Alireza Faghani DOGSO Discussion

In the 11' of the France versus Argentina World Cup Round of 16 match on 30 June 2018, AFC's Iranian referee Alireza Faghani whistles for a foul and points to the penalty spot.

France successfully dispatch the penalty kick and the score is 1 - 0.

In the 19' minute Faghani whistles for a foul and points to the penalty spot ...

And when the YC was shown, I thought the Referee's decision was a penalty kick for DOGSO.

However, it becomes apparent that Faghani has awarded a direct free kick outside the penalty area and not, as many people initially believed, a penalty. The Referee is pointing to a spot outside the penalty area. To avoid any misunderstanding he should perhaps not use this pointing signal (which is exactly the same as the signal for pointing to the penalty spot, which he used 8 minutes earlier) or otherwise use another signal to indicate the location.

Now, this leads on to the consideration whether this was a DOGSO incident ...

The France attacker Kylian Mbappé controls the ball and is then tripped by Nicolas Tagliafico, who is the second-last defender. This therefore meets the criteria for DOGSO. Faghani's AR did well to tell the Referee that the foul was outside the penalty area, however could the AR also have given his recommendation for DOGSO? If the unfair challenge by the second-last defender was outside the penalty area, then it should have been a RC to Tagliafico and a direct free kick to France.

Furthermore, with VAR used for "clear and obvious mistakes" (specifically with Red Card incidents being one of the four main uses) why did the Referee not use (or hear recommendations from) the VAR?

RIP Cheick Tiote

Sad and shocking news about the death of Ivory Coast player Cheick Tiote, who passed away on Monday 5th June at the age of 30 whilst training with his club Beijing Enterprises (Beijing BG FC).

Many tributes and articles have been shared about this popular and friendly man, father, husband, son, colleague and friend.

One example from the Daily Mail wrote:

Supporters could not believe how good the holding midfield player was and he quickly became a fans' favourite, earning the nickname 'Mr T' because of his mohawk hairstyle and no-nonsense approach. Indeed, he was booked 56 times and sent off twice [in 156 appearances for Newcastle]. That, though, was part of his popularity, the cards a byproduct of his commitment. At a club like Newcastle, that counted for a lot among fans.

From a referee's perspective, Tiote was a hard no-holds-bar midfield player but also fair (giving as good as he receives, without complaining). In 2012, Mike Dean chose to talk with the then 25-year-old Newcastle player in the hope that he would listen and avoid a caution or two (see Mike Dean Masterclass Display). Although a thoroughly nice guy off the pitch, on the pitch Tiote was always close to getting cautions with his challenges.

 Mike Dean Talks with Newcastle's Cheick Tiote

Referee Correct to Disallow Goal by Bournemouth

Much has been said about the injustice, and the appearance of injustice, to Bournemouth in their match against Liverpool on Monday 17th August 2015. However, the injustice of Christian Benteke's winning goal—which should have been called offside and wasn't—does not mean that there was also an injustice to Tommy Elphick's goal, which referee Craig Pawson correctly disallowed.

The media and Bournemouth wrongly believe that Bournemouth had two major decisions go against them ... when in fact it was only one.

Here are the freeze frames of the Cherries' disallowed goal:

Bournemouth's Tommy Elphick (black 5) fouls Liverpool's Dejan Lovren (red 6) to head the ball

Elphick clearly does not believe he did anything wrong as he headed the ball into the Liverpool net in the 11th minute, saying:

"It is really frustrating. I wouldn't like to be doing the referee's job. I got up ahead of him (Dejan Lovren), obviously you have to use your arms as leverage."

Is it obvious that players have to use their arms as leverage? No!

Referees know that if a player uses his arms against an opponent to prevent him from jumping, then it is an offence. Elphick effectively pushed his opponent down, which is a foul.

Are ex-Referee Graham Poll's Views Relevant Anymore?

With the start of the 2015-16 EPL season referee Michael Oliver, who officiated Chelsea's 2-2 draw with Swansea, demonstrated why he is possibly the best referee currently in the premiership. Ex-EPL referee Graham Poll praised Oliver but then said something that seriously jarred against modern-day refereeing principles.

Referee Michael Oliver sends off Chelsea's Thibaut Courtois for DOGSO. Pic AP.

In his column Poll said: "Michael Oliver was right to award Swansea a penalty against Chelsea... but Thibaut Courtois did not deserve a straight red card".
He based his reasoning by insisting that "For DOGSO, the ball must be heading towards goal and, as replays show, it was not."

