Do Referees Ignore EARs?

Here are three incidents during two Champions League matches which all involve extra assistant referees (EARs). Do Referees seek advice from EARs or do Referees ignore them?

Incident One (No Foul, No Penalty)

Simply look at what the players are looking at ... and that will give you the answer

Surely a foul Ref!?

OK, I won't complain this time

EAR nods his head to indicate "No Foul"!

EITHER the Referee actually listened to what the EAR said or indicated, OR the Referee didn't see anything and therefore just played on. How do we know whether the Referee is taking advice from his EAR?

Answer One: Debatable whether the Referee sought advice from the EAR (EAR appears to be ineffective and redundant)


Incident Two (Ball Crosses the Goal-line Between the Posts and Under the Crossbar)

Referee immediately looks to his right at his AR and not to his EAR to confirm whether the ball crossed the goal-line

This is exactly the kind of incident that UEFA had in mind when they introduced EARs to help assist Referees

Look at the Referee looking at the AR for confirmation. Why isn't the Referee similarly looking at the EAR for confirmation? Nevermind that one of the main reasons why UEFA has deployed EARs is because they are deemed to be crucial in assisting the Referee in matters such as whether the ball has crossed the goal-line between the posts and under the crossbar.

Nevermind that in this incident, the EAR clearly had the optimum angle of view and yet the Referee still only looked to his AR for confirmation.

Answer Two: The Referee did NOT seek advice from the EAR (EAR is ineffective and redundant)


Incident Three (Foul in the Goal Area)

Referee immediately whistles for a foul against the attacking team on the goalkeeper

The Referee has instantly decided that a foul has occurred on the goalkeeper. Nevermind that the EAR is perfectly positioned to see the incident. In fact, UEFA has officially stated that EARs would have a preventative affect in the number of infringements occurring in the penalty area, and that they could also assist the Referee in identifying such infringements should they occur. In this incident, did the Referee have any use for the EAR?

Answer Three: The Referee did NOT seek advice from the EAR (EAR is ineffective and redundant)


SUMMARY

This blog's central thesis about EARs is ...

Central Thesis

My main argument is not the fact that EARs are ineffective and redundant (which, in many incidents, they are ) or that EARs do not help or enhance the game. It is worse than that and much more serious.

My main argument is the fact that EARs can have a detrimental effect on the performance of the match Referee and hence can contribute to ruining the game since match officials will be perceived to be making more, instead of less, errors.

This post has shown evidence of the concerns stated in the first paragraph (i.e. EARs are ineffective, redundant and do not enhance the game).

Look out for a future post giving details and evidence of the second paragraph (i.e. instances where referees are negatively affected by EARs).

But first it will be interesting to see how the match officials perform in this season's Champions League Final between Barcelona and Manchester United at Wembley on Saturday 28 May 2011. It will be the first Champions League final that "uses" EARs.

Now We See More. Well, Not Really

The following incident occurred during the Europa League Round of 16 second-leg match between Glasgow Rangers and PSV Eindhoven on Thursday 17 March 2011. The match finished 0—1, with PSV advancing 1—0 on aggregate to the quarter-final stage.

There was a goal-mouth incident where a Rangers goal-bound shot was stopped by a PSV defender's hand. However, despite the fact that seven out of eight Rangers players in the penalty area and nine PSV players saw the handball, apparently none of the match officials (R, EAR, AR or even the 4th Official) saw the DOGSO offence.


Here are the freeze frame from 5 different camera views.


Camera View A:

Camera View B:

Camera View C (with magnification bubble):

Camera View D:

Camera View E:


Walter Smith, Rangers manager, said on BBC Sport:

"I don't know how many officials we have got on the pitch but they all missed it."

Note: Walter Smith is not the only one who doesn't know how many match officials are present in Europa and Champions League matches!


UEFA appears to pride itself in their experiment using additional assistant referees (or EARs). However, this post will repeat the concerns about the use of EARs and their extra pairs of eyes.

HKRef wonders whether:

1) there are 5 or 6 match officials?
Yes, like Walter Smith, we are confused about how many match officials there are. UEFA continues to call this an experiment using 5 match officials (officially stating "5 Referees") but there are clearly 6 match officials in the team.

