Not Optimum Officiating in the AFC Cup Part 2

The following incident occurred during a second-leg quarterfinal AFC Cup match between Muangthong United of Thailand and Al Karamah from Syria on Tuesday 21 September 2010. The match finished 2—0.

Football can be a controversial game, particularly if important decisions by match officials have an impact on the outcome. Last week, following the first-leg encounter between these two Asian football teams, HKRef mentioned the possibility that Al Karamah’s disallowed goal which was incorrectly ruled offside would prove significant. Well, it has.


Here are the highlights of the second-leg quarterfinal match:

AFC Cup Quarterfinals: Muang Thong United FC 2-0 Al Karamah 21/09/2010





The first goal for Muangthong United was a nicely-worked goal. There is no controversy here, and from the referee’s perspective it is always nice to be a nearby witness to a well-crafted football move that results in a goal.

However, the second goal is controversial for two main points.
First, it appears that the Muangthong United attacker (red) is guilty of simulation. Watch closely, as he intentionally drags his right foot as if “trawling” for a foul. However, this is the match referee's decision to give the penalty; the referee calls it as he sees it.
Second, the penalty kick should have been disallowed (and retaken) because it did not meet the requirements of Law 14.

Can you spot the breach in Law 14 from the following three pictures?

[The decisive spot kick; but should it have been allowed?]

The placement of the ball is clearly NOT on the penalty mark. Again, this is not optimum officiating.

The Match Officials were:

Match Commissioner
Lai Boon Teck (Sin)

Referee Assessor
Edward Lennie (Aus)

Referee
Choi Myung Yong (Kor)

Assistant Referee 1
Eun Jong Bok (Kor)

Assistant Referee 2
Choi Minbyoung (Kor)

Fourth Official
Kim Sang Woo (Kor)

Match reports can be found here and here.

Now We See More. Yes, But Do Referees Perform Better?

Check out UEFA’s video explaining the experiment with additional assistant referees (or extra assistant referees, EARs).

5 Referees
More Vision
More Communication
More Information

Now We See More

Respect the Referees
Respect the Game

Despite this glitzy publicity spot, aired on giant screens at stadiums throughout Europe, HKRef wonders whether:
1) there are 5 or 6 match officials?
2) “more vision, communication and information” is having the desired effect.
3) this campaign for more respect will be undermined by missed incidents (example given below)

Are EARs the extra eyes needed in football?

As a match official, HKRef understands that any official appointment bestowed at the highest level is an honour and a privilege. Referees are human too and take great pride and encouragement when they are appointed and given responsibilities to officiate the best matches. This is why HKRef is mindful of the dilemma in criticizing the usefulness of extra assistant referees (EARs). It will be difficult to get unbiased feedback from match officials about the usefulness of EARs.

As match officials, we want to receive as many appointments as possible at the highest level (it is somewhat akin to players receiving “caps” when selected to play for their national teams). But as neutral observers, we want to know that the system works and that EARs are not just there for decorative purposes or to help UEFA, FIFA and IFAB fend off supporters of goal-line technology and video refereeing.

The question then is: “Are EARs effective?”
Are additional assistant referees fulfilling the aims that they were designed for? What are these aims? Well, UEFA, FIFA and IFAB told the world that:

Having an extra pair of eyes monitoring play in each area had a preventive effect and promoted better decision making on suspected fouls. Players were less prone to shirt-pulling at corners and free kicks, diving in the area and dissent.

This message was recently reiterated by UEFA:

Their [additional assistant referees] particular brief is to focus on incidents that take place in the penalty area, such as holding or pushing at set-piece situations. The deployment of additional assistant referees is also seen to have a deterrent effect, as players will be aware that they are being closely watched.

HKRef has previously questioned how this “preventive effect” can actually be measured. And measured as objectively and as scientifically as possible. So far, the authorities have not disclosed any details of how they assess the effectiveness of using EARs. Until details and data are fully disclosed, HKRef does NOT consider the use of EARs or additional assistant referees to be a proper trial or experiment that will yield valid results.

Here is an example, one of many, illustrating that EARs do not have a “preventive or deterrent effect” on players. The following incident occurred during the AC Milan and Auxerre Champions League group match on Wednesday 15 September 2010. The match ended 2—0.

[AC Milan’s Gianluca Zambrotta (red#19) pushes Auxerre’s Steeven Langil (blue#21) in the back and right in front of the extra assistant referee (EAR). But nothing was given by the Romanian match officials.]