This is a very traditional, rigid and non-progressive take on DOGSO and I do not know of any referee instructors who still stick to this, especially at the highest levels. The problem is perhaps because Graham Poll no longer teaches in refereeing circles, and therefore is no longer up to date with the best current refereeing practices. Therefore, are Poll's views about referees relevant anymore?

Thankfully, the FA review panel rejected Chelsea's ill-advised and frivolous appeal against Courtois' red card and upheld the one-match ban.

Rational Ref: McManaman tackle exposes flaws in retrospective action

McManaman tackle exposes flaws in retrospective action

FA's mishandling of Wigan player's challenge puts safety at risk, shows system needs review

Wigan's Callum McManaman horror tackle on Massadio Haidara. Pic Focus Images

The most horrible factor about the 2012-2013 season's worst challenge, by Callum McManaman of Wigan, is not the tackle itself, but the fact it has been surpassed by an even worse scenario: the FA's pathetic, retrospective review of the incident.

In incidents where a major injustice has occurred on the pitch and where match officials have, for whatever reasons, shown they have not properly dealt with the offence, taking retrospective action is a sensible process. It protects players, supports referees and safeguards the image of the game. It allows justice to be, and seen to be, done.

Unfortunately, the FA's challenge turned out to be a feeble sidestepping of the issue. The FA used a technicality to excuse itself from not taking retrospective action against 21-year-old McManaman for his awful tackle on Newcastle's 20-year-old defender Massadio Haidara.

It exposes serious flaws in the system and is not limited to England since all around the world, including Hong Kong, the retrospective review system is often ineffective. It doesn't successfully protect players, match officials or the image of the game. In hindsight, the retrospective review process needs to be reviewed itself, for justice's sake.

Here is the FA's statement on the McManaman incident: "Where one of the officials has seen a coming together of players, no retrospective action should be taken, regardless of whether he or she witnessed the full or particular nature of the challenge. This is to avoid the re-refereeing of incidents."

Referee Mark Halsey was honest enough to admit that he did not see the incident. Due to 51-year-old Halsey's poor positioning, his view of McManaman's challenge was blocked by another player. However, assistant referee Matthew Wilkes admitted seeing the "coming together" of the players and the FA has shamelessly used this as an excuse for not taking retrospective action against McManaman.

First, the claim that the FA wishes to avoid re-refereeing incidents is hypocritical. They do it often and they do it to undermine the credibility of match officials. For instance earlier this year, the FA rescinded referee Mike Dean's red card for Manchester City's Vincent Kompany. That is the very definition of re-refereeing.

Second, the FA's ignorance regarding the poor accuracy and credibility of the witness' view is embarrassing. Just because a linesman saw the incident does not mean he had a "good, near and clear view" to make a competent decision. In fact, the distance between the linesman and McManaman's challenge was at least 32 metres coupled to the reality that his main priorities lie elsewhere on the field. We know the linesman made a poor decision in assisting Halsey, so why not allow a retrospective review? If the FA is so willing to re-referee, say, Dean's perfectly clear and competent decision to send off Kompany, then why is it less enthused about re-refereeing the poor decision not to send off McManaman on the basis that the linesman vaguely saw the "coming together" of two players from a distance of over 35 yards?

Justice has not prevailed and the FA is seen to be hiding behind excuses. Newcastle, clearly outraged, officially announced the FA's disciplinary process to be "not fit for purpose" and have demanded a change in the rule that allowed McManaman to escape sanction.

If there is no perceived justice, then fans will be angry and jump at the chance to form their own kangaroo courts. Players, too, will sense the injustice and may take matters on themselves on the pitch.

In McManaman's case, he will be jeered in future matches particularly by Newcastle supporters and, as is the nature of the game, when he eventually falls victim to a nasty tackle, there inevitably will be those who will cheer and claim that it is "justice" served. No one deserves an injury or to be put at risk of danger, but because the public perception is that McManaman has escaped a previous sanction then these very real human feelings may come to the fore among some fans. Therefore, the FA urgently needs to demonstrate that its retrospective review system is "fit for purpose". As it stands, the FA's mishandling of McManaman's challenge has endangered player safety, left match officials out to dry and tarnished the image of the game.

In the modern professional era, on the pitch there are 22 millionaire mercenaries all trying to harass, hound and hoodwink a standard salaryman referee trying his utmost to be correct, impartial and consistent. Since video replays are unacceptable in a game, the post-match retrospective review is the second-best means available to sanction players, act as a deterrent to unsavoury behaviour and ultimately protect the image of the game.

