (blue 9). Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Lee Probert and his AR did not see any serious foul play when Spurs defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto challenged Wigan's Di Santo.

'Allo 'allo, what have we here then?

Let me have a closer look ... (because it makes me appear like I am paying close attention)

Can and should retrospective action be taken out by the FA Disciplinary Committee on Tottenham Hotspur's Benoit Assou-Ekotto? We have already seen the FA taking retrospective action against Newcastle's Yohan Cabaye.

Related Posts

Probing Lee Probert Part 4

Cynical Challenges (search results)

China's Golden Whistle Gets Jail Sentence

2012-02-17T00:01:00.005+08:00

Lu Jun, the first Chinese Referee to take charge of a World Cup match, has been sentenced for five and a half years on match-fixing charges.

Then in 2002 ...

... and Now in 2012

This news comes during the preseason of the 2012 Chinese Super League which is scheduled to begin on Saturday 10 March.

Related Posts

China's Golden Whistle Admits Accepting US$44,000 Bribe

CFA Chief says China Referees to Blame for Bad Reputation

Reference

Top China football referee Lu Jun jailed over bribes (BBC News)

By Michael Bristow BBC News, Beijing

The man who was once China's top football referee has been sentenced to five-and-a-half years in jail for taking bribes to fix matches.

Lu Jun - who officiated at the World Cup - was one of nine people convicted of charges related to corruption inside Chinese football.

The defendants were arrested following an investigation launched to try to clean up the game in China.

A number of other cases are still pending.

Lu Jun, once dubbed the "golden whistle", was the first Chinese referee to take charge of a World Cup match, at the 2002 event hosted by Japan and South Korea.

He was also twice named referee of the year by the Asian Football Confederation.

But now he has been sent to prison after admitting taking bribes worth more than $128,000 (£82,000) to fix the results of seven league football games, some in 2003.

These bribes involved four clubs, including Shanghai Shenhua, which has just signed French soccer star Nicolas Anelka.
'Black whistles'

The court, in the north-eastern city of Dandong, heard how the Shanghai club had spent nearly $1m bribing officials and referees, including Lu Jun.

The referee was one of a group of nine people - including other referees and officials - convicted following a trial. They were given sentences ranging from no time in jail to seven years behind bars.

There were tales of a wrongly-awarded penalty, the fixing of international friendly matches and gambling.

In China, corrupt referees have become known as "black whistles".

It's All EARs In Brazil

2012-02-13T20:00:00.010+08:00

Looking at the highlights of the Brazilian Football State Championships (Carioca) match between Flamengo and Madureira played on 8 February 2012, it can be seen that the organisers in this competition are using additional or extra ARs (EARs) as introduced by UEFA in 2009. The match finished 1—0, with Ronaldinho missing a penalty.

Highlights: Flamengo and Madureira, 8 February 2012 (YouTube)

However instead of following or copying UEFA's modification this season in switching the placement of EARs to the side of the goal line nearest the AR, the Brazil EARs remain positioned on the far side of the goal line.

The Brazil EARs also appear to be taking an active role in communicating and signalling with the players and the match Referee. It should be noted that the Brazilian Football State Championships, which runs from January/February to April/May, has a history of including "obscure formats" and experimenting with "proposed innovations in rules".

The match officials do not use CommLink systems, and have to rely on plenty of eye contact and team awareness.

Goal Kick but also Offside

The EAR signals a goal kick but the AR has signalled for Offside

In this incident, the EAR receives an earful from the goalkeeper because of the lack of communication between the match officials.

Corner Kick

Goal Kick

Goal

Penalty Kick

Ronaldinho misses his penalty kick and the EAR signals a goal kick

For Related Posts on the Ineffectiveness of EARs (please click here)

Also, check out Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs.

To Bias Is Human ...

2012-02-08T21:00:00.005+08:00

… to respect Referees' decisions divine ?

[Original quote: To err is human, to forgive divine.]

Why are people usually biased? For instance, the 'tribalism' that football supporters adhere to and exhibit can be extremely subjective, distorted and one-sided. Psychologists usually explain this by the way the human mind has evolved to make distinctions between "in-groups" and "out-groups" (i.e. possessing an "us" vs "them" mentality). This had a lot of survival value when humans roamed around in groups thousands of years ago.

I believe Referees already grasp this concept of "in-groups" from their experience in officiating matches and in talking with players, coaches and anyone expressing a preference to a particular team. There is obvious bias involved, but it is another matter altogether whether supporters of teams actually acknowledge this bias or not.

And recent research suggests that people do not tend to acknowledge their bias because they are probably unaware of it. University researchers have confirmed this "subconscious" bias with a study analyzing brain scans of volunteers who professed to support particular sports teams (see link here and text below). The researchers found that individuals perceive the actions of players in their own team differently to those of players from a rival team. Apparently, the bias manifested itself in people "judging their players as faster, even when the two actions [of opposing players] were performed at identical speeds."

As I said, this much is really already known. Supporters perceive players in their team to be "faster", even when the facts clearly show that they are not faster or better.

This means one has to actually make an effort to think critically and to self-reflect rationally in order to obtain a reasonably good understanding of one's own views, opinions and value judgements in life. Unfortunately, very few people appear to be willing or able to do this.

So, Here's A Thought For Referees

We, as Referees, also consider ourselves as an "in-group"; sometimes even labeling ourselves as the "third team". Therefore, has it ever occurred to any of us that when we view match incidents and Referees' decisions, and when we favour the Referees' decisions, are we in some "human" way falling into the 'bias' trap too? How do we, as Referees, minimize or eliminate (if possible?) any bias towards favouring fellow Referees all the time? And should we?

For instance, let's just say when we are ARs to a match Referee and the Referee is having a particularly bad performance, what should be the correct response? There are pros and cons to all the different types of possible responses that we can give to the Referee. But more often than not, most ARs will simply support the match Referee no matter what (i.e. be biased in favour of him); and this is because of our "in-group" tendencies and the way we have been instructed to support the team. Whether or not we also perceive the actions of the Referee differently from non-match officials is unknown … and could be an inspiration for a future research project!

Reference

Why you think your team is the best (New Scientist)

31 January 2012 by Wendy Zukerman

Ah ref! Now you have an excuse for thinking your team always performs best. Your brain perceives the actions of people in your own team differently to those of a rival team.

Pascal Molenberghs at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, divided 24 volunteers into two teams and had them judge the speed of hand actions performed by two people, one from each team.

As expected, most of the volunteers were biased towards their own team, judging their players as faster, even when the two actions were performed at identical speeds.

Surprisingly, brain scans taken during the task showed that this bias arises from differences in brain activity during perception of the hand action and not during the decision-making process. The work will appear in Human Brain Mapping.

Louise Newman, a psychologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, says the research is an important step to unravelling the mechanisms of how people develop perceptions of "in-groups" and "out-groups". This can inform our understanding of racism and discrimination, she adds.

Lee Probert and Yohan Cabaye Again Part 1

2012-02-03T14:00:00.022+08:00

The FA has taken retrospective action and charged Newcastle's Yohan Cabaye with violent conduct on Brighton's Adam El-Abd.

The following incidents occurred during the FA Cup fourth round match between Brighton and Newcastle United on Saturday 28 January 2012. The match finished 1—0.

It is also interesting to observe that coaches and players like to use players' evidence when it suits them, and to ignore players' testimonies when it doesn't suit them. In this instance, in an effort to defend their stance about Cabaye's 'unintentional stamp' at an opponent Newcastle are claiming that the victim, Brighton's El-Abd, will support Cabaye in his appeal with the FA charge. There is no proof of this; there is only what the media reported what Newcastle coach Alan Pardew had said.

We already know Pardew will not publicly say anything negative about Cabaye (i.e. for Cabaye's excessive challenges) but will openly defend him or help get sympathy for him (see here).

Presented here (and in Part 2) are three incidents in the match that give a flavour of what occurred. Given the unsavoury performances this season of Referee Lee Probert and Newcastle United player Yohan Cabaye (e.g. see Probing Lee Probert), what occurred during this match is evidence that not much has changed in terms of their own individual introspection, self-improvement and performance.

1) Cabaye's Stamping Incident

As the ball is played to Newcastle's Yohan Cabaye (black 4), Brighton's El-Abd (blue/white) fouls Cabaye from behind.

First, it must be said that Brighton's El-Abd fouled Cabaye by pushing and tripping him. Referee Lee Probert did not call it and simply let play continue.

Even had Probert quickly whistled for a foul, Cabaye's unsavoury reaction toward his opponent appears to be typical of his attitude toward fellow professionals in general (see examples here and here).

Cabaye (black 4) is fouled from behind and Referee Lee Probert does not call it

Notice how Cabaye's left leg is straightened, which is a sure sign that he intended to stamp against his opponent and cause harm.
Referee Lee Probert (orange) appears to perhaps have an angle of the players' tangle but he did not stop play.

Cabaye gets up and exhibits no concern whatsoever for his opponent who he has just stamped on

And did Cabaye show any empathy or concern for his fellow professional after this clash? Remember, Cabaye was "really upset" about being on the receiving end of a challenge by QPR's Shaun Derry. At least Derry had the courtesy and decency to check on Cabaye immediately following his reckless challenge.

Now obviously, everyone wants justice. If a player is carelessly tripped by an opponent to make him lose possession, a Referee can manage this by simply giving back what is owed. Tit for Tat, as some people may say.

Food For Thought
This ordinary everyday 'justice' system is analogous to giving a child some money to buy some candy from a candy store. Equal value constitutes fair exchange. When there is a shopkeeper, everything is fine because there is a recognised authority figure to help out with the fair exchange of goods. However, if the shopkeeper is dealing with another customer or is taking a nap, the child is told by someone (perhaps an impatient mother waiting outside or another person inside the store) he can simply take his share of sweets and then leave the money as payment. In such circumstances, most people will behave fairly and pay for what they take. Some people, if they know they can get away with it, will sneakily take a little more candy in return for their cash. And there are others, like Cabaye for example, who will simply take ... they will take as much candy as possible and will also take their cash with them too. This represents their own moral and ethical codes. As Referees, we should intimately know and understand our own moral and ethical codes ... which ideally should be decent and of a high standard. With this understanding, Referees can hopefully understand and evaluate other people's reactions and behaviour too.

With Cabaye, whenever a decision goes against him and whenever he perceives an 'injustice' is inflicted on him, he will take as much 'justice' for himself. Cabaye's sense of Tit for Tat is seriously skewed and it will probably not do him any good in the long run. Furthermore, even before Cabaye perceives any injustice being inflicted on him, he will himself inflict injustice on his opponents and expect to get away with it ... just like a kid who should know better running around unsupervised in a candy store. If Cabaye does not change his ways, there is a good chance he may experience some serious incidents in future. He may even come across an opponent who has similar moral and ethical codes to his own, and should he fall victim he will undoubtedly protest most vehemently and the response from those familiar with the situation will be something similar to that described in What Goes Around Cabaye Around.

Looking at what Cabaye tweeted in response to the FA charge, we have a clue as to his take on Tit for Tat and his perception of "injustice". Cabaye tweeted:

"3 matchs ban it's a real injustice but life goes on !!! In my teammates i trust ..."

Cabaye correctly perceived he was fouled, but he also reacted violently and knowingly injured his opponent. And yet Cabaye believes his subsequent three-match ban for violent conduct is an "injustice". With that kind of view, who really knows what Cabaye's sense of justice and fairness is?

The FA is to be applauded for charging Newcastle's Cabaye for stamping on Brighton's El-Abd. In recent times the FA has been seen to support EPL match officials by taking retrospective action on incidents that were missed by match officials (e.g. Balotelli's Boot) and by upholding correct decisions made by match officials (e.g. Chris Foy the Courageous).

Now if only some EPL referees, who are full-time professionals, can raise their awareness and treatment of problem players, as well as improving their own problem areas, then hopefully justice can be consistently and correctly applied on the field of play before it even has the chance for competition authorities to take retrospective review.

More in Part 2 of Lee Probert and Yohan Cabaye Again.

Stamp Out Stamping: Balotelli's Boot

2012-02-01T01:00:00.019+08:00

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday 22 January 2012. The match finished 3—2, with Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli being instrumental in winning a penalty in stoppage time and converting the spot-kick to win the match for this team.

In the 83' Spurs midfielder Scott Parker (white) blocks a shot from Balotelli (blue). Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Howard Webb appears to be more concerned with looking at the ball

This is a clear stamp by Balotelli on Parker, and could have resulted in a serious head injury had Balotelli's boot landed flush on Parker's head. Referees should also be aware of the potential likelihood of head injuries that may result from collisions between players.

Referee Howard Webb appears to be looking at the incident but Webb's line of sight is probably not focused downward toward Parker's head

Referees should not listen too closely to what players say. Good Referees put more emphasis on evaluating players' actions as opposed to their words.

Balotelli looking all 'sweet and innocent'

Graham Poll's comments:

"I struggle with the fact that Howard Webb didn't see it but then he didn't see six studs land on someone's chest in the World Cup [reference to Nigel de Jong of the Netherlands for kicking out at Xavi Alonso of Spain]. I like Howard, I think he's a great referee but basic instructions to referees are that if two players clash and you cannot trust them then you shouldn't leave them on their own. You stop play - it's as simple as that."

"If Howard Webb did look away, why? As a referee, you are taught to hold your gaze. Be sure. Look for 'afters'. It is basic refereeing."

