Nasty Tackles and Dark Arts

The EPL on 11 January 2020, in the match between Arsenal and Crystal Palace this incident happened:

And on 7 May 2011, in the match between Blackpool and Tottenham Hotspur this similar incident happened:

In both incidents, the referees missed the serious foul plays. The difference being that in 2020, there is VAR to help with incidents that are "clearly and obviously" missed by the referee. And yet in 2020 there are still people who are attempting to downplay these incidents by appealing to the FA to reduce the standard 3-match ban for serious foul play.

Football Dark Arts.

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?

Trendsetting: Referee Shirts

Referee Nicola Rizzoli with his name printed on his shirt collar. Pic courtesy Imago/Actionplus


This picture was spotted because of the send off incident in the Serie A match between Inter Milan and Juventus on Saturday 30 March 2013. The match finished 1—2.

The send off was an obvious SFP because Inter Milan's Esteban Cambiasso (blue/black 19) used "excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play". Cambiasso endangered the safety of an opponent.
(Compare this with Nani's send off which produced mixed responses, as opposed to near universal agreement for Stepanenko's challenge).

The Daily Mail news article reported Inter Milan midfielder Esteban Cambiasso's challenge on Sebastian Giovinco to be similar, if not worse, than Callum McManaman's shocking tackle on Massadio Haidara. Although there are similarities including the end result of studs forcibly landing on an opponent, there are also differences between the two challenges. However, the media will use any "trick" to grab the headlines!

Anyway back to the main point of this post: will this become a trend for top Referees? Shirts with Referees' names. It is interesting that this is currently happening in Serie A, where Pierluigi Collina and his Referees Committee at UEFA appear to have an influence. For instance Collina and UEFA already have an influence in Italy because Serie A adopts UEFA's view in using Additional Assistant Referees (or EARs), unlike in other top domestic leagues such as the EPL, Bundesliga and La Liga which do not use EARs. UEFA obviously insist all Champions League and Europa League matches must use EARs because those are its own competitions.

Furthermore, during EURO 2012, Collina also promoted Shirt Swapping between Referees and players. This is a stupid idea but it appears that if top Italian Referees now have shirts with their names printed on them, then Collina may yet see his Shirt Swapping idea take off. HKRef disagrees with the idea where Referees swap shirts with players.

HKRef admires Collina's achievements on the pitch. However, so far many of Collina's off-pitch decisions (e.g. referees swapping shirts, supporting the use of EARs, dismissing goal-line technology) have been poor and unconvincing.

What is SFP?

The following incident occurred during the 2014 World Cup qualifiers in Europe between Ukraine and Moldova on Tuesday 26 March 2013. The match finished 2—1, and there were 2YCs and 1RC.

Red Card during Ukraine and Moldova on Tuesday 26 March 2013 (YouTube)



Ukraine's Taras Stepanenko (yellow 6) is guilty of serious foul play for using "excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play". Stepanenko endangered the safety of an opponent. Here are the freeze frames:

 

 

 

Although Referees and readers on this site are never going to be a homogenous group (meaning there will always be dissenting voices, as seen by the sometimes pithy and unconstructive comments left on this blog) … looking at Stepanenko's action, I would think that the majority of sensible Referees and readers would agree with Referee Kenn Hansen's decision to issue a straight Red Card.

Now compare Stepanenko's action with the Nani—Arbeloa incident, and I would think that amongst sensible Referees and readers, some would think "Yellow Card", some "Red Card", and others may not even think a direct free kick is necessary. That is, in general there are mixed responses to Nani's action.

The fact that Cuneyt Cakir's decision to send off Nani has raised so many mixed responses (compared with Hansen's decision) amongst sensible Referees and readers should tell us that there is something significantly wrong with the interpretation of serious foul play (SFP).

Just for good measure, now consider how Referees and players accept the use of the scissors or bicycle kick (as demonstrated often by Peter Crouch and other players like Zlatan Ibrahimovic) especially in crowded areas where contact with other players is highly likely. At most, Referees award a yellow card when a player connects with an opponent's head because it is only deemed to be acting "with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent".
Question: When players perform scissors or bicycle kicks and connect with an opponent's head, why is this not considered "endangering the safety of an opponent"?

We know that the FA and PGMOL in England do not consider bicycle kicks to be send-off offences. But perhaps Pierluigi Collina and his Referees committee at UEFA may think so? We simply do not know (yet).
However, what we do know is that Collina and UEFA take a relatively harsher view in its interpretation of Law 12 because we know that for Nani's action the FA probably would not award a Red Card, whereas UEFA has interpreted it to be SFP.

Conclusion: the interpretation of SFP remains a grey area.


Note: Referee Kenn Hansen (Denmark) was excellent in his man-management skills. He knew the offending player (Stepanenko) would be subjected to criticism and even possible physical retaliation from players of the opposing team. Therefore Hansen quickly cordoned off Stepanenko from other players. This is optimum officiating and Hansen deserves praise and plaudits for his sensible and sensitive handling of the situation. Here are the freeze frames:

 

 Referee Kenn Hansen cooly and calmly cordons off Stepanenko from other players

 

 

If Referees need to physically step in to separate players, then this is the best approach. Hansen was cool, calm and collected and knew what he had to do.