2) “more vision, communication and information” is having the desired effect.
What desired effect?
a) If the desired effect is for match officials to identify more incidents occurring in the penalty area as well as to have a deterrent effect on players who may like to foul in the penalty area (as officially stated when EARs were first introduced in the 2009-10 Europa League), then the experiment has failed.
b) Furthermore, if the desired effect is to improve the performance of the match Referee in terms of better decision making and enhanced credibility (as implied by the introduction of EARs to assist the Referee), then that too has failed.

3) the campaign for more respect for Referees will be undermined by missed incidents.
Examples include this post's DOGSO handball that was missed by all match officials plus others elsewhere)
By having a detrimental effect on the performance of the Referee, the EAR experiment provides players, coaches, fans and commentators with more "ammunition" to disrespect match officials.


HKRef does NOT consider the use of EARs or additional assistant referees to be a proper trial or experiment that will yield valid results. This is because UEFA, FIFA and IFAB have not, and in all likelihood will not, provide their methodology, results, and interpretation of results freely and transparently to the public.


Related Post

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

LOTG and Laws of Physics: Part 2

This post adds supplementary content to LOTG and Laws of Physics [in response to comments from PrimeTime and dubhe. Thanks for the comments.]

Howard Webb is a good competent Referee (see The Big Decisions, my previous comments about him in Webb's Weak Woeful Week). And probably a nice bloke from Yorkshire too; a Sheffield lad, I'm told. What concerns me is that he is a full-time professional, and has received excellent training, tools and resources, and yet for the Elite category of Referees he appears to fall short of what is expected.

My take on Howard Webb's foul decision in the Liverpool v Spurs match is that it is a difficult call to make unless the Referee also considers the movement of the colliding bodies after impact. That is, try to use the Laws of Physics to help. Granted, this is difficult to do in real-time but it is reasonable to put full-time professional Referees at a higher standard; also, the intense interest and scrutiny in the professional game demands it. I believe full-time professional Referees set the benchmark for the rest of us.

There was a similar incident in a recent MLS match between Colarado Rapids and DC United on Saturday 14 May 2011 [Week 9]. The match finished 1—1. In that incident, the Referee called the foul, which happened to be inside the penalty area, and therefore a penalty was awarded to DC United. Here are the freeze frames:

In the back!

Before that penalty decision in the 61', DC United were trailing 0—1 and were understandably feeling aggrieved about an earlier penalty appeal that was not given. Here is that earlier incident:

DC United player Joseph Ngwenya (black) is fouled in the box, but the Referee played on

This foul occurred in the 56'. For whatever reason, the Referee missed the penalty decision and subsequently the fouled DC United player, Joseph Ngwenya, ran up to the Referee shouting and seemingly charged the Referee. Because of this, the Referee was perhaps affected and influenced.

DC United player Joseph Ngwenya getting up close and personal

[Note: If needed (and requested by readers), I have yet another example of the importance of using the Laws of Physics when considering body collisions. In that example, two different camera angles give two very different views and highlights the need for everyone to accept the Referee's decision at the time it is made. After all, there is only one Referee of a football match.]



Regarding Emile Heskey

Following up after Heskey's outburst, in the Aston Villa match away at Arsenal, caretaker coach Gary McAllister benched Heskey and subbed him on in the 90+1' to help run down the clock.

News reports have also made noises about Sven Goran Eriksson claiming to move for Heskey, who they say appear to be unsettled. Eriksson is currently manager at Championship side Leiceister City, Heskey's first professional and boyhood club. During his time as England manager, Eriksson was an admirer of Heskey, regularly pairing him with Michael Owen.

LOTG and Laws of Physics

The following two incidents occurred during the EPL match between Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday 15 May 2011. The match finished 0—2.

The Referee was Howard Webb (see Webb Scrutiny, where HKRef mentions hope that Webb can bounce back for the remainder of the season). Of these two incidents, one was a poor decision and the other was a half-good decision. One is concluded directly from the Laws Of The Game and the other is determined from the Laws of Physics.


Luis Suarez's Petulant Kick

Liverpool forward Luis Suarez is a fantastic player. He also has a reputation for sometimes doing stupid things. For example, whilst at Ajax this season he was given a seven-match ban for biting an opponent's shoulder (see Liverpool's fine young cannibal).

On Sunday, Suarez did another stupid act; he kicked an opponent who was down on the ground. This was foolish and completely unnecessary. Credit to Spurs defender Michael Dawson for not reacting in kind to Suarez's petulant kick.