Harry Redknapp, Spurs coach, comments:

"The first one could have been an accident, but on the second one he's backheeled him straight in the head. It is not the first time he has done that and I am sure it won't be the last. I am the last person to talk about getting people sent off and what they should and shouldn't do. But it is blatant."

Alan Hansen, BBC Sport football pundit:

"I think he stamps on him. When you hit the ground you don't stamp and there's a definite stamp there. The referee is five yards away. I think he should have given him a red card."

Lee Dixon, BBC Sport football pundit:

"I think you've got to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not looking at Parker. Looking at his left leg, it's actually off the ground. I know it looks bad but no-one can possibly tell."

Referee Tip
Always consider whether the player in question would act in exactly the same way had the person on the receiving end been a team-mate or a close friend. Players have a certain duty of care toward other players, and this is usually clearly seen (and appreciated) amongst sporting players who do not wish any misfortune on their fellow professionals or to their own team-mates.

This was perhaps the best comment from ex-Referee Dermot Gallagher, who "believes Balotelli should have been sent off but does not think referee Howard Webb should be blamed for missing the incident."

"After countless replays I think it's a red card but I think it's still a very subjective thing to look at. Only Mario really knows what he was thinking and what he was doing and that's the problem the FA may have. When [Webb] looks back, the incident has already taken place and in many ways he's done the FA a service if they need to take action because, by not gambling and suddenly hooking out a yellow card and making a mistake, he's left it alone and the process can take place."

Follow Up
The FA have taken retrospective action against Mario Balotelli's stamp on Scott Parker (see Balotelli charged over 'stamp' on Parker).

It is interesting how most of the media reports only suggest that it appeared to be a stamp (or 'stamp').
*I'll have something to say about this "lack of precision" in a future post.

Follow Up Note: The Spanish FA (RFEF) did not take retrospective action against Pepe for his stamp on Lionel Messi in the Copa del Rey quarter-final first leg match between Real Madrid and Barcelona (see Pepe Le Pew Part 1 — What a Stinker Part 2).

These mixed signals ultimately send out the wrong message. Competition organisers, especially those like the FA and RFEF who have a high-profile standing and therefore undertake a huge responsibility in protecting the image of the game, should take action and should be seen to take action on offenders.

The FA is to be condoned for taking retrospective action against Balotelli's behaviour in the EPL, whereas the RFEF is to be condemned for not taking similar measures against Pepe's behaviour in La Liga.

Pepe Le Pew — What a Stinker Part 2

2012-01-25T07:00:00.027+08:00

This post follows on from Part 1, in a match where Real Madrid's Pepe is causing mayhem on the pitch.

Incident Four Pepe Stamps on Star Player Messi

In the 67', Real Madrid substitute Jose Callejon (white 21) makes a reckless challenge on Barcelona midfielder Lionel Messi who is tripped while in full flight. Messi tumbles and crashes to the ground. As Referee César Muñiz Fernández takes out his yellow card to caution Callejon, the following incident happens. Here are the freeze frames:

Pepe looks down at where he is stamping

Pepe knows Messi is in pain behind him yet continues to argue with the Referee

Notice how Pepe's right foot comes down heel first and next to his left foot, which indicates a stamping motion ... as opposed to a natural stepping or walking motion had he been moving away from Messi

If Pepe was genuinely walking away from Messi, his right foot would not come down heel first right next to his left foot. That is not a natural walking motion to help move away from a player who is down on the ground.

Note 1: In such situations, a measure of a player's empathy is whether he can sympathize with another person's situation. Hypothetically if Pepe had accidentally stepped on (let alone stamped on) one of his team-mate's hand, what would Pepe have done? Shown concern, of course, and walked back to check on him. Most people can tell the difference between putting their foot down on the grass pitch and putting it down on someone's hand. For Pepe to walk away and blatantly ignore what is happening behind him is genuinely ungentlemanly conduct.

Media Note: It is frustrating, but understandable (given the climate of libel and lawsuits), how much of the media mentioned the deliberate stamping incident with sentences like: "Pepe appeared to stand on Messi's hand", "Pepe's apparent stamp on Messi's hand" and "Pepe appears to stamp on the hand of Lionel Messi".

Note 2: Whenever a player is on the ground, all match officials must be vigilant and aware that something bad can potentially erupt. I have observed similar incidents in matches at all levels where Referees are simply not aware of the devious and unsporting antics that some players can get up to. See example of a stamping incident here in a Hong Kong match (see Unpleasant Incidents in Hong Kong).

It is hoped that retrospective action will be taken against the unsporting behaviour of Pepe. His stamp on Lionel Messi's hand was no accident. At the professional and highest levels, there are no "accidents". Such players who plead innocent are like 'slimy villains in daytime soaps who intentionally over-act'.

Follow Up:
The Spanish FA (RFEF) has announced it will take no action against Real Madrid defender Pepe over his alleged stamp on the hand of Barcelona's Lionel Messi.

Incident Five Pepe Kicking Fabregas and Then Claiming He Was Kicked By Fabregas

In the 75', Pepe (white 4) is menacingly hounding Fabregas (red/blue 4) from behind as Fabregas protects the ball. Pepe takes three kicks at Fabregas from behind, with no chance in getting the ball, and then audaciously tries to claim a foul by indicating that Fabregas had somehow kicked him. Here are the freeze frames:

Kick once
Kick twice
Kick thrice
Pepe (white 3) claims Fabregas (red/blue 4) kicked him

The Referee, who was stood motionless about 15 yards away as all this happened, finally whistled for a foul against Pepe. Fabregas is to be admired and commended for not reacting to Pepe's antics and unsporting behaviour.

Pepe is subbed off soon after, and then Barcelona score the winning goal.

Although this two-part post focused on Pepe's negative and unsporting behavior, he was not the only Real Madrid player to dish out the dirty tackles on Barcelona players, and particularly on Lionel Messi (see this news article)

The second leg of this Copa del Rey quarter-final will be played on Wednesday 25 January 2012 at the Nou Camp.

Pepe Le Pew — What a Stinker Part 1

2012-01-24T13:00:00.004+08:00

Real Madrid's Pepe. Odor-able?

On the whole, footballers are nice guys who play the game in the right spirit. Occasionally, there is a player who every other player knows about and are wary of. This kind of player is someone who you (as a player, coach or supporter) are relieved to know is on your team, or otherwise will send alarm bells ringing in your head because he is on the other team. Portugal and Real Madrid defensive midfielder Pepe, or his name in full Kieper Laveran Lima Ferreira, is this kind of player.

For those who don't know, Pepé Le Pew is an "odor-able" cartoon character who is portrayed as a French skunk with an unpleasant scent and who cannot accept "no" for an answer.

Pepe's mean reputation has been built from malicious tackles, red cards and match suspensions. Examples include last season's El Clasico where he was sent off for SFP on Dani Alves, and in the 2008-2009 season where he received a 10-match ban for kicking Getafe player Francisco Casquero while he was on the ground.

The following incidents occurred during the Copa del Rey quarter-final first leg match between Real Madrid and Barcelona on Wednesday 18 January 2012. This date was also the 41st birthday of Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola. The match finished 1—2.

Incident One Pepe's Reckless Challenge

In the 17', Pepe (white 3) makes a reckless challenge on Sergio Busquets (red/blue 16) by stamping on his foot when trying to play the ball.

Referee César Muñiz Fernández cautions Pepe and says "No More"

Referee César Muñiz Fernández saw this as a reckless challenge and dealt with it by issuing a caution and public warning.

Incident Two Jumping and Leading with Arm

In the 20', Gerad Pique (red/blue 3) uses his arm as a tool and strikes Pepe (white 3) in the face.

Pepe appears to "overreact" as he lies writhing on the ground as his Real Madrid team-mates (e.g. Sergio Ramos; pic from this news article) apply pressure on the Referee.

Referee César Muñiz Fernández correctly cautions Pique; however Pepe's theatrics and the way in which his Real Madrid team-mates surround the Referee are unsporting and unacceptable behavior (see this news article for further photos).

Incident Three Pepe's Embarrassing Theatrics

In the 64', Pepe tussles with Barcelona's Cesc Fabregas for the ball and upon realizing that he will lose possession, grabs his face with both hands and tries to get a foul. Replays show that perhaps Fabregas did touch his left cheek but—unless Fabregas has really sharp nails or an iron claw of a hand—it was not the kind of contact that would bring about such a violent and farcical reaction as displayed by Pepe.
The AR would have had the best view and didn't flag any foul. Play was allowed to continue but eventually Barcelona sportingly put the ball out of play so that Pepe could be attended to.

Pepe probably realized that he had lost possession to Fabregas and attempted another way to stop play and prevent Barcelona from attacking

Pepe's theatrics is embarrassing and reminded me of Ronaldo's theatrics from last season when Real Madrid played an away UCL match at AC Milan (see Webb's Weak Woeful Week).

Look out for Pepe Le Pew — What a Stinker Part 2, where further incidents involving Pepe continue.

Similar Similar Means Different Part 3

2012-01-22T06:00:00.015+08:00

Manchester City's Vincent Kompany was sent off by Referee Chris Foy for lunging at an opponent with both legs in a scissors formation (please see Part 1 and Part 2).

Serbia forward Mateja Kezman will be ending his football career (i.e. hanging up his boots) in Hong Kong after he plays his two final matches in the city on 23 and 26 January 2012. See excerpts of news story below.

Question: What do the above two statements have in common?
Answer: Mateja Kezman was sent off at the 2006 World Cup in Germany for doing exactly what Vincent Kompany did in Manchester in 2012. Furthermore, Kezman has chosen to end his football career in Hong Kong which coincidentally brings in the 'Hong Kong connection'.

The following incident occurred during the 2006 World Cup group match between Argentina and Serbia on 16 June 2006. The match finished 6—0, and the goal of the tournament also came from this match (i.e. Argentina's 24 or 25 pass move that came several years before the appearance of the current Messi-Xavi-Iniesta-inspired Barcelona side who now 'routinely' produce such wonderful goals every time they play! Messi was a 74' substitute in that 2006 Word Cup match).

Round 2. Argentina vs Serbia 2006 World Cup (FIFA Highlights)

At 1:20 of the highlights videoclip which corresponds to the 65' of the match, Mateja Kezman (white 8) lunges at Javier Mascherano (blue 8). Here are the freeze frames:

Camera view 1

Camera view 2

Referee Roberto Rosetti sends off Kezman for SFP

There was nothing wrong with Italian Referee Roberto Rosetti's performance; he ended up refereeing a total of 4 matches at the WC in Germany.

Kezman sarcastically claps the Referee's decision while also trying to appear to clap for the fans

CONCLUSION
Kezman's two-footed lunge at his opponent is the same as Vincent Kompany's two-footed lunge at his opponent. Both were correctly sanctioned with a DFK to the other team and a red card to the offending player.

Follow Up:
FIFA's Disciplinary Committee gave Kezman a two-match ban for SFP (note: since then Serbia has never called up Kezman to play for his country again).
The FA's Disciplinary Commission upheld Kompany's three-match ban for SFP (note: as a result of a previous red card earlier in the season, Kompany received an extra one-match ban).

I hope this post, along with Part 1 and Part 2 completes this analysis of Chris Foy The Courageous.

I repeat. Chris Foy should be applauded for taking a firm stand against the expectation of leniency in the Premiership. Given the EPL's reputation, popularity and global following where entertainment is apparently prioritized over player safety, Chris Foy has clearly demonstrated Pierluigi Collina's Principle: “The best referee is one who has the courage to make decisions even when it would be easier not to.”

Aside: The interesting thing is that Mateja Kezman spent four months in Hong Kong in early 2011 and really got to like the place and its people. Toward the end of 2011, Kezman didn't appear to be having the best of times in terms of football (i.e. he played 11 games for Belarusian side BATE Borisov; 6 in the league and 5 in the Champions League, without scoring). Therefore, he announced he will end his career in Hong Kong this month, playing in an exhibition international four-team tournament called the Lunar New Year Cup.

It is nice to hear that Kezman has a fondness for Hong Kong and he is probably a nice guy. However from a Referee's perspective, on the pitch Kezman generally does not respect match officials and has a tendency to get himself in trouble during matches (e.g. Nicky Butt Sees Red in Hong Kong).

HKRef wishes everyone a prosperous Chinese New Year of the Dragon!
Thank you for visiting this site.

Excerpts from the South China Morning Post (SCMP)

HK matches will be Kezman's last

Serbian striker to appear for South China in Asian Challenge Cup before hanging up his boots for good
SOCCER
Chan Kin-wa
Jan 19, 2012

Former Serbia international Mateja Kezman will finish his glittering career in Hong Kong after playing for South China in the Asian Challenge Cup next week.

The 32-year-old striker, whose former clubs include PSV Eindhoven, Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain, will return to Hong Kong tomorrow after agreeing to play for the Caroliners in the four-team tournament to celebrate Lunar New Year.

"Kezman likes Hong Kong very much and has had a lot support from fans during his time here," South China convenor Steven Lo Kit-sing said.

"If he wants a place to call it a day in his soccer career, there is no better place than Hong Kong. This is an honour for Hong Kong soccer. We will arrange some activities for him on the second day of the tournament, which will be Mateja's last match as he bids farewell to a career of almost two decades. We will reserve the number 38 jersey he used in Hong Kong."

Kezman joined Zemun in Belgrade as a 15-year-old before moving to Partizan, the country's leading club, four years later. He then joined Dutch side PSV Eindhoven from 2000 to 2003, scoring 35 goals in 2003 to help them win the league title. After playing for a long list of European clubs, he moved to South China in December 2010, along with former Manchester United star Nicky Butt.