However, competition organisers around the world are failing the game with their pathetic process of retrospective reviews.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as McManaman tackle exposes flaws in retrospective action

PUBLISHED : Friday, 29 March, 2013


POST ARTICLE: Have things changed at the FA?

Rational Ref: Where do we draw the line on persistent fouling?

Where do we draw the line on persistent fouling?

Talented players will always be a target for 'special' treatment, but when must it be stopped?

• 

Referee Cuneyt Ckir finally tires of the treatment meted out to Eden Hazard and books Marco Verratti of Paris Saint-Germain during last week's Champions League tie. Photo: EPA

What's the best way to stop Eden from passing you by? Hazard a guess? Several kicks ought to do it.

Eden Hazard is the most fouled player in the English Premier League this season. The Chelsea star was on the receiving end of some "special" treatment in last week's Champions League encounter with Paris Saint-Germain, when he was fouled nine times in a match where the referee issued only two cautions.

Everyone knows a team's best attacking player is both a godsend and a liability. Such a player can turn a match in a heartbeat, but if he is repeatedly targeted and injured, the team will struggle with other options.

Specifically targeting an opponent is all part of the game and the rules are there to help referees discipline offending players for persistent fouls. Persistent infringements are repeated offences by one player on several others and also by several players on one opponent. Since there is no defined frequency on what is persistent, it depends on the referee's judgment to determine when enough is enough.

Is nine times enough, or five or two? Every player and coach has their own opinion. For instance, when a substitute enters the pitch, immediately fouls an opponent with a careless trip and gets cautioned, the referee is criticised for giving a card for the player's "first foul".
Eden Hazard has come in for some rough treatment this season. Photo: AFP
Others may also be puzzled by the yellow card for an innocuous foul.

However, what players, coaches and spectators often fail to realise is the referee has recognised that the team as a whole has repeatedly fouled an opponent and has therefore correctly penalised one player as a warning to his teammates.

Experienced referees are alert to the time-old tactic that players like Hazard — who Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho has compared favourably to Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo — will always receive more than their fair share of special attention from the opposing team.

Even Mourinho has admitted he instructs his players to target talented opponents.

 

It's how players react to being targeted that reveals their true mettle. Players who lose their heads fail spectacularly because they believe the game revolves around them when in fact it is a team game. Mourinho said: "[Hazard] is pure. Today [in the Champions League] there were nine fouls. In the Premier League, it's no different. If he's another player he dives, stays on the floor, rolls in the grass, screams. He's asking for cards and cards and cards."

Messi is also pure, preferring to ride through challenges and letting the referee or competition organiser deal with errant players.

In contrast, Ronaldo has a quick temper and when challenged will prefer to go down easily. Earlier this year the Real Madrid star kicked out and slapped Cordoba's Edimar Fraga after enduring some special attention in a La Liga match. He was sent off and banned for two matches.

Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo (left) hit out at Cordoba's Edimar Fraga after some rough treatment during their La Liga match in January and received a two-match ban. Photo: Reuters

Chelsea's Nemanja Matic has a similar temperament. Last weekend against Burnley he was on the receiving end of a horrendous tackle by Ashley Barnes. Referee Martin Atkinson did not have the best angle to see the incident and did not whistle for a foul.

But Matic reacted angrily by violently pushing Barnes to the ground, leaving Atkinson with no choice but to show him a red card.

Mourinho, forgetting that the foundation of his managerial career is based on using loyal but limited players in similar hard-grafting roles, blasted Barnes saying: "The player, if I can call him a player, should have been in the shower in minute 31."

In these modern times, even if the referee does not see a sending-off incident, the FA supposedly has a process to be able to take retrospective action. It depends on whether the FA has the will and wherewithal to help protect the safety of players and referees alike, as well as to uphold the image of the game.

Ashley Barnes' horror challenge, and Nemanja Matic was red-carded for his retaliation during Chelsea's draw with Burnley last weekend. Photo: Reuters

This also does not excuse Matic and Mourinho for their reactions. Players taking the law into their own hands and managers, who have the benefit of video replays criticising referees for making honest mistakes, are revealing the egotistical nature of the individuals involved.

If only there could be a way to stop, or at least minimise, this obstinate behaviour. On the pitch, referees have rules to help tackle persistent infringements. Off the pitch, competition organisers should similarly apply the rules and discipline all persistent offenders, thus allowing everyone to focus on playing ball without the media circus.