The worst approach is to use brute force to physically separate or push players away … which is demonstrated often by Howard Webb's physical approach to man-handling players. Webb's way to separate players is way too physical, excessive and untidy (examples can be seen here, here and here).

Was Cuneyt Cakir Conscious Of Colluding With Collina?

Some readers have asked for an account on this blog regarding the highly-publicized fallout (see BBC Sport, The Telegraph) from Turkey Referee Cuneyt Cakir's decision to send off Nani in the UCL Round of 16 2nd Leg match between Manchester United and Real Madrid on Tuesday 5 March 2013. The match finished 1—2, with Real Madrid progressing 2—3 on aggregate. There were 5YCs and 1RC.

Referee Cuneyt Cakir sends off Manchester United's Nani (red 17). Pic courtesy of PA.

It is noticeable that many Referees (see here) have sided with Cakir's decision, claiming that it was a send off for serious foul play, while other Referees did not think the incident warranted a red card (see Dermot Gallagher). Also, with the exception of Roy Keane, the majority of players, ex-players and fans thought Cakir's decision was harsh. Here's HKRef's take on the incident:


First Consideration
Cakir sent off Nani for serious foul play, which means a player is dismissed for using "excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play". The laws further state: "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

The Nani—Arbeloa challenge. Pic courtesy of EPA.

Following these Laws to the letter, it is easy for everyone to understand why Cakir was not wrong to send off Nani. Cakir's view is Nani endangered the safety of his opponent.


Second Consideration
However, only a few days earlier in the English Premier League match between Stoke City and West Ham United on 2 March 2013, Stoke's Peter Crouch launched into a bicycle kick and connected flush with Matt Taylor's face, and knocked him out for a few seconds.

Stoke's Peter Crouch (red/white 25) connects with West Ham's Matt Taylor's jaw. Pics courtesy of PA.

West Ham's Demel (maroon 20) reacts in anger towards Crouch

Referee Jon Moss awarded a free kick to West Ham and was wrong not to caution Crouch.

To many referees this was a reckless challenge. "Reckless" is defined as a player who has "acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned."

The Laws state: "A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent."


Further Considerations
The Crouch—Taylor scenario also technically fits the criteria of serious foul play because the offender endangered the safety of his opponent. But Crouch's action had no malice or any intent to injure. Plus players react to and accept bicycle kicks all the time; we know this because such kicks are used frequently by players.

It is these two definitions — one for a sending-off, the other for a caution — that appear to contradict each other. For bicycle kicks, players intuitively know it is reckless because there is no intent to kick an opponent, only a complete disregard to, since the offender does not look at his opponent before executing the kick.  
Q: Did Crouch's bicycle kick endanger the safety of an opponent? If yes, then RC.


Now consider the Nani—Arbeloa challenge; was it reckless or serious foul play? Did Nani intend to kick Arbeloa with his studs exposed and was Nani looking at Arbeloa? Also, the reactions of the players told us that, at most, it was a reckless challenge. Had Cakir cautioned Nani for being reckless, he would not have been wrong.  
Q: Did Nani act with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent? If Yes, then YC.



Conclusion

The problem perhaps lies with the Laws and the way different competition organisers interpret them. The argument that "Nani deserves a red card on the continent and only a caution in England" is ignorant.

We can see from the reaction of Real Madrid's players that in Spain Nani would not have expected to be sent off either. The respective Football Associations in England, Spain, Germany, France and the Netherlands would likely interpret Nani's challenge to be reckless.

But UEFA is the competition organiser of the Champions League. Its referees committee, headed by Pierluigi Collina, manages its interpretation of the Laws and relies on top FIFA match officials from Europe to implement them publicly. Apparently, Collina and his Committee view this type of challenge as serious foul play.

Therefore, Cakir had an incentive to exhibit boldness and send off Nani at Old Trafford because he knew Collina was assessing him, probably with May's Wembley final in mind. Collusion?


A Final Note
Looking at the slow motion replays, did anyone detect Nani apparently straightening his right leg in the split-second after the coming together of both players? In real time, it is hard to detect, but this could be Cakir's proper justification in issuing a straight red (providing, of course, that Cakir saw it in real time).

McManaman: Mistimed or Malicious Tackle?

The following incident occurred during the EPL match between Wigan Athletic and Newcastle United on Sunday 17 March 2013. The match finished 2—1; there were 2 YCs.

In the first half, Wigan forward Callum McManaman (blue) challenges for the ball against Newcastle's Massadio Haidara (yellow). Here are the dynamic frames (courtesy of The Telegraph):

Here is Referee Mark Halsey's position.

Apparently, Halsey did not (or could not) see the incident and actually stopped play moments later with a DFK to Newcastle for an infringement made by Wigan. It is hoped the FA will therefore take retrospective action against McManaman.



The pitch location of the incident means that both ARs were too far away (i.e. in excess of 30 yards) to attain a close view. There have been suggestions that AR2 Matthew Wilkes had a clear view (see here). However, this is likely to be incorrect. In addition, AR2 probably did not have a good angle of view.