The Serbian scored seven goals during his four-month stint with the Caroliners.

The influence of [Kezman and Butt], however, was not enough to help South China progress beyond the group stage of the AFC Cup. The Caroliners also lost the all-important local league title to Kitchee, a result which kept them out of this season's AFC Cup.

Similar Similar Means Different Part 2

2012-01-20T14:00:00.019+08:00

This post continues on from Part 1 and will conclude its message by repeating the difference between PIADM and SFP, and hence hopefully explaining the difference between Glen Johnson's two-footed challenge and Vincent Kompany's two-footed challenge.

Remember, despite what many people mistakenly believe, not all two-footed challenges fall in to the category of serious foul play.

First though please take a look at another two-footed challenge, this time from an A-League match between Newcastle Jets and Perth Glory on New Year's Eve, which was very similar to Glen Johnson's PIADM and not similar to Vincent Kompany's SFP. The match finished 1—1. Here are the freeze frames:

Perth Glory's Billy Mehmet (white 4) challenges for the ball against Newcastle Jet's Tiago Calvano (blue/red 5)

Referee Strebre Delovski, who appeared to be quite far away from the incident, quickly sent off Mehmet for serious foul play

IMHO, this was a harsh decision and was perhaps possibly probably influenced by Calvano's reaction during his tumble and also by the home bench's reaction. Mehmet's challenge was more in the category of PIADM and deserved at most a caution. It would be interesting to know whether Perth Glory appealed this red card decision.

Considerations

Let's consider the path of the ball, and the approach of the two moving players. The path of the ball is parallel along the touch line and Newcastle Jet's Tiago Calvano is running after the ball along the same path. Perth Glory's Billy Mehmet approaches the ball from a perpendicular angle. Mehmet's aim is focused entirely on the ball. Yes, he lunges with both feet. But most importantly, he is not lunging at his opponent. This is why this situation should be considered PIADM and not as SFP. Here are more freeze frames:

Let's not get unnecessarily drawn in to Calvano's reaction as he goes down. Instead, Mehmet's challenge is PIADM because it "threatens injury". In this instance, although unintentional, Mehmet probably caused injury with his cocked elbow making contact with Calvano's "family jewels" and this is an example of why this type of challenge "threatens injury". [Yes, pun intended!]

Also, we must not forget that Mehmet risked injury to himself too since an onrushing opponent is also approaching toward the ball. For example, take a look at Calvano's right boot. Since he was beaten to the ball by Mehmet, Calvano could have easily stamped on Mehmet by locking his knee and straightening his leg. Thankfully, he did not do that.

Further photos and video highlights from the match can be found here on the official website.

Playing in a dangerous manner (PIADM)

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.

If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a "normal" challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player.

Similarities

Liverpool's Glen Johnson and Perth Glory's Billy Mehmet made very similar challenges, respectively. These two challenges fall into the PIADM category because both these players:
1) were trying to play the ball;
2) threatened injury; and
3) committed physical contact which justifies giving a direct free kick and probably warranted a caution.

Unlike with Billy Mehmet's challenge, there is no white touch line to conveniently show what angle Glen Johnson approached the path of the ball. Johnson's angle of approach was certainly not at his opponent. However, it was also not the same as Mehmet's angle of approach (i.e. not perpendicular to the path of the ball) and appeared to be less than 90 degrees. It was most probably between 30-45 degrees.

Differences
Since all these three challenges were "two-footed lunges", the crucial difference is that Manchester City's Vincent Kompany lunged at his opponent.

The two lunges by Liverpool's Glen Johnson and Perth Glory's Billy Mehmet:
1) were not made at an opponent;
2) did not endanger the safety of an opponent but instead threatened injury; and
3) did not use brutality against an opponent, although there are grounds that these lunges may be regarded as using excessive force (but were they against an opponent?).

The Laws Of The Game defines the fine line between PIADM and SFP. What is interesting is how various Referees interpret this fine line. The Chris Foy Vincent Kompany incident illustrates just how diverse are the opinions of Referees, specifically as regards to player safety and welfare.

There are interesting reasons why opinions among Referees can be so diverse (but that is perhaps a topic for another time). Instead, and although very easy to say, the view is that:
More training and instruction for Referees may be needed to ensure better consistency in the application of Law 12. In addition, the relevant authorities such as the FA and the PGMOL should engage all interested parties and help clarify the official position regarding what is and what is not acceptable regarding tackles.

Should further information be needed about why Vincent Kompany's challenge was a send off, please see Part 3.
[Unfortunately, this may also indicate that I have failed to convincingly make the case in Parts 1 and 2 for Chris Foy The Courageous!]

What Goes Around Cabaye Around

2012-01-18T23:00:00.024+08:00

An apology first because I don't particularly agree with the title's "karma" philosophy, and especially in soccer. But nevertheless the title serves its function in bringing attention to some ungentlemanly and unsporting attitudes that some players in the English Premiership have, particularly when they themselves dish out nasty tackles to their fellow professionals.

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Newcastle United and Queens Park Rangers on Sunday 15 January 2012. The match finished 1—0.

Yohan Cabaye (black/white 4) is caught by QPR's Shaun Derry (red/white 4)

Referee Chris Foy immediately took out his yellow card to indicate to all the players on the pitch that he was taking action against QPR's Shaun Derry. However, although this strategy aims to prevent other players from rushing in to take matters into their own hands (which is a very good thing), it does not prevent an incensed Cabaye from getting up off the ground and pushing Derry in the back.

Referee Chris Foy already has his yellow card out

Cabaye (black/white) pushes Derry (red/white) from behind

Both players are committed to playing the ball

Looking at the replays and considering the lunging aspect of this challenge at the ball (it was not directed at the opponent), a yellow card was probably the correct decision. Chris Foy's position was not optimal* but he had enough information to know that QPR's Shaun Derry did not intentionally endanger the safety of his opponent but only threatened injury.

Notice also how sporting Derry is by admitting that he made a reckless challenge and going up to Cabaye to apologise.

Derry sportingly says sorry to Cabaye

Cabaye ignores Derry's concern and is furious as he is stretchered off

Newcastle coach Alan Pardew on the tackle that injured his midfielder Yohan Cabaye:

"I thought it was a bad tackle, challenge. It was one of those lines in between a yellow and a red. The Referee had a super game today, I thought. The decision was yellow, I'm fine with that but Yohan was really upset with it [the challenge]."

Yes, Yohan Cabaye was "really upset" (as described here in this news story, with further photos of Cabaye being furious at Derry).

Let's just recall two previously documented tackles that Cabaye dished out on fellow professionals that were clearly malicious and clearly red card offences.

Cabaye's studs up against Liverpool's Jay Spearing

Cabaye's studs up against Sunderland's Phil Bardsley

In both these incidents, Cabaye escaped being sent off. He also did not apologise nor seemed concerned about the safety and welfare of his fellow professionals who he injured (e.g. Liverpool's Jay Spearing and Sunderland's Phil Bardsley).

It is understandable that Yohan Cabaye is "really upset" with Shaun Derry's challenge, which from observation did not appear to be malicious. Looking even deeper, Derry's challenge appeared totally accidental especially when compared with the apparent maliciousness of Cabaye's challenges on Spearing and Bardsley, which were dished out without any hint of concern offered by Cabaye for his opponents' well-being in the aftermath of the injuries (or post-match). Let's imagine how "really upset" Spearing and Bardsley were after being "studded" by Cabaye. Given this context, is it any wonder that only an attenuated amount of sympathy goes out to Cabaye?

Nobody should wish injury on to others, or should derive pleasure in the knowledge of injury on to others, so what did Cabaye feel when he made his horrendous challenges that endangered the safety and welfare of this opponents? Did he feel any sympathy to his opponents whose safety he had endangered? Did he show any concern or offer any apology to his fellow professionals?

Hypothetically. If the situation were reversed and Cabaye had injured Derry, would Cabaye be similarly sporting and apologise to Derry (as Derry was to Cabaye)? From Cabaye's past actions, there is evidence to believe that the answer would be negative.

* This was not Chris Foy's fault because QPR had just taken possession and Foy anticipated well by running upfield. However, QPR then lost possession which is why there was the challenge between Cabaye and Derry for the loose ball.

A Polished Performance

An example. In the 73' Chris Foy played an excellent advantage for Newcastle. The attacking opportunity eventually failed after Newcastle missed a couple of chances, but just look at the dedicated effort and keen awareness of Chris Foy (e.g. when compared with the dejected performance and lack of anticipation of Lee Probert). Here are the freeze frames:

As soon as QPR (red/white) regain possession, Chris Foy immediately wants to put himself in a good position for the next phase in play

It is likely that the Referee match assessor will have been pleased and impressed with Foy's dedication and commitment in this match. BTW, let's recall Stuart Attwell's extreme and "youthful" interpretation of anticipation (Attwell Anticipation All Right).

In general from what has been observed so far, Chris Foy has been performing consistently well in the Premiership this season. This is a welcome situation and hopefully helps to clear up the silly incident about a month ago when British Olympic cycling champion Chris Hoy was mistaken for Chris Foy following the EPL match between Stoke and Spurs on 11 December 2011. Hoy revealed that he received lots of misguided vitriol from Spurs fans (whereas Foy received huge criticism from Spurs coach Harry Redknapp), who were naturally the aggrieved side.

Similar Similar Means Different Part 1

2012-01-16T18:00:00.023+08:00

Liverpool's Glen Johnson (red) challenges Manchester City's Joleon Lescott (blue) for the ball. Pic from BBC.

In the aftermath of the send off incident by Chris Foy the Courageous, it was inevitable that comparisons—those with any hint of similarity to Vincent Kompany's serious foul play—would be brought up. And so it happened ...

The following incident occurred during the Carling Cup semifinal first-leg match between Manchester City and Liverpool on Thursday 12 January 2012. The match finished 0—1.

In the 90'+1' Liverpool's Glen Johnson (red 2) challenges Manchester City's Joleon Lescott (blue 6) for the ball. Here are the freeze frames:

Manchester City coach Roberto Mancini looks perplexed and puzzled. Is he thinking: "Vincent Kompany red card ... Glen Johnson red card"?

Here are just some of the views from football players and coaches; Mancini, Ferdinand, Martinez and Reo-Coker:

"This tackle [Glen Johnson's two-footed challenge] was worse than Vinny's. Everyone can see it."

— claims Manchester City coach Roberto Mancini

"It's stated clearly in the rule book, we get told before the season when all the referees go around the different clubs: a two-footed tackle is a red card. It's as simple as that."

— claims Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand

"Two-footed challenges should be red cards, that should be the end of the debate. If you are player and go into a challenge with both feet that should be a red card. That's what the rules say, you can agree or disagree - are we losing the art of tackling or are we protecting the flair players? - but that's the law of the game."

— claims Wigan coach Roberto Martinez

"Everyone can have such a long discussion on what tackle is deemed fair and what tackle is dangerous. I don't really think there are clear enough guidelines to know how you can tackle in the modern game."

— claims Bolton midfielder Nigel Reo-Coker

Interestingly, Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish maintained that he had not seen the [Glen Johnson] incident.*

And following Manchester United's 3—0 win of Bolton Wanderers on Saturday 14 January 2012, where Referee Peter Walton failed to send off Bolton's Zat Knight for DOGSO, Sir Alex Ferguson said:

"... these inconsistencies are confusing to everyone. Referees have to be given direction about what are the laws of the game and what should be permitted in terms of tackles. (Referees' chief) Mike Riley has to be given the rope to say this is not allowed, two-footed tackles are not acceptable, whether you take the ball or not. If he does that it would clarify the situation for all players, the referees and the fans."

CONCLUSION
The above views demonstrate that people like football players Ferdinand and Reo-Coker, and coaches like Mancini, Martinez and Ferguson do not reference the Laws Of The Game.* They do not reference the Laws Of The Game because ... they appear not to have read it and studied it. It would be fair to say that many people are ignorant of the Laws Of The Game.

And just as ignorance of the law cannot be used by guilty parties as a defence plea in a court of law, so ignorance of the Laws Of The Game cannot be used by football players and coaches when they have been sanctioned by the Referee. Indeed—and perhaps this is too optimistic a view—these are meant to be professional players and professional coaches so one would think that they would take their 'profession' and their livelihood seriously and at least attempt to understand what they can and cannot do on the football pitch.

* And if the coach happens to be from the same team as the player who made a terrible tackle (e.g. Liverpool boss Kenny Daglish), his vested interest does not allow him to comment specifically or in an accusatory manner.

Referee Lee Mason allowed play to continue. What should have been the correct decision?

SOLUTION: PIADM VS SFP
What needs to be clearly discussed here are the differences and similarities between Playing In A Dangerous Manner and Serious Foul Play. Competent Referees will know and understand the difference, whereas it is likely that other Referees and many football players, coaches, pundits and fans will not have had the formal training, guidance or knowledge base that will help lead them to knowing and understanding the difference.

Yes, there is a fine line between PIADM and SFP, and the Laws Of The Game allow for this fine line to be defined. What it does not allow for is the varying interpretations from different Referees who have different perspectives, experience and other considerations that can muddy the waters when attempting to offer "alternative versions of the fine line".

Using the framework that describes PIADM and SFP, it should be possible to determine that Glen Johnson's two-footed challenge was similar but not the same as Vincent Kompany's two-footed challenge. But how many football people really know this, or really care about knowing this?