Agree or disagree? Contact Rational Ref at rationalref@gmail.com

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Drawing the line on persistent fouls

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 26 February 2015


UPDATE
The statistics show Eden Hazard "wins" a yellow card for every 11 fouls against him, compared with Arsenal's Alexis Sanchez "winning" a card for every 6 fouls (see Why Eden Hazard Really Does Need More Protection From Referees).

Rational Ref: Genuine refereeing howlers are unforgivable

Genuine refereeing howlers are unforgivable, but it's important to know the difference

Errors in applying the laws of the game should be punished

• 

Referees are judged harshly, especially when they make a wrong call, but it's important to recognise when the referee is genuinely at fault. Photo: AFP

 

Not all refereeing mistakes are equal; some are more equal than others. So can soccer lovers distinguish between honest mistakes and the inexcusable?

Many howlers such as incorrect handballs, offsides and penalties occur naturally as a consequence of human error, but unfortunately they obtain huge media exposure when in the English Premier League. If we cut through all the noise, vitriol and bias, many of these decisions are forgivable and only a handful are indefensible.

The unacceptable was Jan Vertonghen being adjudged offside when the Tottenham Hotspur defender should have been celebrating his second goal against Sunderland during the final seconds of the match.  

Replays clearly showed Jan Vertonghen to be inside his own half as he ran clear to score a disallowed goal

Offsides are straightforward black-and-white judgment calls and assistant referees get them more right than wrong. These are genuinely honest mistakes, although referee assessors will still give ARs poor marks for judging them wrong.

However, the decision against Vertonghen was not a judgment call. Technically, it was an error in law, and referees know this is the worst kind of mistake they can commit.

 

Technical errors that involve incorrect application of the laws is tantamount to being declared incompetent and unfit for purpose. Vertonghen was in his own half when the ball was played to him by his teammate. He cannot be in an offside position, no matter what else has occurred.

Assistant referee Stuart Burt should have been rooted at the halfway line because his main task is to keep in line with the second-last defender or the ball.

Since the Sunderland goalkeeper Costel Pantilimon had gone up for his team's corner, there was no second-last defender in Sunderland's half during Spurs' counterattack and obviously the ball was way behind the halfway line when it was passed to Vertonghen. At the halfway line, Burt would have realised he was facing a no-offside situation. We can only assume he panicked and flagged.

The most infamous error in law was the "three-card trick" by former EPL referee Graham Poll when he gave Croatia's Josip Simunic a hat-trick of cautions in the same match during the 2006 World Cup.
English referee Graham Poll made possibly the worst howler in World Cup history when he booked Croatia's Josip Simunic three times before sending him off at the 2006 World Cup. Photo: AP
Asia's top referee, Ravsham Irmatov, made an unbelievable blunder at the 2013 Confederations Cup when Italy played Brazil. During a corner kick, Italy forward Mario Balotelli was hauled down by a defender and Irmatov blew his whistle and pointed to the spot.

However, moments later the ball reached Italy's Giorgio Chiellini, who promptly scored. Unfathomably, Irmatov changed his mind and awarded the goal, which is a major error in law.
Although indefensible, confident referees are chastened by such harrowing experiences and return stronger.

Irmatov quickly bounced back at last year's World Cup to set the record for refereeing the most number of World Cup matches and this year became AFC Referee of the Year for the fifth time.

In contrast, errors of judgment are simply honest mistakes. Anthony Taylor's incorrect yellow card to Chelsea's Cesc Fabregas for diving is forgivable.


Although not an excuse, the speed of the game can make it difficult to judge incidents in real time because referees are not infallible. Referees do not sleep well at night knowing that they have made errors.

Errors aside, the real problem is that players, coaches and supporters have become stubbornly accustomed to complaining about every referee decision going against them, regardless of whether it is correct or not.

In last weekend's Hong Kong Premier League match between Tai Po and YFCMD, referee Cheng Oi-cho made a courageous and correct call when he awarded a penalty to YFCMD in the final minute of added time, when the score was 0-0. Tai Po players were incensed, but video replays (watch here at 49:30) undisputedly revealed their captain, Lui Chi-hing, had manhandled YFCMD's Mamadou Hady Barry to the ground.

 

At the final whistle, Tai Po players rounded on the referee. Li Ka-chun bodychecked the referee, Jing Teng clapped sarcastically, Sze Kin-wai hurled abuse and to cap it off the Tai Po coach rushed over and confronted the referee, too.

The fact that the referee made the correct decision is beside the point. Players and coaches, no matter what the circumstances, cannot abuse match officials.

Competition organisers must publicly support referees, and the HKFA must punish Tai Po in the strongest possible terms for their unacceptable behaviour.