AR2's View

The best angle of view (i.e. the X-Factor) is seen from this following dynamic frame:

Looking at this shocking challenge, I suspect there will be a diverse range of opinions.

In one corner, Wigan manager Roberto Martinez defends his 21-year-old player:
Remember it's Callum's full debut in the Premier League. I haven't seen the replay, I believe that he touches the ball and then it's a bad challenge, but it's nothing malicious, he's not that sort of boy.

I can't really comment too much because I haven't seen the action but I can guarantee that Callum McManaman is a young man full of talent and in his debut probably showed the enthusiasm that you expect, but he's not a malicious player.

In the other corner, ex-Referee Graham Poll believes it to be serious foul play:

[McManaman's] straight-legged lunge over the top of the ball, with his studs up, caused his opponent to be stretchered off.

So, was McManaman's shocking challenge mistimed or malicious !!??

One Stamp, Not Two, And You're Out

The following incident occurred during the UCL Round of 16 first-leg match between Valencia and Paris Saint Germain on Tuesday 12 February 2013. The match finished 1—2; there were 2YCs and 1RC.



Incident One: Offside? Foul? What?

In 72', Referee Paolo Tagliavento whistles for an infringement. Here are the freeze frames:

In some media accounts, it was an offside call (even from the commentary on the UEFA website, it stated offside). The way Referee Tagliavento walks over and positions himself indicates that he has called offside. However, this is far from certain because his arm signal is NOT straight up to indicate an IFK. It appears to be angled to indicate a DFK (and therefore, a foul). But if it was for a foul, the Referee's position to indicate restart is wayward.

This is soft-option officiating because there was a more important decision that the Referee did not call.

PSG striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic stamped on his opponent. Incredibly, Valencia João Pereira (12) did not appear to be affected by the stamp and got up immediately because he was actually protesting the goal. From his perspective, he was the one who was fouled (and incidentally had played the ball forward, which meant technically PSG's Chantôme (20) was not offside). Here are the freeze frames:

How can Ibrahimovic (blue) play the ball forward?

Instead, it was a stamp ... a cynical stamp

No matter how we look at this incident, the actions of the Referee and his assistants do not appear competent or professional.


Incident Two: Stamp Number Two

In the 90'+2', PSG striker Ibrahimovic has been dispossessed of the ball and makes a lunge at an opponent. Here are the freeze frames:

The AR and EAR both have a good angle of view of the foul. Where is the Referee?

AR signals a foul. Where is the Referee?

AR takes action. Is the EAR effective and doing anything useful?

AR puts up his flag up using his right (why?) hand. Why the right hand? Where is the Referee?

At last here comes the Referee ...

Referee Tagliavento with the whistle in his mouth ... does not look very good!

AR did well to signal this serious foul play

That's two studs-up stamps missed by Referee Tagliavento. In the first incident, the match officials' actions did not look good. With the second incident, although the AR did a great job in assisting the Referee, the EAR is not visibly doing anything (except just standing there and staring) and the Referee is nowhere near the incident. The Referee was not near, and did not have a clear view of the incident. His credibility is low and the Referee further cuts down his credibility by keeping the whistle in his mouth as he approached and sanctioned Ibrahimovic. Very poor impression.


The match officials were:

Referee:  Paolo Tagliavento (ITA)
Assistant referees:  Mauro Tonolini (ITA), Lorenzo Manganelli (ITA)
Fourth official:  Riccardo Di Fiore (ITA)
Additional assistant referees:  Andrea De Marco (ITA), Antonio Damato (ITA)

Players' Behaviour Lacks Community Spirit

The following incident occurred during the Community Shield between Chelsea and Manchester City on Sunday 12 August 2012. The match finished 2—3, with 1 RC and 8 YCs.

In the 42', a loose ball is challenged by Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic (blue 2) and fellow Serbian Aleksandar Kolarov (red 13) of Manchester City. Here are the freeze frames:

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the Referee's angle:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Referee Kevin Friend (black) has a good angle of the incident

What I find interesting is the way some players react and behave. Take a look at the disrespectful behaviour of Chelsea's Ramires (blue 7) who had a very similar view (and closer view) of the incident as Referee Kevin Friend. But Ramires' behaviour is obviously biased and not credible.

 

 

 

 

Chelsea's Ramires (blue 7) is constantly challenging and disrespecting the Referee

Ramires cannot accept the red card decision for his Chelsea team-mate. It is very likely that Ramires is not a trained referee and therefore does not understand the basics of foul challenges. 
(Note: perhaps another explanation may be found here at To Bias Is Human).

And then Juan Mata (blue 10) and Ashley Cole (blue 3) arrive on the scene to give a piece of their mind to the Referee too. These two Chelsea players (an attacker and a left back, respectively) probably didn't have a good view of the incident ... but that doesn't stop them from telling the Referee that they believe he is wrong!

Unfortunately, this is what Referees and match officials in general have to put up with everywhere around the world.

Welcome to the new season everyone and may you all have optimum officiating performances!