We can also forget about taking seriously comments and views from football players, coaches, pundits and fans unless they can demonstrate that they have read and understood the Laws Of The Game. However, the relevant authorities such as the FA and the PGMOL should engage all interested parties and help clarify the official position regarding what is and what is not acceptable. In addition, Referees as a group also have the responsibility in aiming to be consistent in their application of Law 12. In that way, the correct message will eventually get through to everyone else.

For more clarification, there will be an attempt to further explain in Part 2 of Similar Similar Means Different why Glen Johnson's two-footed challenge was similar but not the same as Vincent Kompany's two-footed challenge.

Chris Foy The Courageous

2012-01-13T07:00:00.010+08:00

Referee Chris Foy sends off Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany (credit: Reuters)

IMHO, Referee Chris Foy had the courage to make the tough and brave decision to send off Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany in the 12' during the Manchester derby FA Cup Third Round tie on Sunday 8 January 2012. That match finished 2—3.

Opinions from Referees alone—let's forget for the moment all the opinions from football players, coaches, pundits and fans—spanned the full spectrum from No Foul, Quiet Word, IFK, DFK, DFK and Public Warning, DFK and Caution all the way to Serious Foul Play. If there were more options in a Referee's arsenal (such as sin bins and orange cards), I am sure some Referees would have chosen those too!

This incident illustrates just how diverse are the opinions of Referees, specifically as regards to player safety and welfare. It also reveals how some Referees take in to consideration many other aspects of football to help them reach their decisions, whether correctly or misguidedly. For example, at one end some Referees took into consideration their background as coaches or as players and therefore reached the conclusion that Kompany made an excellent and perfectly-executed tackle to cleanly collect the ball, and mistakenly rationalized that Referees who have not played football at the highest level would never understand this aspect of the game. While at the other end some referees just inherently knew that Kompany's tackle endangered the safety of his opponent.

Let's take a look again at the incident:

Manchester United's Nani evades the lunging challenge by Manchester City's Vincent Kompany (credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Considerations
1) The incident occurred high up the field and therefore posed no immediate danger to an attack toward goal.
2) Vincent Kompany had a covering team-mate.
3) Vincent Kompany would reach the ball before, or at least at the same time as, Nani.
4) Manchester City had just conceded a goal.

Therefore why did Vincent Kompany choose to lunge instead of either making a tough but fair challenge to intercept the ball or even perhaps just jockey?

Although we cannot read his mind and intent, it is reasonable to assume by his actions that Kompany wanted to announce his presence to his opponent. And when a player wishes to announce his presence, this usually involves intimidation. The definition of intimidation is: "to make timid or fearful; to frighten".

Here's another great example of intimidation, this time by a goalkeeper: In Tackles, Goalkeepers Are Usually Reckless.

The Laws state:

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Chris Foy was the match referee, and his opinion and decision is what counts. His was a courageous and correct decision. It is gratifying—as well as a relief—that the FA Disciplinary Commission agreed with Foy's brave decision and upheld it (see Red Cards, Appeals, Frenzy and Uproar). Chris Foy did not take the easy route of soft-option refereeing. He interpreted that Kompany endangered the safety of Nani and so, in the same way that Kompany publicly announced his message, Foy publicly announced his message. Furthermore, from what I saw of the match, Foy performed well and got the major decisions right. Chris Foy should be applauded for taking a firm stand against the expectation of leniency in the Premiership.

Aside: Hypothetically, had the match referee been, say, Howard Webb, would it be reasonable to speculate that Webb's decision for this incident would be nearer the other end of the spectrum compared with Chris Foy's serious foul play decision? What would Webb have done?
(background: see Many Missed Red Card Incidents In One Match)

It is my hope that the 'pendulum swing' of the EPL's tendency towards being lenient for the sake of entertainment and viewing figures at the expense of player safety and welfare will begin to swing back towards the central correct application of Law 12. And as sure as Manchester City's Vincent Kompany warns of an increase in red cards, this should be welcomed because as soon as everyone—from Referees to football players, coaches, pundits and fans—understands that Referees are correctly and consistently applying the Laws of the Game without fear or favour, then the number of incidents of dangerous and serious foul play, as well as cynical challenges, will naturally decrease and the beauty of the Game will be enhanced and will be the better for it.

Chris Foy the Courageous. Chris Foy should be applauded for taking a firm stand against the expectation of leniency in the Premiership.

Red Cards, Appeals, Frenzy and Uproar

2012-01-11T16:00:00.004+08:00

Warning: This post has no pictures!

Much has been spoken, published and tweeted about two recent controversial Red Card decisions in the English Premier League. Unfortunately these incidents have got football fans into such a frenzy because there appears to be confusion about what does and what does not constitute a Red Card offence during tackles.

In the EPL, the referees' inconsistent application of Law 12 over the years (e.g. see Nasty Tackles and Many Missed Red Card Incidents In One Match), combined with football pundits', players' and fans' incorrect interpretation of their intuitive understanding of the game are the main cause of this confusion.

It appears that the FA Disciplinary Commission has come down hard on these recent disciplinary hearings. From a referee's point of view the good news is that the two Red Card incidents (i.e. Wolves' Nenad Milijas and Man City's Vincent Kompany) were upheld on appeal, thus giving crucial support to the EPL Referees for making their brave decisions. Stuart Attwell was the referee in the Arsenal and Wolves league encounter on 27 December 2011 and Chris Foy was the man in the middle during the Man City and Man United FA Cup third round on 8 January 2012.

Remember, Stuart Attwell's confidence was probably already ailing from the FA's decision to rescind his Red Card to Bolton's Gary Cahill during the Tottenham Hotspur and Bolton Wanderers match on Saturday 3 December 2011. Had Milijas' appeal been upheld, those closest to Attwell would probably have wondered what his reaction would have been. Unlike Michael Oliver, Stuart Attwell hasn't had the best of introductions to the EPL so I suspect his confidence needs ramping up. The FA's decision to support Attwell's Red Card decision regarding Milijas will have helped in this.

However, had these two recent Red Card incidents been similarly overturned (like Cahill's appeal), it would have probably undermined the confidence, not just of Attwell but, of all the EPL referees. Furthermore, and more importantly, it would have given extra ammunition to everyone else to start shooting even more fervently, viciously and rabidly at referees.

Let's hope the FA will continue to support, and be seen to support, Referees who are seemingly always in the line of fire.

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1) THE "RECIPROCAL APPEAL"

Thinking more about Mike Dean's error in not sending off Chelsea's David Luiz and instead only awarding him a caution, perhaps there should be a mechanism to allow a "reciprocal appeal". What is a "reciprocal appeal"?

At present, only a club can appeal against a decision made to its player(s) or representative(s) such that:

Participants only, may appeal on the grounds that the penalty, award, order or sanction imposed is excessive.

This means that there is allowance for a red card to be appealed because the appellant believes, for whatever reasons they have, that the red card was wrong, inappropriate and excessive. For example, the successful Sammon appeal where Referee Phil Dowd was found to have erred in sending off Wigan's Conor Sammon for violent conduct in the Manchester United and Wigan Athletic match on 26 December 2011. Sammon's appeal for "wrongful dismissal" was upheld and therefore his three-match suspension was withdrawn.

Therefore in this context, should there be grounds for a "reciprocal appeal"? OK, at present, we know that if the match official has seen an incident and has dealt with it during the match, then there can be no grounds for an appeal (the Regulations do not allow the FA to take retrospective action on decisions already dealt with by the match referee). However, by allowing a club to appeal a decision based on it being excessive, isn't that somewhat allowing double standards? Because on one hand the FA are saying the match official has already dealt with the incident during the match so there can be no appeal, but on the other hand the FA are allowing appeals because the referee may have got the decision wrong.

The argument is that if these refereeing errors are considered the same (i.e. "the Referee wrongfully dismissed a player" and "the Referee wrongfully did not dismiss a player" are considered the "same" in its magnitude of error of judgement), then should there be an allowance for a yellow card to be appealed (i.e. upgraded) because the appellant believes, for whatever reasons they have, that the yellow card was wrong, inappropriate and unreasonable?

This would mean that the club that believes it was wronged, and who did not receive any cards in that incident but who are appealing for the fact that the referee had given a wrong sanction to a player of the opposing team, should be allowed to lodge an appeal. This is what a "reciprocal appeal" means … a club appealing on another club's wrong, inappropriate and unreasonable penalty, award, order or sanction.

Anyone care to comment?
To help with this discussion, let's consider whether Newcastle United should have the right to a "reciprocal appeal" against Mike Dean's "wrongful non-dismissal" of Chelsea's David Luiz. Clearly the referee made an error and clearly Luiz should have been sent off. Therefore, should Luiz now face a trial to determine whether he should receive an appropriate number of match suspensions commensurate with a DOGSO send off that he "should have" received?

The same can be said of Wolves having the right to a "reciprocal appeal" against Peter Walton's "wrongful non-dismissal" of Chelsea's Frank Lampard. Lampard should have been shown a Red Card for his studs-up challenge during the Wolves and Chelsea match on 2 January 2012 but instead Referee Peter Walton cautioned him.

If there is a mechanism that allows a "wrongfully dismissed" player to seek justice; then should there equally be a reciprocal mechanism that allows a club to seek justice on an opposition player who was "wrongfully not dismissed"?

2) THE ASSOCIATION'S VIEW OF "UNREASONABLE"

At present, only the FA may appeal on matters that it, and it alone, regards as "unreasonable" such that:

The Association only, may appeal on the grounds that the penalty, award, order or sanction imposed was so unduly lenient as to be unreasonable.

Perhaps if the FA or the PGMOL (the organization representing EPL referees) were able to officially state that Referee Peter Walton's decision was incorrect and should have been a Red Card for serious foul play, then that could go some way to helping everyone understand why they believe and perceive that there is inconsistency in the decisions that involved challenges that were very similar as to be Red Card offences.

It appears that much of this confusion is generated because football pundits, players and fans see, for example, Wolves' Milijas and Man City's Kompany receive Red Cards for serious foul play but then see Chelsea's Lampard receive only a Yellow Card for his serious foul play. All these three incidents were where the players had exposed their studs and could reasonably be determined to endanger the safety of their opponents.*

If the relevant authorities, such as the FA or the PGMOL, do not do anything to help clear up this confusion by the simple act of explaining where the error has come from, then they are only contributing to the misunderstandings amongst the football pundits, players and fans, as well as doing a disservice to the game in general.

* There are other factors to consider. But on the whole, where football pundits, players and fans are concerned, these three incidents are seen to be similar but confusion reigns because only two of them were officially dealt with by Red Cards.

Probing Lee Probert Part 4

2012-01-07T20:00:00.030+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Liverpool and Newcastle United on Friday 30 December 2011. The match finished 3—1.

Related Parts: Probing Lee Probert Part 1 and Probing Lee Probert Part 2 and Probing Lee Probert Part 3

Incident Seven Probert's Poor Anticipation ... Again!

In the 68' Liverpool collect possession of the ball outside their penalty area and look to surge forward. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Probert's lack of anticipation resulted in him having to take evasive action

Yet again, Referee Probert's failure to anticipate exposes his inept performance. He is nearly struck by the ball as Liverpool decide to drive the ball cross-field from the right side to the left.

Incident Eight Player Safety — Head Injury from Elbow

In the 73' Newcastle's Fabricio Coloccini uses his elbow and catches Liverpool's Craig Bellamy in the face as they both jump up to head the ball in the Newcastle penalty area. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Probert watches passively as Coloccini catches Bellamy's face with his elbow

This is the third head injury incident of the match, and again Referee Lee Probert is not in tune with what is happening. Probert does not seem bothered or remotely interested in the safety and welfare of players. Here's Bellamy's head injury:

What's going on!? Have I missed something? What again??

Elbows easily cause deep cuts and gashes

There is some context that may be useful to consider here too. By this stage, Liverpool's Craig Bellamy has scored two goals against his former club and is having a great game (Man of the Match performance, as it turned out). So what better way to stop him in his tracks than to foul him? And what better way to stop his participation in the match than to injure him? As it happened, Bellamy's gash could not be adequately patched up to prevent profuse bleeding and he was substituted off.

Incident Nine A Fist Pump Goal Celebration?

In the 78' Liverpool's Steven Gerrard, who has been out of the game for much of the season through injury and recurring infection, scores a great individual goal. Here are the freeze frames:

When Gerrard scored look at the reaction of Referee Lee Probert

There is an impression that Referee Probert "enjoyed" Steven Gerrard's goal. Probert did not point to the centre circle to indicate the goal, instead he turned his body to face and follow the euphoric Gerrard and appeared to give a little "fist punch". Is it fair to suggest that Probert "celebrated" Gerrard's goal? Normally it would be absurd to raise such a thought. However, as we have observed throughout this lengthy analysis, the performance of Probert has not been "Normal" or as expected of a professional referee and therefore under the circumstances raising such a thought does not seem ridiculous.

Here is my reason. Considering Referee Probert's lack of any reaction to many other incidents occurring and unravelling in front of him during this match (i.e. no reaction to Incidents One thru Eight !!), it is certainly peculiar that Probert reacts at all to this goal. Very peculiar indeed.

SUMMARY
In this one match, Referee Lee Probert had problems with anticipation at least four times, failed to recognize head injuries three times and completely missed a cynical challenge just six yards in front of him. Plus he had the audacity to react positively to a goal being scored, or he at least appeared to react. Either way, this is unbecoming of a professional referee.