Agree or disagree? Contact Rational Ref at rationalref@gmail.com

 

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Howlers are unforgivable, but know the difference

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 29 January, 2015

Rational Ref: Spare the rod and you will spoil the players

Spare the rod and you will spoil the players

Grown men throwing tantrums should be treated like children

 Metz midfielder Guiran N'Daw reacts as French referee Bartolomeu Varela shows him a yellow card. Photo: AFP


Grown men behaving badly have only themselves to blame. Players and coaches can have no complaints if referees treat them like naughty children.

Pundit Martin Keown recently revealed his true feelings about referees, and in particular Premiership referee Phil Dowd, when saying: "Whenever he booked me he would flash the card so quickly it felt he was about to punch me. Dowd treats players like little boys and can inflame and aggravate situations. He really used to wind me up."

The former Arsenal and England central defender should take a long, hard look in the mirror to understand why top referees treated him so.

Keown was one of the most annoying, brazen and childish defenders. He regularly directed his ire at opponents and referees to get the slightest advantage.

"At Arsenal we had all sorts of little psychological ploys to gain an advantage," he admitted. "Before kick-off we would never come out of the dressing room at Highbury until the opposition were waiting for us in the tunnel. We are Arsenal, we decide when we come out."

Actually, it is the referee who decides when both teams must come out. So they should not be surprised they are treated like spoiled brats.

It is this attitude and immaturity that influences referees. Dowd is an experienced, honest and no-nonsense type. As good parents know, when children step out of line they need to be disciplined. Dowd does this effectively, and gives as good as he gets when players start mouthing off. More referees should be like him. The only reason Keown felt "wound up" is because he could not get his own way.

Keown added: "In matches against Manchester United I would deliberately shield the officials as they came off the pitch at half-time so that Sir Alex Ferguson could not get to them. In games of this magnitude, you will seize upon any little advantage."

Keown may claim he was "protecting" match officials from the other team, but in truth he was also getting in their ear.

The best example of Keown throwing his toys was the infamous incident with striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in 2003. Arsenal players were outraged when United were awarded a penalty towards the end and when Van Nistelrooy's penalty was saved, Keown was like a wild-eyed, crazed monkey waving his arms and jumping around the Dutchman. Keown received a three-match ban and was fined £20,000 (HK$235,000). Arsenal were fined £275,000.

The FA sends the message it is unacceptable for players to abuse opposing players, but when players and coaches abuse officials the FA might only occasionally dish out a paltry fine of £10,000. To nip such childish behaviour in the bud, the FA must send a stern message.

Referees are rather like teachers trying to manage and monitor schoolchildren. There should automatically be respect for teachers and their authority, and whenever children misbehave and break the rules they will be disciplined.

Imagine schoolchildren mouthing off at their teachers, walking away when being spoken to, or ganging up on the teacher just because they don't agree with him or her. This is never tolerated in schools, otherwise there would be anarchy, and it should also be the same on the soccer pitch.

Referees know this, and only wish that competition organisers like the FA would support them.

Agree or disagree? Contact Rational Ref at rationalref@gmail.com

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Spare the rod and you will spoil the players

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 15 January, 2015

Rational ref: diving an art or cheating

While some players consider falling over to be cheating, others consider it a skill of the game

• 

Liverpool's Luis Suarez has a reputation for going to ground easily. Photo: AP

To dive or not to dive, that is the question professional players have to ponder, particularly when prowling the penalty area. Diving, which match officials call simulation, is pretending to be fouled in an attempt to deceive the referee to gain a favourable decision. Some consider this to be cheating, while others believe it to be a useful skill.

Players with a reputation for going to ground easily include Liverpool's Uruguayan Luis Suarez, Manchester City's Argentinean Sergio Aguero and Manchester United's Ecuadorian Antonio Valencia. These high-profile foreign players contribute to the stereotype of "that type of player" who cheats.

Simulation came to be due to two broad schools of soccer culture. The first recognises committed, hard-grafting physical players and the other appreciates elegant, more-accomplished skilful players. The latter, being technically gifted and sometimes breathtaking to watch, are usually prone to being taken down a peg or two by the former.

Nobody likes to be publicly embarrassed by a piece of skill so those who are victims overcompensate for their insecurities by "mowing down" whoever they consider to be "show ponies". The flip side of this is that skilful players resent being kicked and physically intimidated and, as a matter of survival, learn the benefits of falling easily. It's an ongoing battle between players of differing skill levels, and keeps officials on their toes.