Q: Did the presence of an extra assistant referee (EAR) positioned at the goal line have a deterrent effect? NO.

Q: Did the “extra pair of eyes” assist the match referee in deciding that there was a foul (i.e. push in the back) or that there was simulation? NO.

In UEFA’s publicity campaign, UEFA chief refereeing officer Pierluigi Collina, says: “Now we see more”

Really? Is that so? AC Milan’s Zambrotta is clearly laughing at that statement.


As mentioned previously, HKRef may publish preliminary statistics of UEFA’s trial of using EARs. If anyone would like to collaborate on this, please contact HKRef.

Not Optimum Officiating in the AFC Cup

The following incident occurred during a first-leg quarterfinal AFC Cup match between Al Karamah of Syria and Muangthong United from Thailand on Tuesday 14 September 2010. The match finished 1—0.

Watch the incident beginning from 0:30

Al Karamah 1-0 MTU_News




This incident occurred in the 14th minute when Al Karamah’s midfielder Mahmoud Al Mawas shot from distance and the ball cannoned off the crossbar. The rebound fell to Mohamad Al Hamwi who headed the loose ball into the net. The following four freeze frames show this.

[The ball is struck from a distance of over 30 yards. The ball's flight can be seen all the way to the crossbar.]

From the time the ball is struck from over 30 yards to the time it hits the crossbar, it is clear that Al Karamah players (blue) are all onside. However, the goal was incorrectly ruled out for offside. This means the AR was probably not fully focused or was poorly positioned.

Whether this disallowed goal proves significant or not may depend on the result of the second-leg quarterfinal AFC Cup match. Nevertheless, this is not optimum officiating.

The Match Officials were:

Match Commissioner
Abdulrazaq Mohamed Abbas Kamal (Bahrain)

Referee Assessor
Ali Tareq Ahmed Ali (Iraq)

Referee
Tan Hai (China)

Assistant Referees
Huo Weiming (China)
Su Jige (China)

Fourth Official
Muokhtar Saleh Ali Al-Yarimi (Yemen)

Match reports can be found here and here.

When Is A Penalty Kick Completed?

The following incident illustrates why it is important for the referee to take time to declare the outcome of a penalty kick. Always wait and see.

Khalid Askri - Funny Penalty 09.09.10




A penalty kick is completed only when the referee declares it. The referee should not declare the kick to be completed if there is any possibility that the ball is still in play.

CFA Chief says China Referees to Blame for Bad Reputation

Comments from Wei Di, chief of the Chinese Football Association, raised eyebrows prior to the friendly international match between China and Iran on Friday 2 September 2010 at the Tianhe Stadium in China.

First, the denial of Iran’s request for a “non-Chinese” match official appears strange. This is because international matches, even friendlies, are usually officiated by referees who do not come from the same countries as the two teams.

Second, Wei’s insistence that the referee be Chinese (i.e. from the host country) also appears strange. Perhaps Wei is “giving face” to Chinese referees but this action puts the appointed Chinese referee in an unfortunate and awkward position (also, see point 3). No matter what, the Chinese referee will be criticized for either favouring the home team, or favouring the visiting team. It will be rare for everyone to acknowledge that the referee is officiating according to the Laws of the Game, without fear or favour to any team.

Third, Wei has specifically asked Chinese referees to: “deliberately make calls against Chinese players in matches against other countries. In international games, the Chinese referees should be more strict to China, which could improve the team's mentality in a negative situations”. This does not encourage any impartiality, neutrality or objectivity and therefore puts the Chinese referee in an awkward situation.

The elimination of corruption, untoward practices, suspect ethics—call it what you will—in China and in Chinese soccer will hardly succeed if the head of the CFA makes highly dubious comments like those reported by the Xinhua news agency and by Reuters.


Chinese officials deserve Iran snub: soccer chief

Sep 03, 2010

Iran's demand for a neutral referee for their friendly against China this week is disrespectful but officials have only themselves to blame, according to soccer chief Wei Di.

Three top referees were arrested for their involvement in a match-fixing scandal earlier this year and Wei said he thought that was behind Iran's request for a non-Chinese to officiate in Zhengzhou tonight.

"It is not too odd in principle, but objectively it shows their lack of respect for Chinese referees," Wei told a training camp for referees in Hebei. His speech was reported by Xinhua.