There are genuine concerns that Lee Probert does not have the safety and welfare of players as a priority in his remit of responsibilities as a Referee. His neutrality appears to be in question too; as seen in his reaction to Liverpool's third goal scored by Steven Gerrard. These concerns need to be quickly addressed and resolved, either internally or publicly.

Are players being protected? And is the image of the game being protected?

From the evidence of Referee Lee Probert's poor performance in this match, the answer to the two questions above would appear to be "No".

Lee Probert is a professional Referee, and on this evidence he had a very poor performance. Remember: Professional Referees set the benchmark for the rest of us. Probert's next match following this was the EPL match between Fulham and Arsenal three days later on Monday 2 January 2012. The match finished 2—1.

There may be an analysis on this site about Probert's performance of that match at a later time.

For now, please see the other parts of Probing Lee Probert on this site (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3) and together consider what are the important lessons that can, and should, be learned from this very poor performance.

Probing Lee Probert Part 3

2012-01-06T18:00:00.039+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Liverpool and Newcastle United on Friday 30 December 2011. The match finished 3—1.

Related Parts: Probing Lee Probert Part 1 and Probing Lee Probert Part 2 and Probing Lee Probert Part 4.

Incident Five Player Safety — Head Injury from Leading Arm

In the 50' as a Liverpool player jumps up to head the ball, Newcastle's Cheick Tiote (black/white 24) jumps in sideways and leads with his arm. Tiote's arm makes contact with his opponent's face. Here are the freeze frames:

It appears Referee Probert does not know that there is a head injury right in front of him

Referee Lee Probert is in a great position and has a near and unobstructed view but does not do anything. Surely he must know that there is a head injury? But it does not appear so to him and so play continues ... and leads directly to Incident Six.

Incident Six Player Safety — Cynical Challenge

Immediately following Incident Five, Liverpool's Jay Spearing (red 20) and Newcastle's Yohan Cabaye (black/white 4) challenge for the loose ball. Here are the freeze frames:

Surely Referee Probert must know that there is an injury in front of him?

Again Referee Lee Probert is in a great position and has a near and unobstructed view but also does not do anything. Surely he must know that there is an injury? Instead Probert allows play to continue as the ball rolls forward toward the Newcastle United goalkeeper. Here are the freeze frames:

Probert allows play to continue as Liverpool's Spearing writhes in agony after Newcastle Cabaye's cynical studs-up challenge

Referee Probert only realizes that something is not quite right when Liverpool players have stopped playing and have asked him to do something about their injured players. Here are the freeze frames:

Has Probert woken up yet?

RECAP
Let's just take a look at these two dangerous challenges again, this time closer in and from different camera views. Remember, for both these incidents Referee Probert is in a great position and has a near and unobstructed view but does not do anything. It is puzzling why Probert did not respond to the first or the second dangerous challenge that occurred right in front of him.

Newcastle'sTiote jumps in leading with his left arm

Newcastle's Cabaye knows full well he is endangering his opponent

Note: Yohan Cabaye has escaped punishment before for this type of challenge (see Incident Two in Many Missed Red Card Incidents In One Match ... officiated by Howard Webb earlier this season)

In case there is any doubt that Referee Probert did not have a near and unobstructed view

These two incidents (Five and Six) should put all responsible people—and not just referees—on high alert. Are players being protected? And is the image of the game being protected? If you go back and look at Incident Two in Part 1, I mentioned my concern that Referee Lee Probert appeared to be unbothered about the welfare and safety of players. These incidents (Two, Five and Six) ... so far (!) ... are the reasons why I have this concern.

Furthermore in a recent post, I mentioned that there appeared to be more cynical challenges creeping in to the game, at least from what I can observe from the EPL (see Cynical Challenges Creeping In). Is this the case? And if so, what is the cause and what may be the likely remedy?

Related Posts: Cynical Challenges (search results)

Before contemplating the likely remedy, let's finish off this Probing Lee Probert post by looking next at Part 4.

Please see the other parts of Probing Lee Probert on this site (Part 1; Part 2; Part 4).

Probing Lee Probert Part 2

2012-01-06T12:00:00.027+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Liverpool and Newcastle United on Friday 30 December 2011. The match finished 3—1.

Related Parts: Probing Lee Probert Part 1 and Probing Lee Probert Part 3 and Probing Lee Probert Part 4.

Incident Three Probert's Poor Anticipation

In the 29', Newcastle (black/white) collect possession of the ball from their penalty area and look to surge forward. Here are the freeze frames:

Probert's poor anticipation puts himself in a pickle ... again

It was interesting listening to the BBC commentator Martin Tyler during this incident. Tyler was talking about Newcastle central defender Fabricio Coloccini's surging attacking run being halted at the centre circle, and therefore resulting in Coloccini being out of position. How ironic that from a referee's point of view, Probert was also putting himself in all sorts of problems with his positioning! Probert got in the way of the players again. Fortunately for him, there was a foul right in front of him so that he could whistle to stop play ... and give him time to re-orientate himself.

Incident Four Probert's Poor Anticipation Again

In the 45'+3', Newcastle (black/white) collect possession of the ball outside their penalty area and look to surge forward. Here are the freeze frames:

Probert's poor anticipation does not help his positioning

So that's three times in the first half we have seen Lee Probert make the same mistake. That is, Probert's lack of anticipation during a team's surge forward from their own defensive third (i.e. Incidents One, Three and Four) left Probert in a pickle. This is very poor from a professional Referee.

Related Post: Attwell Anticipation All Right

Please see the other parts of Probing Lee Probert on this site (Part 1; Part 3; Part 4).

Probing Lee Probert Part 1

2012-01-05T20:00:00.021+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Liverpool and Newcastle United on Friday 30 December 2011. The match finished 3—1.

There were a number of important incidents during this match, all involving the Referee Lee Probert which I believe are useful and insightful to learn from.* However, due to the large number of freeze frames that are used to help describe the incidents, this analysis—titled Probing Lee Probert—is broken down into four separate parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).

*NOTE: This is why time and effort is spent to post up these match analyses, so that other referees can learn from the mistakes (and successes) of high-profile referees. If visitors to this site do not agree with the contents here, they are absolutely free to comment constructively or to stop visiting this site altogether should they please. It should be evident that the aim of this site is for referees to make use of the content so that they may learn and grow. We should take heed of the following quote from George Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Incident One Probert's Poor Anticipation

In the 19', Newcastle (black/white) collect possession of the ball outside their penalty area and look to surge forward. Here are the freeze frames:

Probert's poor anticipation put himself in a pickle

Instead of being proactive, Referee Probert decides to stay put. But as the ball comes towards him, he is like a rabbit caught in headlights and ends up interfering with play and gifting possession to Liverpool (red). As a result Liverpool took the opportunity to shoot at goal, which was just off target.

Here is the incident again from another camera view:

Another camera view of Probert 'stuck in headlights'

Incident Two Head Injury and Probert's Passivity

In the 25' during a Liverpool clearance the ball hits Newcastle's Slovenian midfielder Haris Vuckic with force in the head or neck region and the ball rebounds fortuitously to his team-mate down the left wing. Here are the freeze frames:

Probert gives the impression that he is not concerned about the safety and welfare of players

Referee Probert watches passively and gives the impression that he does not care about the safety and welfare of players. Even though Vuckic takes the initiative to signal to his bench and walk over for treatment by himself, had Vuckic succumbed to a more serious injury (where he could have been lying unconscious on the pitch) I have concerns whether Probert would have acted accordingly with Vuckic's safety at the top of his priority. This concern arises genuinely out of Probert's poor performance throughout this match.

Related Post: Recognizing Head Injuries

Please see the other parts of Probing Lee Probert on this site (Part 2; Part 3; Part 4).

Hansen's Generational Gaffe Similarly "Unbelievable"

2011-12-26T18:00:00.003+08:00

Since much of the sports media are reporting what word Alan Hansen, long-time pundit on BBC One's Match of the Day programme, used to describe people of African descent (see examples at BBC Sport, Guardian and Daily Mail), this is a freeze frame of fellow pundit Lee Dixon's reaction when he heard the word "coloured" used by Hansen the second time. He takes a long sideways glance at host Gary Lineker. Priceless!

Alan Hansen and Lee Dixon

IMHO, Alan Hansen was not purposely being racist, discriminatory or vindictive. It doesn't excuse what he said either, but the whole sensitivity issue about racism has put everyone on edge.

For instance, the media have especially scrutinized Hansen's use of the word "coloured", when most people know that he was referring to a racial group that at various times have been labelled Negroes, blacks and people of African descent.

But have the media equally scrutinized Hansen's use of other words? For example, Hansen often uses the word "unbelievable" and most recently used it to describe the form of Robin van Persie. Labelling something as "unbelievable" is incorrect because in reality if something incredible, extraordinary or special happens and is documented then it is by definition 'believable'. We aren't sensitized to scrutinizing commentators' words to certain levels of exactness, so why use double standards when someone incorrectly and perhaps ignorantly (due mostly to generational and educational differences) used the word "coloured"? The whole sensitivity issue about racism has put everyone on tenterhooks. ~~Unbelievable~~ Extraordinary!

A Couple of Casual Calls and Perhaps the Christmas Cheer Factor

2011-12-23T18:00:00.023+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Manchester City and Stoke City on Wednesday 21 December 2011. The match finished 3—0.

Incident One First Goal

In the 29', Sergio Aguero (blue 16) benefits from being in an offside position to score Manchester City's first goal. The AR missed this offside.

Although 'offside' was my first thought, having looked at the replay, and with the helpful white line drawn in for emphasis, I stand corrected and accept that Aguero was onside.

The Stoke City defender's leg is slightly in front of Aguero's body

Incident Two Missed Foul and Third Goal

In the 54', with Manchester City up 2—0 the Sky Blues benefited from a missed foul and scored their third goal (Aguero's second). A Stoke City player (red/white) is tripped by a Manchester City player (blue) right in front of Referee Mike Dean. But Dean allows the turnover and hence play continues which subsequently leads to Manchester City scoring. Here are the freeze frames:

Having been tripped, the Stoke City player looks on in bemusement as Referee Mike Dean lets play continue

Incident Three Missed Foul

In the final minutes of the match, with Manchester City winning 3—0, a Stoke City player (red/white) jumps up to head the ball in the Manchester City half and is fouled. Here are the freeze frames:
However, neither the R or AR1 called it. Subsequently, Manchester City gained possession and from that managed to go on the attack and create a shot on goal.

SUMMARY

Christmas Cheer: Referee Mike Dean with AR1(yellow flag) and AR2(diamond flag)

A couple of missed calls by the R and AR and just an impression that perhaps the match officials were taking things a bit too casually leading up to Christmas. Which leads me nicely on to wishing everyone Happy Holidays!

Five Fouls: Same Same But Different

2011-12-22T12:00:00.024+08:00

The following incidents occurred during the EPL match between Wolverhampton Wanderers and Stoke City on Saturday 17 December 2011. The match finished 1—2.

It was a pity that media reports and commentators focused on the biased opinions that the referee had a poor game. In fact, Referee Anthony Taylor had a great game and probably missed one caution for unsporting behaviour.

Incident One of Three Foul, DFK — Correct

In the 3', a foul due to a careless challenge is committed by Stoke (red/white) against Wolves (orange) on the left. Referee Anthony Taylor correctly awards a DFK. There is no need to caution.

Incident Two of Three Foul, DFK, Caution — Correct

In the 10', a foul is committed against Wolves (orange) on the left wing. The Referee correctly awards a DFK and also cautions the Stoke defender Jonathan Woodgate (red/white 39). It would be interesting to know the reason why Referee Taylor cautioned Woodgate. Some Referees would consider factors such as speed and intent of the challenge and therefore caution Woodgate for being reckless. Other Referees may consider Woodgate had denied the Wolves player a promising attack and therefore award a caution.

Incident Three of Three Foul, Penalty — Correct

In the 16', a foul is committed against Wolves (orange) in the penalty area. The Referee correctly awards a penalty and points to the spot. There is no need to caution.

There is no need to caution because of three considerations. First, it was a careless challenge. Second, it is debatable whether the Wolves attacker would have had the ball under his control to cross it, since his touch to push the ball pass the defender's challenge was a bit on the heavy side. Third, if the ball was under the attacker's control, would he have been able to cross the ball since there is a covering defender nearby? These considerations point more towards just giving a foul and awarding a penalty kick.

Unsporting Behaviour

A Wolves player (orange) demands a yellow card, which the player knows would have meant a second caution for Stoke defender Jonathan Woodgate.
It is unsporting behaviour if players wave imaginary cards at referees in an attempt to get their opponents sent off. Players who do this should be cautioned (and perhaps clubs or competition organisers should fine them too). This was perhaps the one caution that Referee Taylor missed.

Penalty Kick and Encroachment

This is what happened as the penalty kick was taken.
Both sets of players encroach and a goal is scored. What should the referee have done?

Foul Tactical Reason

In the 57', a Wolves defender challenges for the ball and gets a touch but in the process also goes through a Stoke player. The contact brings down the Stoke player, which is a foul. In this context, it does not matter that the Wolves defender got the ball because he still fouled his opponent. Referee Taylor correctly awarded a foul. From that DFK, Stoke scored the equalizer.

NOTE: There was a similar incident in another EPL match during the same weekend that provides an excellent contrast and possible explanation as to why these kind of challenges occur (I shall reference this in a future post). In the meantime, if anyone knows why these foul challenges occur, please leave comments below.