In last week's Merseyside derby (28 October 2012), the pre-match hype was focused on Suarez's habit of diving but ironically it was Englishman and Everton captain Phil Neville who was booked - correctly - for simulation, with Suarez's overall performance earning him man of the match.

Even so, some players believe it is their right to cheat. Aguero, without a hint of conscience, shifted the responsibility from players to match officials by saying: "We just play our game, and it's the referee's job to know who is tricking him and who is not." So, faced with players who cheat, the blame unfairly lies with referees for failing to detect divers. This is like saying shoplifting is acceptable providing one can get away with it.

If a player dives and succeeds, the most he can "steal" is a penalty plus a straight red card for his opponent. If a player dives and is caught, the most he loses is a yellow card. However, if he is already on a caution the risk is greater. This happened to Chelsea's £50 million (HK$623 million) striker Fernando Torres last weekend. He was sent off for receiving a second caution after referee Mark Clattenburg determined he dived against Manchester United.

Truth be told, Torres went down easily. Even though he had "nutmegged" his opponent, Jonathan Evans, the ball was already running away from him and covering defender Rio Ferdinand would have cleared the danger. Therefore, it was easier for Torres to "trawl" for a foul and go down.

"I'd say 75 per cent of people could stay on their feet, and if they get touched and go down it is almost, 'Hey, I got touched so it's OK to go down'," says ex-England striker Michael Owen.

Owen was honest enough to admit, in front of ex-referee Pierluigi Collina, that he could have stayed on his feet when he won crucial penalties against Argentina in the 1998 and 2002 World Cups.
Coaches are just as culpable as players who dive. It is accepted knowledge that former England manager Glenn Hoddle advised a young Owen to fall more often. "Sometimes Michael is too honest", said Hoddle in 1998 when he gave Owen his England debut at the age of 18.

In fact, young players naturally stay on their feet even though they are hacked, knocked and kicked about. The spirit and innocence of youth mean they just want to get on with playing without the theatre. With experience, cynicism and increasingly injury-prone bodies, the opportunity for ageing players to go down becomes ever tempting. Cue Neville.

It is this endearing youthful feature that suggests Lionel Messi is perhaps a better player than Cristiano Ronaldo. For the past year, both have been in imperious form, which has led many observers to claim it to be impossible to separate the two for the 2012 Fifa Ballon d'Or.

However, there is one noteworthy distinction. When tackled, Ronaldo tends to go down easily, while Messi chooses to ride the challenge and continue playing. By not complaining or cheating, Messi can claim the moral high ground because he is among the 25 per cent of players who stay on their feet.
Shakespeare would be proud: "The spurns that patient merit of th'unworthy takes."

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as To dive, or not to dive … that is the burning question

PUBLISHED : Friday, 02 November, 2012

Rational Ref: Getting handball calls right is no easy matter

Getting handball calls right is no easy matter

The official with the whistle does not have the benefit of instant replays

• 

Stoke City players appeal to referee Michael Oliver for handball against United defender Chris Smalling. Photos: AFP 

 

When is handball not handball? When the referee says so.

On New Year's Day, there were enough handball incidents in the English Premier League to help everyone understand the definition. If only players, coaches, fans and commentators would pay attention.

For a start, it does not just involve the hand but the whole arm. The arm - the area uncovered as if players were wearing sleeveless shirts - is the only part of the body that can be penalised for contacting the ball.

The referee must first decide whether the handball is deliberate. He must consider whether the movement is hand-to-ball and not ball-to-hand; whether the distance between the opponent and the ball leads to an "unexpected ball"; and whether the position of the arm is "natural".

In Chelsea's 5-3 loss to Tottenham Hotspur, Blues boss Jose Mourinho bemoaned the fact referee Phil Dowd refused to award a penalty when they were leading 1-0. Although the ball hit the arm of Spurs' Jan Vertonghen, who had fallen in his penalty area, it was not deliberate. Dowd was correct.

Contrast this with Stoke's goalless draw with Manchester United. At a Stoke corner, Peter Crouch headed the ball which hit the flailing arm of United's Chris Smalling. Smalling had made his body area bigger by spreading out his arms - deliberate handball because the position of the arm was not natural. But referee Michael Oliver did not award the penalty despite being in a great position.

Another referee, Mike Jones, apparently saw something that did not happen. In the 2-2 draw between Leicester and Liverpool, Jones whistled Liverpool's first penalty for a handball that never was. Video replays showed the ball hit Leicester's Wes Morgan in the face. Former Leicester striker Gary Lineker called it the "worst penalty decision ever".