Wei was brought in to clean up national soccer after his predecessor Nan Yong and several other top Chinese Football Association (CFA) officials were arrested in connection with allegations of corruption.

One of the referees arrested in March was 2002 World Cup official Lu Jun, who had been known as the "golden whistle" in contrast to the corrupt "black whistles" who had been suspected of fixing matches over the past decade.

Wei conceded that many referees had fixed matches at the behest of CFA officials and so earned the nickname "official whistles" but said that must now stop if they were to gain credibility with fans and players.

"The CFA must start within itself to eliminate the `official whistle'," he said. "And the referees must resist the pressure of `official whistle'. A referee must immediately report to the CFA as soon as any CFA official makes such a request."

Wei, who has declined Iran's request, then called on referees to deliberately make calls against Chinese players in internationals.

"In international games, the Chinese referees should be more strict to China, which could improve the team's mentality in negative situations," he said.

Post Script: The match result between China and Iran was 0-2.

For the good of the game, it would have been better for all parties had the match officials come from different countries to the two teams (i.e. Iran was happy to have a South Korean referee, but China rejected that request).


Iran beats China 2-0 in friendly
Fri Sep 3, 2010 4:49PM

Iran's Andranik Teymourian scored the first goal (from PressTV)

Iran's national soccer team has defeated China 2-0 in an international friendly match at the Tianhe Stadium in China.

Iran had the upper hand in almost every minute of the game and performed well as the players were in harmony and well-coordinated, Fars News Agency reported on Friday.

Andranik Teymourian and Mohammad Gholami scored the goals for Iran while the referee disallowed a goal by China as offside.

The appointed referee from the host country served Iranian players Hadi Aghili, Mohammad-Reza Khalatbari, Karim Ansari Fard and Masoud Shojaee with yellow cards.

Iran had demanded that the match be judged by a South Korean referee , but China rejected the plea out of what it cited as respect for Chinese referees.

Iran's national soccer team will play against South Korea in another friendly game [on Tuesday 7 September].

World Cup Final 2010: Webb’s Reflection

It’s taken about six weeks for Howard Webb to begin publicly discussing his thoughts about his performance in the World Cup Final (see full article here).

[Webb limbering up with his assistants Cann(L) and Mullarkey. Is the 4th Official doing something else? Pic courtesy Action Images]

On the Nigel de Jong incident on Xabi Alonso, Webb said this:

"Having seen it again from my armchair, I would red-card him. The trouble in the actual game was that I had a poor view of that particular incident. I was looking through the back of Alonso and though I could see the foot was high, I could not be certain of the extent of the contact. It wasn't that I didn't want to send anyone off because it was a World Cup final, though I was mindful of the fact that the game was the pinnacle of the players' careers as well as of mine. I just wasn't prepared to take a guess 25 minutes into the game."

This is a revealing insight since previously it was not known whether:
1) Webb actually saw the incident,
2) his nearside AR Darren Cann saw and gave advice, and
3) his 4th Official Yuichi Nishimura saw and gave advice.


From Webb’s comments, it appears that the most important thing for him is that he himself had to have seen the incident. His excuse is that he did not want to guess in the 25th minute of the match. It also appears that Webb did not or could not take advice from his AR or 4th Official.

Let’s put this into some context and reference this to a related incident involving teamwork and a send-off incident [Teamwork is important for match officials]. In that 2009 incident, when Webb missed a crucial incident he took advice from another match official (it is not known whether it was his AR or 4th Official). However, with the introduction of new responsibilities to the 4th Official in time for the 2010 World Cup, the 4th Official may (like the ARs) advise the referee on incidents that he believes the referee has missed. So in 2009, instead of guessing, Webb took advice from his assistant (allegedly his AR) by sending off Egypt's Ahmed El Mohamady for handling the ball on the line and awarding a match-winning penalty to Brazil. Therefore, is Howard Webb being consistent? Is he being clear about what information he received, if any, from his assistants?