Simple Foul Nothing more, nothing less

In the 69', Wolves Stephen Hunt (orange) challenges for a header but doesn't play it. Instead, he carelessly charges into his opponent (red/white) and the Referee correctly awards a DFK to Stoke. Wolves Coach Mick McCarthy is furious and vents his frustration at the 4th Official Peter Walton. Coaches often see things in a biased light (sometimes called "rose-tinted glasses or rose-coloured spectacles") and therefore do not see the bad and unattractive points in their own players. But if that foul incident were reversed, with the Stoke player fouling a Wolves player, you can bet your bottom dollar that McCarthy would be screaming for at least a foul.

Incidentally, nothing came of the DFK.

A couple of minutes later though, Stoke striker Peter Crouch scored the winning goal from an attacking move.

SUMMARY

The media and commentators focused on comments from the losing team's manager Mick McCarthy. Most likely because his team lost, McCarthy clearly felt that the Referee had a poor game and in particular did not think much of the two fouls in the 57' and 69' that warranted free kicks to Stoke. Isn't it interesting that McCarthy did not complain about the three fouls in the 3', 10' and 16' that gave two free kicks and a penalty to Wolves!? If it is possible for players, coaches and fans to take away their bias, then it is obvious that the Referee's foul identification during the match was good and consistent. For instance, all the important fouls mentioned here were correctly identified and awarded.

TV commentators also believed that Stoke's Jonathan Woodgate should have received a second caution and therefore sent off when he gave away the penalty. This just goes to show that what they believe and what Referees are trained to know are like chalk and cheese, respectively. The 'Big Cheese' on the pitch being correct, naturally!

EPL Referee Anthony Taylor performed well.

However, ex-EPL referee Graham Poll thinks otherwise about Taylor. I will comment on Poll's 'opinions' in a future post.

In Hong Kong It Gets Worse Before It Gets Better

2011-12-21T18:00:00.003+08:00

The promising career of a young Hong Kong football player has all but ended after the 20-year-old admitted to match fixing during an international friendly between hosts Hong Kong and Russia on 5 November 2011. The match finished 1—2.

20-year-old Iu Wai faces a life suspension from the game

Hong Kong has had its share of match-fixing cases, and this latest one follows on from a similar case that occurred two years ago (see Life Ban For Player Found Guilty of Match-Fixing in Hong Kong).

The above two cases involved corrupt players, however referees have been implicated and caught in match-fixing probes too. Thankfully, not in Hong Kong. Recently, referees from China (see China's Golden Whistle Admits Accepting US$44,000 Bribe) and from Niger (see Suspect Referee Performance: Nigeria v Argentina) faced credibility issues and have been investigated.

Notice in the Hong Kong corruption case that there is a lack of investigation (or lack of media reports) looking beyond the 20-year-old player. Obviously, there must be a mastermind or masterminds that set up such match fixing cases. Only the small fish have been caught.

Things will get worse before they get better because at present in Hong Kong there are moves afoot to open things up and to be more transparent. This is due to a new initiative codenamed Project Phoenix which aims to make significant changes in the management structure and future operations of Hong Kong Football. As with all 'shake ups', skeletons may fall out before things get better.

Reference

Bribes bid admitted by soccer player (SCMP; subscription required)

Iu Wai reverses earlier plea and says he tried to bribe teammates to fix a showpiece youth friendly against Russia at Mong Kok Stadium
Austin Chiu and Colleen Lee
Dec 17, 2011

A young Hong Kong soccer player yesterday admitted that he tried to bribe his teammates to fix a showpiece international friendly match, reversing an earlier plea of not guilty he made after his arrest.

Iu Wai, 20, an up-and-coming defender for Hong Kong Sapling Football Club who also turns out for Hong Kong's under-21 side, was remanded in custody after pleading guilty at Kowloon City Court to two counts of offering an advantage.

Iu was arrested when ICAC investigators staged an unprecedented raid on a friendly youth match between Hong Kong and Russia, attended by 5,000 spectators, at Mong Kok Stadium on November 5. The Russians won 2-1.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption raid was not only a blow to the already battered reputation of soccer in the city, but led to an important government public relations coup backfiring spectacularly.

The international match at the centre of the investigation was arranged in April during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Hong Kong, when Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen invited Russia's youth squad to play in the city, and initiated an exchange opportunity for young players.

Yesterday in court, Iu admitted that he approached teammate Chan Cham-hei, a defender, and Chiu Yu-ming, a goalkeeper, to throw the match in return for several tens of thousands of dollars. The two turned down his requests and called the ICAC.

Magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen adjourned sentencing until December 30, pending a background report, detention centre report and training centre report on Iu.

The court heard that in November Iu was approached by a man, whom he referred to as "Ah Liu", in Shenzhen to bribe Hong Kong youth representative team players to fix the match.

Iu set out to lure Chan and Chiu during a four-day residential training camp days before the match.

Last year, Iu was arrested but not charged when mainlander Yu Yang was jailed for 10 months for trying to fix a First Division match between Happy Valley and Fourway Rangers.

Philip Lee Fai-lap, Sapling's team manager, said: "Iu is foolish to have made the mistake. His career as a football player has just started but it's likely that it's reaching the end."

Lee said Iu was likely to receive a life suspension from the game.

"But we have to appreciate kids do make mistakes. He is going to be punished by law. The next thing the club will do is to give him a helping hand." Lee said.

He said the club would remind its members to always stay clean and abide by the law, adding that the scandal had had a huge impact on the club's reputation.

The Hong Kong Football Association declined to comment.

Timothy Tong Hin-ming, the ICAC commissioner, said the commission completed the investigation and prosecution of Iu within a month of receiving the report.

In the first 11 months of this year, the ICAC received 31 bribery complaints regarding sport and recreational activities, compared with about 20 last year, Tong said on the sidelines of an ICAC seminar.

Hong Kong Scorpion Kick Makes Own Goal and Net Sensation

2011-12-20T13:00:00.005+08:00

Another news item sees Hong Kong hitting the headlines again for all the wrong reasons. This time, netizens are promoting the Greatest Ever Own Goal (see here and here and here and Google search), and it comes from the top-tier of Hong Kong Football. Never mind that the facts are wrong.

All stories, for example in the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and YahooSports have the team facts back to front … rather like the own goal.

港甲最佳烏龍波法圖斯 Hong Kong Best Own Goal (close to half a million views already on YouTube)

To set the record straight, in the 80' league leaders Sun Hei (neon orange) were losing 3—0 to fifth-placed Citizen (purple) and were attacking down the right wing. Instead of taking in the incorrect description in the news reports, the following commentary makes more sense:

A Sun Hei winger (orange) crosses the ball into the Citizen penalty area, where Citizen captain Festus Baise (purple) connects with the ball 'scorpion style' and subsequently loops the ball over his own goalkeeper and into the goal.

That made the scoreline 3—1, and five minutes later Sun Hei scored another goal (this time using only their own players!). This set up a rather tense final five minutes of normal time plus stoppage time. I have to report that Citizen captain Festus Baise was up to his usual tricks again and did everything he could to run down the clock. In fact, he collapsed on the pitch with no other players near him twice. Yes, twice in 6 minutes and both times he delayed and disrupted play by asking to be stretchered off.

Citizen captain Festus Baise, a 31-year-old Nigerian, is no stranger to courting controversy. He is well known in Hong Kong for his timewasting and player theatrics (e.g. see here).

Martin Atkinson Up and Down Part 2

2011-12-17T06:00:00.013+08:00

The remaining 2 of 5 incidents (see earlier post here) occurred during the EPL match between Norwich City and Newcastle United on Saturday 10 December 2011. The match finished 4—2.

Incident Four No Handball

In the 60', a Norwich cross hits a Newcastle player in the chest and possibly arm. Here are the freeze frames:

The ball has possibly touched the arm of a Newcastle (black/white) player

However, the arms were not outstretched in an unnatural position and the short distance and high speed that the ball travelled to hit the Newcastle player provides ample information that there was no deliberate handball. This incident is used as a comparison with Incident One (see earlier post here), where a deliberate handball occurred, but was somehow missed by the match officials.

Incident Five Cynical Challenge

In the 66', Newcastle's Dan Gosling makes a cynical challenge (studs up and over the ball) on Norwich's Russell Martin.

Referee Atkinson does not hesitate to correctly send off Gosling for serious foul play

Referee Martin Atkinson was in a good position—at the right place at the right time—to see the incident. However, just how much of the contact did Atkinson see? Was his view obscured by another player? Perhaps or perhaps not? Nevertheless, experienced Referees in similar situations would also draw on their vast experience and knowledge to help them with their decision making.

Here are freeze frames from another camera angle:

Note how the excessive force of the cynical challenge makes Norwich's Russell Martin (yellow #2) pirouette

Here's Dan Gosling's reaction to his cynical challenge and send off:
The reaction of players who are sent off for blatant SFP or VC is often pathetic and is usually a shameless way to gain sympathy from their own team-mates and fans. How can players claim to be innocent when they know they are guilty? One possible reason is that many players lack taking responsibility for their own actions and lack a good sense of sportsmanship and fair play.

SUMMARY

It is likely that Martin Atkinson and Mike Mullarkey will be officiating at Euro 2012 next June. Let's hope they can iron out any controversies and missed incidents that are within their control, and simultaneously continue to get critical decisions (such as Incident Five) correct.

Martin Atkinson Up and Down Part 1

2011-12-16T06:00:00.016+08:00

The following 3 of 5 incidents occurred during the EPL match between Norwich City and Newcastle United on Saturday 10 December 2011. The match finished 4—2.

Incident One Missed Handball

In the 28', Norwich (yellow) cross the ball into the Newcastle penalty area from the right wing. The ball travels about 20 yards before it hits the outstretched arm of a Newcastle defender (black/white). Here are the freeze frames:

AR Mike Mullarkey was well positioned to spot the deliberate handball but did not assist the Referee who also missed it.

Why did Mullarkey miss this obvious handball?

Subsequently, this missed incident may also be playing on his mind ...

Incident Two Missed Foul

In the 36', Newcastle midfielder Jonas Gutierrez fouls a Norwich player with a late tackle but Referee Martin Atkinson misses this because he has already followed the path of the ball away from the two players.

The ball runs to a Newcastle player whose deflected shot is pushed wide of the Norwich goal for a Newcastle corner.

Incident Three Controversial Corner Kick

In the 39', a Norwich cross is going wide of the Newcastle goal. The Newcastle goalkeeper can either leave it to go out for a goal kick or catch it to keep possession. The goalkeeper chooses the latter but the AR signals for a CK. Here are the freeze frames:

From the resulting corner, Norwich score.

AR Mullarkey is an experienced match official who officiated at the 2010 World Cup Final. Unless there is clear factual evidence to the contrary, it is important to believe and accept his call. However, a small nagging doubt exists because of this perceived controversial decision that led to the first goal of the match.
This controversial decision may also be related to Mullarkey having a small nagging doubt of his own regarding the missed handball eleven minutes earlier (Incident One). Perhaps subconsciously (or consciously?) he wanted to return some semblance of justice to Norwich and therefore awarded a CK to Norwich? Who knows!? Sometimes, the mind works in mysterious ways!

... continues with Martin Atkinson Up and Down Part 2

Honest Guv, I Never Complain About Referees

2011-12-14T23:00:00.003+08:00

... so says 'Arry Redknapp.

Credibility is a curious commodity and it is a quality that match officials are challenged with every time they step onto the football pitch. But what exactly is credibility?

Credibility is "the quality or power of inspiring belief" or more simply in a word it is "believability" or "trust".

Harry Redknapp (pic from here)

Compared with match officials, club managers and coaches are not usually challenged or scrutinized on grounds of credibility, so the recent media spotlight on Tottenham Hotspur manager Harry Redknapp's comments was a pleasant surprise. Redknapp said:

"I never complain about referees' decisions - I have not done it in 30 years of management, never. But today, I'm afraid, he got some badly wrong."

Never 'Arry? Never say never ...

A Recent History of Redknapp's Referee Rants (from BBC Sport)

* "I've never been one for criticising referees - it's never been my game - but it was a blatant penalty. If you get the penalty, it could make a big difference."
On Howard Webb, November 2010

* "I never walk in after games and complain about a referee but this guy is scary. He's a poor referee and I've seen him make a mess of so many games. He's really not good enough."
On Steve Tanner, December 2008

* "I just question the referee's overall performance which I thought was inept. Every game I see this season has seven or eight bookings. I think it's frightening."
On Andy D'Urso, February 2008

And if the above evidence is not enough, The Telegraph provides further examples of Harry Redknapp's Referee Rants (see here).

Sorry 'Arry, you 'lovable' cockney you! Just like the stereotypical cockney chaps who are perceived to be second-hand car salesman or back-of-the-lorry product dealers, the media have shattered your credibility. It is not really the media's fault though, since individuals have to take responsibility for their own past words and deeds.

Note: Unfortunately, I did not watch the EPL match between Stoke and Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday 11 December 2011. The match finished 2—1. I would be interested to know how Referee Chris Foy and his assistants performed, even though as Referees we all know that the losing or aggrieved team complains the loudest.

Sebastian's Shameless Swandive

2011-12-11T18:00:00.017+08:00

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Wolverhampton Wanderers and Sunderland on Sunday 4 December 2011. The match finished 2—1.

In the 72', Referee Phil Dowd awarded a penalty to Sunderland's Sebastian Larsson (blue), who appeared to be tripped by Wolves' Jody Craddock (orange). Here are the freeze frames:

Wolves Jody Craddock (orange) appears to trip Sunderland's Sebastian Larsson (blue)

TV replays show there was no contact and Sebastian Larsson (blue) had dived in from outside the area

POST-MATCH ANALYSIS
Let's consider the facts and determine the correct decision to restart.