Goalkeepers outside their area have the same restrictions on handling. So when QPR keeper Rob Green handled outside his area, referee Anthony Taylor should have given a direct free kick to Swansea. The incident denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to Wayne Routledge, so Green should have seen red.

Of the four handball-or-no-handball decisions, only one was correct. This demonstrates how difficult it is for referees to make real-time decisions based on one look, while pundits and critics have the luxury of video replays.

Moaning managers don't have a leg to stand on either because when the boot is on the other foot, they remain tight-lipped, imply they did not see the incident, and gleefully accept incorrect decisions.
Brendan Rogers, Louis van Gaal and Harry Redknapp would have won plaudits for honesty and integrity had they criticised the poor refereeing decisions they benefited from.

Furthermore, it doesn't help that players and coaches scream blue murder whenever the ball makes contact with an opponent's upper body.

From a referee's perspective, there is absolutely no difference between players who dive and those who shout "handball" and "my ball" when it clearly isn't. Like diving, these dishonest claims are defined as "attempting to deceive the referee" and therefore cheating players should all be cautioned.

Agree or disagree? Contact Rational Ref at rationalref@gmail.com

 

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Getting handball calls right is no easy matter

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 08 January, 2015

Barton's Comments About Tevez Justify HKRef's Open Suggestion to the FA

Finally after 18 months, Joey Barton has spoken about what happened between him and Carlos Tevez during that fateful match between Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers that resulted in Barton getting a 12-match ban from the FA.

Carlos Tevez provoked Joey Barton, and Barton fell for it hook, line and sinker. Pic Andy Hooper.

At the time, HKRef suggested that Tevez must have done something to provoke Barton to elbow him. The FA did not bother taking retrospective action on Carlos Tevez and therefore sent out the message that it is uninterested in seeking real justice in the game.

IMHO, Barton is a dedicated, talented and committed player. His weakness is his temperament, which many players recognize and therefore exploit. This is because Barton has gained a bad boy reputation due to the consequences stemming from his uncontrollable temperament.

Referees can learn a lot about officiating effectively from this kind of knowledge about players.

RefCam: A Referee's Perpective

The following incidents occurred from the Referee's Perspective during the MLS All Stars match against Roma on Thursday 1 August 2013. The match finished 1—3, with 2 YCs.


Ref Cam: Sights and Sounds from the 2013 ATT MLS All-Star Game (YouTube)




Here's what Referee Hilario Grajeda looked like rigged up with the RefCam (which appears rather bulky).

 

From the start, Roma midfielder Miralem Pjanic (red 15) appears to be one of those players who persistently badger the referee to give things in their favour. Experienced Referees can spot these type of players a mile away.

 

C'mon Ref, what are you doing?

Later, Pjanic (red 15) fouls MLS All Stars captain Thierry Henry (blue 14). Pjanic looks at the Referee apologetically to make sure that he is not booked.

 Nice, clear and firm signal to indicate a direct free kick

 Don't book me Ref! I'm a good boy ... honest ...

Notice also the big screen from the Referee's view. A simultaneous double whammy!

Roma goalkeeper Morgan De Sanctis (grey) catches the ball and Referee Grajeda raises his ams with all fingers splayed out. He waits a second or two and then gives two thumbs up. What is this signal? What message is the Referee trying to communicate and are players paying attention to him?

 

 Wait ... wait ... goalkeeper has the ball ... wait ... thumbs up ...

In the 54', Pjanic (red 15) fouls Landon Donovan (blue 7) and Referee Grajeda, who appears (at least from the RefCam perspective) to be quite a distance away, cautions Pjanic.

 Is it clear to the players, match officials and spectators who the Referee has given a yellow card to?

Donovan takes exception to Pjanic's unfair challenge.

The RefCam is a great experience that the MLS (or PRO?) is offering to soccer fans. Letting people see what the referee sees … or doesn't see … can only be a good thing if we want to provide a better understanding of the important and fantastic work that Referees do. Let's see more RefCams!


Related Post
Able Referee Assistants Must Assist Referees Ably

Great Assistance From AR

The following incident occurred during the Copa del Rey final between Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid on Friday 17 May 2013. The Spanish Cup Final finished 1—2 aet. There were 6(?)YCs, 2RCs and Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinho was sent from the technical area.