Furthermore, HKRef has previously speculated that there might have been cultural and language communication problems between Webb and the 4th Official from Japan. Nishimura has to understand Webb’s Yorkshire accent and Webb has to understand Nishimura’s English through their two-way earpieces. Was Nishimura really a part of Webb’s team? [World Cup Final 2010: Mixed Signals and Expected Teamwork]


Howard Webb also briefly mentioned his preparation for the biggest match of his refereeing career. He is quoted:

"On the day of the final we had several briefings from Fifa technical and psychological staff, and I don't think anyone foresaw the game being the physical encounter it turned out to be. We talked about the emotion, the styles of play, but no one said anything about it being so physical. Yet within 20 minutes we knew how it was going to turn out. I knew quite a lot of the players from the Premier League, the Champions League and from refereeing the national teams, and all I can say is that the emotions in that World Cup final were quite raw. The Dutch were devastated, disappointed and in some cases angry, but there was nothing about being familiar with the players involved that would have helped."

Question: Was Webb not aware of Mark van Bommel’s typical style of play?

With more revelations about Webb’s preparations, it is hoped that we can all learn from Webb’s experiences and improve our all-round officiating skills.

Note: Here's a BBC interview with Howard Webb.

Not Optimum Officiating

The following incidents occurred during a second-leg play-off round UEFA Champions League match between FK Partizan and RSC Anderlecht on Tuesday 24 August 2010. The match finished 2—2.

Anderlecht may rue the fact that an incorrect offside call cost them a crucial goal to make the scoreline 3—2, and possibly a subsequent place in the UEFA Champions League. TV replays show (pic below) that the two Anderlecht attackers were not in front of the second-last defender, and therefore the goal that was scored was legitimate. This is not optimum officiating.

[As the Anderlecht player (white player in front of the referee) plays the ball across the goal area, his team-mates are onside]

The 2—2 draw (the same result from the first-leg match) meant that the aggregate score was 4—4 and the match would be decided by a penalty shoot-out.

As bad as Anderlecht players were at taking penalties (the ball was skied over the crossbar, not once, not twice but thrice!), their goalkeeper was just as undisciplined because he was consistently jumping off the goal line before the ball had been kicked. Here are five freeze frames of the Anderlecht goalkeeper making a “save”. It is the seventh PK, after both teams have taken three PKs each with the penalty shoot-out score being Anderlecht 1—2 Partizan.

[The Anderlecht GK moves off the goal line before the ball has been kicked. Note: look at the stance and body language of the AR]

[Reverse angle showing that the Anderlecht GK has come off the goal line before the ball has been kicked]

The Anderlecht goalkeeper was never penalized for this "save" (which gave his team a brief lifeline), despite the fact that the AR was making a great show of deep concentration and of being fully focused. The AR’s body language is slightly awkward (i.e. bending at the waist to see a distance of between 6 and 14 yards) but nevertheless gives the message that he is taking his duties very seriously. However, the AR’s inaction clearly reveal that he did not take his duties seriously! In fact, with his awkwardly-adopted stance is he really paying attention to when the ball is actually kicked? The Referee must assume responsibility for this also. This is not optimum officiating.

Despite the strange displays of officiating during the match, Partizan went on to win 3-2 on penalties.

The match officials, all from Scotland, are Craig Thomson (R), Tom Murphy (AR), William Conquer (AR), Iain Robertson Brines (4th), Calum Murray (EAR), and Alan Muir (EAR).


Note: Perhaps in relation to the stamping incident 6 days previously, Partizan’s Almami Moreira (#10) was not in the squad whereas Anderlecht’s Mbark Boussoufa (#11) started the match. If Moreira's exlusion (which is further exacerbated by Boussoufa's inclusion) was indeed related to the stamping incident, then this serves to illustrate that strong disciplinary action must be meted out consistently during such cynical, cowardly and unsporting acts. A reiteration: we must stamp out stamping.



Since we are reiterating; here are further freeze frames to highlight the fact that the Anderlecht GK (Silvio Proto) was consistently jumping off his goal line before the ball was kicked. It is the first of two "saved" penalty kicks (i.e. the third PK of the shoot-out) made by the Anderlecht keeper.

[The third penalty kick of the shoot-out, which is "saved" by the Anderlecht GK]

[Reverse angle of the third penalty kick "saved" by the Anderlecht GK, who is clearly off his goal line]

Related Posts

Europa League Penalty Kicks and Encroachment

Unpleasant Incidents During Hong Kong Division Three Playoff Match

Stamping incident

Emmanuel Adebayor Stamped And Kicked Robin Van Persie's Head

FA Hands Adebayor Three-match Ban For Stamp on van Persie

Belgian Player Gets 11-Match Ban For Shocking Horror Tackle

Stamping Incidents at AFC Champions League Match in Adelaide