Fact: TV replays show Jody Craddock (orange) withdrew his right foot and did not make any contact with Sebastian Larsson (blue).

First, could the AR have helped in determining whether the incident occurred outside or inside the penalty area? If there was contact (and TV replays proved there was not), would it have occurred outside or inside? We know Referee Dowd awarded the penalty, but what did the AR see?

Second, did Referee Phil Dowd actually have an unobstructed view of the incident? In addition to the fact that the incident happened very quickly, a defending player also ran in between the Referee and the incident and may have obscured the Referee's line of vision?

Did Referee Phil Dowd have an unobstructed view?

At first look, and with another player perhaps getting in the way, the Referee felt he had enough information (and used all his experience) to award a penalty. Although the facts reveal it was the wrong decision to award a penalty, it is perhaps understandable why the Referee awarded a penalty. However, questions should be asked whether the Referee and/or the AR saw any contact?

Third, if the Referee knew there was no contact between the defender and attacker, whether outside or inside the area, what should have been the call?

If the Referee knows there was no contact and believes the attacker was looking for the foul, then the correct decision would be to caution the attacker for unsporting behaviour and award an IFK at the place of the incident to the defending team.

Recognizing Head Injuries

2011-12-10T18:00:00.008+08:00

The following incident occurred during the Champions League group match between FC Basel and Manchester United on Wednesday 7 December 2011. The match finished 2—1.

In the 9', two Manchester United defenders (Chris Smalling and Nemanja Vidic, in white) had a head collision and the ball rolled into the possession of the attacking team. Subsequently, the ball was crossed into the penalty area where a goal was scored. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Björn Kuipers (Netherlands) did not recognise a clash of heads between two defenders (white) and instead followed the path of the ball. What has the EAR seen?

Question 1: What does the Referee need to consider during a head collision?

Question 2: What should have been the restart?

Regarding Injured Players, here are some of the Interpretations for "serious injuries":

o Play is stopped if, in the opinion of the referee, a player is seriously injured
o The referee must ensure an injured player is safely removed from the field of play
o A player is not allowed to receive treatment on the field of play

Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
o a goalkeeper is injured
o a goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need immediate attention
o players from the same team have collided and need immediate attention [Effective 2010-2011 season]
o a severe injury has occurred, e.g. swallowed tongue, concussion, broken leg

Since the majority of Referees are not medical doctors or medically-trained, it is always safer to err on the side of caution especially when there is a clash of heads (hence, head injuries should be deemed a serious injury). A Referee who quickly stops play in response to seeing or being informed about a head collision will not—and should not—be criticised for stopping play. It would take a foolish and self-absorbed individual to criticise a match official for taking precautionary action regarding the safety of a player or players.

Aside: If readers do not believe a head collision should be regarded as a "serious injury", then they should take a look at an interesting story about traumatic brain injuries which are associated with accumulated heading of the ball (Soccer is bad for your health?). If repeated heading with a relatively soft ball over a number of years is associated with developing brain injuries, then it is quite reasonable to consider that a heavy blow or impact to the head with a relatively hard object (such as an elbow, foot or head) may cause an acute and therefore serious injury. With head injuries, it is always safer to err on the side of caution.

A Robot EAR

Once again, here is another example that demonstrated the limitation of the extra assistant referee (EAR) and his supposed duties. More data to add to the ineffectiveness of EARs. There were two important incidents that occurred in front of the EAR, but the EAR assisted with only one of the incidents.

The EAR did NOT assist the Referee about the head collision

The EAR assisted the Referee about the whole of the ball crossing the goal line during Man Utd's (white) attack
[Note itvSport's incorrect scoreline]

Therefore there is NO difference in the role of installing goal-line technology and in using EARs. Both fulfill the criteria of telling the Referee that the whole of the ball had crossed the goal-line between the posts and under the crossbar. But don't forget, UEFA, FIFA and IFAB made additional claims about the use of EARs. For instance, they claimed that EARs would 'assist' the Referee in matters concerning the identification of fouls, misconduct and incidents in the penalty area and in having a preventative effect on fouls and misconduct in the penalty area.

The head collision incident provided a great opportunity for the EAR to assist the R in stopping the game so that two players could receive treatment for head injuries, but instead the EAR chose to be a 'Robot' who focuses only on the goal line. Contrast this to the one single isolated example of an effective EAR who was willing to take a public stand because he knew the R had missed something significant.

If we want match officials to act like unthinking robots, then the future direction may as well be to invent robots to officiate matches. Robots that will just follow the Laws absolutely and will have no capacity for common sense or initiative. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that all along sensible and rational people have been in favour of using goal-line technology at the highest levels of the game so that human Referees would be assisted in matters concerning the scoring of goals. However, the dinosaurs (Platini, Blatter, and their "yes" men) dithered, dallied and delayed by introducing EARs. They made claims about what the EARs would do, but in reality the EARs are just doing what unthinking Robots would be doing; to confirm whether the whole of the ball had crossed the goal-line between the posts and under the crossbar.

Thus, there is NO difference in the role of having goal-line technology and in using EARs. Their roles are the same; although they differ in their inherent accuracy levels and in FIFA's demands of accuracy standards. There is little doubt that goal-line technology will eventually be installed at the highest levels of the game. And history will show that the Powers That Be merely delayed the introduction of goal-line technology by playing around and making a pig's EAR of an 'experiment' that used ~~additional~~ extra assistant referees.

Note: This incident is also interesting because one of the EARs (Dutchman Bas Nijhuis) had only the week before been on the receiving end of a great call from an effective EAR. Surely the Dutch Referee team must have discussed the situation and agreed on a plan of action for something similar?

The match officials were:
Referee
Björn Kuipers (NED)
Assistant referees
Sander van Roekel (NED), Erwin Zeinstra (NED)
Fourth official
Eric Braamhaar (NED)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Bas Nijhuis (NED), Richard Liesveld (NED)

A Tale of Two ARs and Their Two Important Calls

2011-12-09T18:00:00.008+08:00

The following incidents all occurred in the first half during the Champions League group match between Ajax and Real Madrid on Wednesday 7 December 2011. The match finished 0—3.

Ajax are wearing white/red shirts, and Real Madrid are in black.

No Offside One AR1 Call Correct
Correct no offside call and the score becomes 0—1.

No Offside Two AR2 Call INCORRECT
Incorrect offside call prevents the score being 1—1.

No Offside Three AR2 Call INCORRECT
Another incorrect offside call prevents the score being 1—1 (or 2—1).

No Offside Four AR1 Call Correct
Correct no offside call and the score becomes 0—2.

CONCLUSION

By the half-time interval, Ajax were unfortunately denied two goals (the ball was put in the net during both onside incidents) due to the poor performance of AR2 who incorrectly flagged offside. In contrast, Real Madrid scored two legitimate goals because AR1 was on top of his game during two similar onside incidents.

That was the crucial difference in the first half of the match; 0—2 and psychological advantage to Real Madrid instead of perhaps 2—2 and a match that could have gone either way.

A Tale of Two ARs
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ...

AR1 (the best of times?)

AR2 (the worst of times?)

The match officials were:

Referee
Manuel De Sousa (POR)
Assistant referees
Bertino Miranda (POR), João Santos (POR)
Fourth official
Rui Manuel Gomes Costa (POR)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Artur Soares (POR), Carlos Xistra (POR)

Political, Religious or Personal Statements

2011-12-08T18:00:00.005+08:00

In addition to receiving a caution during the match for his goal celebration after he scored in the EPL match between Wolves and Sunderland on Sunday 4 December 2011, Sunderland's Kieran Richardson should be sanctioned post-match for his undershirt statement.

Players who intentionally flout the rules should be sanctioned by their clubs as well as by the competition organiser

The LOTG state:

Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements.
A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

Can we expect the FA and EPL to take action against Richardson, and also against Sunderland? Or will FIFA step in?

Furthermore, since players are employees, perhaps their clubs (i.e. their employers) should take responsibility for the behaviour of their players and fine them. This makes sense since players (employees) are, and are seen to be, representing their club (employer). Clubs would not be wrong to impose a fine on their employees. This will make their players think twice before deciding to break the rules and promoting their own self-interests before that of their clubs.

Cynical Challenges Creeping In

2011-12-07T18:00:00.008+08:00

From a safety point of view, I have never liked it when players use the bottom of their boots to play the ball. And for what it is worth, from an aesthetic perspective, it also looks rather ugly, uncouth and inelegant.

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Manchester City and Norwich City on Saturday 3 December 2011. The match finished 5—1.

Early in the match, Norwich forward Steve Morison (yellow) steered the ball towards the penalty area but his heavy touch meant the ball was running away from his control. In seeing the Manchester City goalkeeper Joe Hart come off his line to intercept, Morison rather cynically challenged for the ball with his studs up. Here are the freeze frames:

Norwich forward Steve Morison (yellow) cynically challenges for the ball, thereby potentially endangering the safety of his opponent

At the very least, Referee Howard Webb should have awarded a free kick to Man City. It is technically correct to deem the goalkeeper had possession of the ball, since the ball is in contact with the goalkeepers' hand and the ground.

If enough Referees identify such challenges and act on them—by awarding a DFK or IFK plus any appropriate sanctions—players may eventually think twice before making cynical challenges. This blog advocates the message of "Studs Alert: Stamp Out Stamping".

For further consideration, let's have a look at previous examples posted on this blog.

Example One Evan's Eviction
This is an example of Manchester United defender Jonathan Evans maliciously stamping his presence in the game. Referee Andre Marriner correctly sent off Evans.

Example Two Nasty Tackles 2010-11 EPL Tackles Round 36
Unfortunately, these nasty tackles in various EPL matches were not appropriately dealt with by the respective Referees.

Example Three Sorensen's Safety
Chelsea's Salomon Kalou's cynical challenge ensured that Stoke's Danish goalkeeper Thomas Sorensen missed out on the 2010 World Cup finals.

Players making cynical challenges endanger the safety of their opponents. Such players will invariably use the excuse that they were "going for the ball", but Referees (and others who appreciate the Beautiful Game) understand the real reason why players make these cynical challenges. The reason is this: If the unsporting player loses out in the 50-50 challenge for the ball that is a mere inconvenience, but what really matters is that he has made sure he has not lost out in the real challenge that counts (i.e. the physical and/or psychological challenge with his opponent).

It is a player's choice whether he (and she) chooses to challenge for the ball either cynically or sportingly. A good rule of thumb for Referees to judge cynical challenges is to always consider whether the same player would do exactly the same if his opponent was actually his fellow team-mate, a relative or a good friend.

Let's Stamp Out Stamping

Related Posts (search for: stamp)

Recognizing Player Behaviour: 1991 FA Cup Final

What Does It Take To Be a Good EPL Referee?

2011-12-06T18:00:00.012+08:00

Perhaps lessons in media studies?

There were two controversial decisions related to DOGSO during two English premiership matches on Saturday 3 December 2011. They were:

1) The EPL match between Newcastle United and Chelsea, Refereed by 43-year-old Mike Dean; and

2) The EPL match between Tottenham Hotspurs and Bolton Wanderers, Refereed by 28-year-old Stuart Attwell.

In the 4' of the Newcastle United and Chelsea match, Chelsea defender David Luiz (blue) tackled Newcastle striker Demba Ba about 25 yards from the Chelsea goal. Here are the freeze frames:

Decision: Referee Mike Dean awards a yellow card for what appears to be DOGSO.

In the 18' of the Spurs and Bolton match, Bolton defender Gary Cahill (blue) tripped Spurs midfielder Scott Parker near the halfway line. Here are the freeze frames:

Decision: Referee Stuart Attwell sends off Cahill for what appears to be DOGSO.

Technically, both incidents fulfill the criteria for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent. So why did only one of these two EPL Referees show a red card? I would argue the main difference between the two incidents relates, not on the technicalities of DOGSO but, to the age and experience of the two EPL referees. Why? Perhaps because the older, more experienced EPL Referee understands 'media studies'.

Even ex-EPL Referee Graham Poll firmly believes in Referees giving full consideration to the consequences related to the media, both in terms of football providing a positive TV spectacle and in terms of reducing negative media coverage. See example here.

Also see example here when 2010 WC Final and EPL Referee Howard Webb decided not to send off Holland's Nigel de Jong in the 29' of the WC Final against Spain. Again, was this decision influenced by consideration to the consequences related to the media?

Back to the premiership. Viewed in the context of 'football being an entertainment business', we can see that Mike Dean can be seen as a 'good' EPL Referee because in not applying the LOTG too strictly he chose not to "ruin a spectacle" (as defined by the Powers That Be). And 'green' Stuart Attwell has yet to learn this because he decided to follow the LOTG to the letter with little or no regard to the media and entertainment industries. Is this what it really takes to be a 'good' EPL Referee?

Those who have heard experienced EPL Referees discussing this will know the answer!

Those who are yet to be convinced should follow the career of Stuart Attwell closely and, in the years ahead, observe how many similar DOGSO incidents will result in send-offs and how many in cautions. If current EPL 'policy' is maintained, Attwell's future stats on DOGSO incidents will lean more towards yellows than reds. It might also be revealing to see what Mike Dean's and other senior EPL referees' stats are on DOGSO incidents.