In the 114th minute, Atletico Madrid's Gabi (red 4) fouls Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo (white 7) by kicking him from behind and taking his legs out. Ronaldo reacts by flicking his left leg at the face of his opponent (which we will label the second foul). Initially, the Referee saw the first foul (Gabi's foul on Ronaldo) and played advantage because Real Madrid still had possession of the ball. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee plays advantage following a foul on Ronaldo (white 7)

AR1 looks toward Referee, who did not see Ronaldo kicking his opponent, and therefore flagged

Video can also be seen here:
Red card to Cristiano Ronaldo (Daily Motion)

Notice that the Referee did not know anything about the violent conduct even as he walked up to Ronaldo, and had to get confirmation from AR1 before showing the red card … to Ronaldo's back! Here are the freeze frames:

Never show a card to a player's back

When the Referee played advantage, Atletico Madrid's Adrian (red 7) then immediately fouled Real Madrid's Sergio Ramos (white 4), again from behind. This was Atletico's game plan since they were now winning 1—2, and wanted to wind down the clock and stop their opponents from playing football. Of course Ronaldo had to go for violent conduct, but the match officials should have been acutely aware of the negative tactics from Atletico Madrid, especially in the time after Atletico had taken the lead with their second goal.

However, this third foul was missed by the match officials because AR1 had flagged the second foul after carefully watching the Referee. AR1 was correct in his actions in assisting the Referee. Unfortunately, a side effect of this is that it actually compounded the situation because as the Referee played advantage he was then distracted by his AR1's flag and therefore missed this third foul.

After the third foul, the two players clash heads (Adrian and Ramos headbutt each other) and Ramos falls back theatrically. However, this piece of the action is completely missed by the match officials because of all the commotion coming from the technical areas. Here are the freeze frames:

In the aftermath of Ronaldo's violent conduct, Atletico's Adrian (red 7) fouls Real's Ramos (white 4) from behind. The two players then clash heads.

The funny thing about these incidents is that players and coaches only want to focus on the one incident that they perceive to have gone against them. They ignore everything else … even the major incidents like violent conduct. Players and coaches are so biased toward their own team, that they miss the bigger picture and only want the match officials to see only the foul and misconduct that has gone against their own team. It is funny, laughable and all so very sad when viewed from the armchair.

For example, let's look at the discussion between Ramos and Adrian about the third foul. Ramos simply wanted Adrian to acknowledge that he had fouled him from behind (which is a true fact). Adrian acts all innocent (many guilty players know how to do this) and says he didn't think it was a foul. Ramos insists it was a foul and shows Adrian the back of his foot where Adrian kicked him. Adrian continues to play innocent. Here are the freeze frames:

Players are liars

Notice also during this whole time, Red 8 is hovering next to Ramos to distract him and to support his teammate Adrian. Red 8 then talks about Ronaldo's kick at his captain because, yes, that was an injustice done to his captain Gabi. But that's already been taken care of because the Referee had already shown the red card. It's actually very entertaining watching all this; millionaires acting like children and only wanting things to go their own way without thought about the bigger picture.

In summary, match officials can only do what they can do (which is based on what they can actually see). This means AR1 did a great job in identifying the violent conduct.
Perhaps the 4th Official could have spotted the third foul? Had the 4th Official seen that and assisted the Referee, then that would have been great too. As it is, for this incident, only AR1 comes out looking good.

For all that other stuff (i.e. spotting misconduct in the technical area), it should be the responsibility of the competition organizer to use video footage to identify the players retrospectively and fine them for their unsporting behavior.
From the video, we see Real Madrid's Kaka stopping Atletico coach Diego Simeone. Simeone pushes Kaka back but then Real Madrid's Pepe gets in Simeone's face. Pepe is then pushed away by an Atletico substitute, and another Atletico substitute (red 16, I think) swings a punch at Pepe.

Looking at the positions of the match officials (R, AR1 and 4O) during all the commotion, it is quite impossible for them to see all the incidents that are happening. It is ridiculous to expect match officials to see and record everything. And this is why competition organizers should use video evidence to take retrospective action … and support match officials.

The 4th Official (red jacket) is to the left of the screen and the R & AR1 (blue) are to the right

Do not blame match officials for not being able to see everything that happens in and around the pitch. Instead, competition organizers should be helping and assisting match officials so that correct disciplinary action is awarded correctly to the offenders. By working together (i.e. competition organizers supporting match officials), offenders will not escape punishment and therefore will always think twice about their behaviour if they understand that video evidence will always be used to take retrospective disciplinary action.

Competition organizers should acknowledge that match officials are human and therefore cannot see and report everything that occurs in and around the field of play. They should therefore send a clear message to players and coaches that unsporting behaviour will not be tolerated by supporting match officials and using video evidence to take retrospective action against offenders.