The leniency shown by EPL Referees has been mentioned before (please see Many Missed Red Card Incidents In One Match). If such a 'policy' or 'directive' exists, this enforced leniency is significantly different to that of soft-option Refereeing which appears to be based mainly on incompetence. That said, perhaps the majority of football fans may not know, or even care, about such a difference!?

Double Dutch and the Double Arm Signal

2011-12-05T18:00:00.009+08:00

This post is a question about the double arm signal that Referees use.

During the Europa League group match between Tottenham Hotspurs and PAOK on Wednesday 30 November 2011, an incident occurred in the 77' and the Dutch Referee displayed the following double arm signal:

Referee Bas Nijhuis (Netherlands) as mentioned in Incident Two of In one EAR, out the other EAR

During the Europa League group match between Celtic and Atletico on Wednesday 30 November 2011, another Dutch Referee displayed the same signal.

Was this a Foul or an Advantage?

In the 66', Celtic's Samaras (green) is fouled right in front of Referee Eric Braamhaar (Netherlands) who immediately whistles for a DFK. The Referee also makes a double arm signal. Here are the freeze frames:

In fact, had the Referee not whistled then his double arm signal to signify advantage would have been appropriate since it can be seen that Celtic could have continued their attacking move. Hypothetically, after the attacking move is completed and the ball goes out of play, the Referee would then have the right to go back to the offender and caution him before play restarts.

It appears this double arm signal used to signify a free kick is common amongst Referees from the Netherlands. Can someone please confirm? Perhaps Dutch Referee can comment? It is always nice to have some 'cultural exchange', haha!

This double arm signal used to indicate a direct free kick is potentially very misleading because the standard FIFA signal for advantage is also a double arm signal. Why choose to unnecessarily complicate things?

Note: The meaning of the term Double Dutch is "something that is nonsense; gibberish - a language one cannot understand".

The match officials for the Celtic and Atletico fixture were:

Referee
Eric Braamhaar (NED)
Assistant referees
Arend Brink (NED), Wilco Lobbert (NED)
Fourth official
Maarten Ketting (NED)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Pol van Boekel (NED), Serdar Gözübüyük (NED)

A correct decision

Also during the Celtic and Atletico match, in the 13' the R had a good view of Celtic player (green 10) using his arms to help climb above an opponent and head the ball into the goal.

Referee Braamhaar spots a foul during a corner kick

The R correctly denied the 'goal' and awarded a DFK to the defending team.

In one EAR, out the other EAR

2011-12-04T00:02:00.029+08:00

Finally, in a soccer world full of ineffective extra assistant referees we have found one effective EAR. An EAR who was willing to take a public stand because he knew the R had missed something significant.

The following incidents occurred during the Europa League group match between Tottenham Hotspurs and PAOK on Wednesday 30 November 2011. The match finished 1—2.

Incident One DOGSO Handball Call and an Ineffective EAR

In the 37', Referee Bas Nijhuis (Netherlands) decided a PAOK defender had deliberately used his arm to stop a goal-bound shot on the goal line, thereby deliberately handling the ball to deny a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The R therefore sent off the PAOK defender (black 3) and awarded a penalty. Here are the freeze frames:

Just one out of five Spurs players in the area called for handball

Did the PAOK defender (black) deliberately move his arm towards the ball? Was his arm in an unnatural position?
No

This appears to be a harsh decision, even though in real time we must accept what the match Referee sees and decides at that moment. With post-match analysis, the discussion is whether this really was deliberate handball.

From the R's angle (and from one Spurs player's angle who was positioned at the corner of the goal area), it is understandable that they saw the ball hit the PAOK defender's arm. But note, only one of the five Spurs players in the penalty area claimed handball.

From other perspectives, it appeared the PAOK defender had his arm in a natural position and the ball first hit his torso and then deflected on to his arm. The point is the PAOK defender did not deliberately play the ball with his arm. This can be compared with the deliberate actions of Australia's Harry Kewell in the 2010 WC match between Australia and Ghana, and also of AC Milan's Alessandro Nesta in the 2010-11 UCL match between AC Milan and Tottenham Hotspur. Those actions were clear deliberate arm movements towards the ball.

However, the R made his own decision and the EAR on that side of the pitch was ineffective.

Incident Two Reckless Challenge and an Effective EAR

In the 77', as a PAOK defender clears the ball from his goal area a Spurs player (Jermain Defoe) makes a reckless challenge and injures the defender. The R appears oblivious to this and play continues for a further 15 seconds until the ball enters the goal. Here are the freeze frames:

The Referee whistles at this point ... when the ball is already in the net

After the ball enters the goal, Referee Nijhuis signals that his assistant or assistants have told him "No Goal". At first, the TV cameras and commentators believe the AR has raised his flag, but later the TV focus on the EAR. There is confusion because the R has also made a strange signal with both his arms.

I say: "No Goal"

I say: "Because he said so!"

Now I say: "? ? ?"

What is this double arm signal?

If we forget the R, we can see that the effective EAR is calmly explaining to the players that there was a foul on the PAOK defender. It takes at least 20 seconds (and certainly longer) to explain this to the players who are approaching the EAR.

From the TV replays, we can clearly see the effective EAR communicating with the R. However, at that time the R has totally ignored his EAR and has allowed play to continue. This is unsurprising since from many observations of UEFA's experiment with EARs starting from 2009, the R typically ignores information from EARs.

SUMMARY

Referee Nijhuis appeared too casual. In many instances he seemed to walk and stroll about the pitch as if he was passing the time away until it was time to go home. Incident Two highlighted how his "casualness" gave the impression of being indecisive even in the face of good assistance from his team. His effective EAR was clearly telling him that there was a foul on the goal line by a Spurs player on a PAOK player. And yet he never whistled until the ball went into the goal 15 seconds later.

It would have been even better had the R cautioned Spurs' Jermain Defoe for his reckless challenge. This would have given the clearest indication to players, coaches, fans and commentators that the R had acted on advice from his team about the reckless challenge. It would also have given the clearest indication to referees, referee assessors and referee chiefs that the R fully took in the EAR's advice and acted accordingly.

For this match, it seems the EAR was the most effective match official of the lot. At one time he even held the magic wand up like a radio or walkie talkie (perhaps inadvertently demonstrating that he prefers to talk and use the CommLink to communicate with the Referee). This EAR gave a good performance.

The match officials were:

Referee
Bas Nijhuis (NED)
Assistant referees
Angelo Boonman (NED), Rob van de Ven (NED)
Fourth official
Jeroen Sanders (NED)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Ed Janssen (NED), Reinold Wiedemeijer (NED)

Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs

2011-12-03T20:00:00.016+08:00

There was one incident during the Europa League group match between Sporting Braga and Birmingham City on Wednesday 30 November 2011 that provided an insightful camera view of the performance of the EAR.

In the 10', a Birmingham attacker (blue) is hauled down by a Braga defender (red 5) in front of the EAR. This was mentioned in the previous post as Incident Two.

The EAR was in an excellent position and had a near, unobstructed view of the incident.

In such a clear cut incident as this, would you buzz? Here are the freeze frames:

Look closely at the hand holding the magic wand ... is there any sign of clenching?

Looking at the replay, there was no evidence that the EAR used his "magic wand" (the EAR's magic wand first appeared on 12 May 2010 during the Europa League Final). In normal circumstances, if you press the large bleeper button on a radio flag your fingers automatically clench and as a result your grip on the handle becomes tighter. From the freeze frames, there is no evidence that the EAR buzzed because it appears the EAR is still lightly holding the handle.

One could argue that the EAR used the CommLink instead. But was there evidence throughout the match that the officials were talking to each other through their CommLinks during important incidents?

Also, one could perhaps argue that the EAR buzzed a little later (when out of the camera frame). But would that have been decisive enough and helpful to the R who, remember, is still far behind the incident?

The question remains: Who actually made the call? During this quick breakaway we know the Referee was behind play, and the AR and the EAR were close to play.

This was a great opportunity to show that EARs can be effective. However even with this camera view it still seems that EARs are ineffective. Since the start of this "experiment" in 2009, there is very little evidence to show that EARs are useful … however, there is plenty of evidence that suggest EARs are useless. There is even evidence to demonstrate that EARs have a detrimental effect on the performance of the match Referee.

Soft Referee Not Helped By Poor Team of Assistants

2011-12-02T20:00:00.021+08:00

The following incidents occurred during a Europa League group match between Sporting Braga and Birmingham City on Wednesday 30 November 2011. The match finished 1—0.

Incident One Handball and Penalty Call

In the 1', a handball incident occurs right in front of the extra assistant referee (EAR). This is a tough call, and there are some Referees who may give a penalty in the same situation. Perhaps the correct decision was made in not giving the penalty since the distance the ball travelled plus the natural position of the arms for balance suggests it was not deliberate.

The EAR is clearly seen to shout "NO". But it appears he is talking to the players rather than the Referee.

Incident Two Penalty Call

In the 10', a Birmingham attacker (blue) is hauled down by a Braga defender (red 5) in front of the EAR.

Although a penalty was awarded (as well as a caution to the Braga defender), it is unclear whether the Referee received any assistance from his EAR or AR. As a Referee it would be comforting to know that, during these swift breakaway attacks when the R is far behind play, the AR (and EAR) can be relied upon to provide good information. Did the AR and EAR provide good information to the R? Or did the R just decide by himself?

In a future post (Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs), I question whether the EAR assisted the Referee in this instance.

Incident Three Stopping A Promising Attack

In the 13', Braga defender (red 5) trips a Birmingham attacker. The Referee has a BIG decision to make. The Referee realizes that only minutes ago he cautioned the defender, and this time awards only a DFK.

Referee Markus Strömbergsson (Sweden)

Braga's Ewerton benefits from soft-option refereeing

This is soft-option Refereeing and goes against the Collina principle (i.e. “The best referee is the one who has the courage to make decisions even when it would be easier not to.”).

It is also unclear whether the AR or EAR gave any assistance to the Referee regarding this yellow card offence. At the very least, it could have been brought to the Referee's attention via the CommLinks.

Incident Four Tight Offside Call

In the 51', the AR flags for offside against Birmingham (blue). It is a tight call, and although the unspoken rule is geared toward promoting attacking play, it would be harsh to criticize the AR for his decision.

After seeing this, it was OK to give the AR the benefit of the doubt (and hope that he stays focused for the remainder of the match).

Will the AR stay focused for the remainder of the match ... ?

Incident Five Incorrect Offside Call

In the 64', the AR does two things wrong.

First, the AR incorrectly judges the Birmingham attacker (blue) to be in an offside position as the ball is played forward by the Birmingham goalkeeper.

Second, the AR quickly raises his flag even though the flighted ball has yet to come down and make contact. The AR has neglected the principle of Wait and See.

The AR's flag is up before the ball has come down (Camera 1)

The ball has yet to come down but the AR's flag is up (Camera 2)

This time, the AR does not deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. He has clearly erred.

SUMMARY

The performance of the Referee and his team did not inspire.

A future post will look at the ineffectiveness of EAR during Incident Two

The match officials were:

Referee
Markus Strömbergsson (SWE)
Assistant referees
Magnus Sjöblom (SWE), Daniel Wärnmark (SWE)
Fourth official
Michael Lerjeus (SWE)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Daniel Stålhammar (SWE), Johan Hamlin (SWE)

Throwing Your Toys Out Of The Pram

2011-12-01T20:00:00.005+08:00

A much used phrase amongst the English media and English-speaking players is the English idiom Throwing Your Toys Out Of The Pram. Here's but one example of a football player behaving like a spoilt brat just because he doesn't get his own way …

Please insert your own funny caption in the Comments section below

It is interesting that in many cases where a Referee's decision goes against a team, the player from that team who makes the loudest protest is often the one who hasn't even seen the incident. Or who is often nowhere near the incident. Here's a schematic diagram of the controversial incident that went against Wayne Rooney's team of Red Devils (taken from here):

Where's Wayne?

Did Rooney actually see the incident, and did he actually see Rio Ferdinand's tackle? How near was Rooney to the incident?

Here's another English idiom relevant to soccer players: Empty Vessels Make Most Sound.

I am not making excuses for the Referee of the EPL match between Manchester United and Newcastle United on Saturday 26 November 2011. Referee Mike Jones, for some strange reason, created controversy (and not for the first time, as in beach ball for example) by allowing his AR to overrule his own decision. As mentioned in the post Below the Belt, post-match analysis revealed that the AR John Flynn made a huge error. Still, this does not excuse the irresponsible behavior of certain players.

Below the Belt

2011-11-30T20:00:00.003+08:00

"After all, if the assistant was better at decision making he would surely have been promoted to the referees’ list."

Writes Graham Poll in his newspaper column.

At the highest levels, there are various reasons why some match officials embark on the path to become an AR or an R, and sometimes they have no choice in the matter. This should not diminish or devalue their development path in football officiating. Where the criticism of an official is overdone and over-the-top, then it smacks of hitting "below the belt".

Referee Mike Jones initially signalled a corner kick to Newcastle Utd but then accepts AR John Flynn's decision to overrule for a penalty kick against Man Utd

I agree that the AR John Flynn made a significant error during the EPL match between Manchester United and Newcastle United on Saturday 26 November 2011. Poll also highlights a similar error by another AR Paul Kirkup who overruled Referee Martin Atkinson during the EPL match between Liverpool and Manchester City on Sunday 27 November 2011.

Therefore, by all means criticise the performance of the ARs and keep it relevant to the specific match or matches. But by no means is it justifiable to criticise an AR for apparently not being good enough to be an R.

Related Post

Puzzled by Poll