Webb was probably close enough to see Suarez kick Dawson

It is not 100% clear whether Webb saw the incident, but one good thing is that he was helped by the fact that Dawson and other players did not become needlessly involved. Players from both teams allowed the Referee to decide on the sanction, if any. This is the ideal: Allow the Referee space and time to manage and make a decision without any unnecessary interference and pressuring by players. So what did Webb do?


Webb cautioned Suarez. Did Webb in fact see the incident? Was Webb's decision correct in Law?

A famous example of this kind of stupidity and petulance is David Beckham's kick on Diego Simeone during the England and Argentina match in the 1998 World Cup. No one could justly complain when Referee Kim Milton Nielsen sent off David Beckham. These days, it seems we could do with more Referees who have courage to make the correct decisions, no matter how tough it may be at the time.

Instead, many Referees mistakenly believe they have to be touchy-feely and pally-friendly with players.

Notice also Webb's characteristic hands-on approach (or the touchy-feely method). Webb certainly does like to touch and handle players (compared with, say, Phil Dowd who prefers not to get needlessly involved).


John Flannagan's Charge

A fair charge is a shoulder-to-shoulder and side-to-side barge whilst attempting to gain space and control of the ball. Any other kind of charge is unfair and therefore a foul.

In the 55', Webb awarded a penalty against Liverpool right-back Flannagan who challenged with Spurs midfielder Steven Pienaar. Here are the freeze frames:

Was this a fair charge?

Many commentators and news reports said Webb's penalty decision was dubious and questionable (see BBC Sport, Guardian Football and Telegraph Football), with the emphasis that the challenge was a fair shoulder barge. Secondary to that, the challenge is claimed to have occurred outside the box. From the benefit of analyzing the freeze frames post-match (which all match Referees do not have in real time), Webb's decision was only half correct. It was a foul (i.e. an unfair charge) but contact was in fact outside the penalty area.

Take a look at Pienaar's body movement following contact with Flannagan. After the collision, is Pienaar's body moving sideways or is he falling forward? If sideways this would mean he was charged shoulder-to-shoulder and side-to-side. If falling forward this would indicate that he was charged from behind. From the freeze frames, although it may look as if contact between the players was shoulder-to-shoulder, on closer inspection Pienaar is actually just in front of Flannagan and because of this Flannagan's right side is pushing more of Pienaar's back rather than his left side. This is the force that pushes Pienaar's body forward (and also rotates it), indicating that he was pushed from behind. In contrast Flannagan's body continues to go forward (and not sideways), further indicating that there was no equal shoulder-to-shoulder collision.

In many incidents that involve players colliding, Referees should pay attention to the reactions resulting from the collision. Observing the collision of moving bodies can be revealing. The Laws of Physics really can help Referees.

Now, notice where initial contact was made. At the moment of contact, Pienaar's feet are clearly not in the penalty area and since contact was more to his back and left side, it is reasonable to conclude that contact was made outside the area. Contact did not continue in to the area because both players "bounced" off each other immediately after initial contact.


All this is pretty hard for Referee Howard Webb to see, particularly since there is a Liverpool player possibly hindering his view of the incident. Webb however can perhaps see the way Pienaar falls to ground. Therefore, Webb got the foul right and the location of the foul wrong.


SUMMARY

As mentioned above: Of these two incidents, one was a poor decision and the other was a half-good decision. The former can be concluded directly from the Laws Of The Game, while the latter can be determined from the Laws of Physics.


Related Post

Sometimes, Referees Have To Rely On Intuition Alone

LOTG and Laws of Physics: Part 2

Recognizing Player Behaviour: 1991 FA Cup Final

In addition to knowing team tactics, it is also important for Referees to understand individual player behaviour. This blog has previously mentioned the importance of the former (see Referees in Tune With Team Tactics), but the latter can be useful for Referees too.

I was reminded of this recently when I read Paul Gascoigne's poignant remarks, in an interview leading up to this year's 2011 FA Cup Final on Saturday 14 May, about his feelings as a 23-year-old English star footballer immediately prior, during and after his self-destructive 1991 FA Cup Final appearance for Tottenham Hotspur. Here are some important quotes from Gazza, that gives some insight into player behaviour and on-pitch value judgements, who was speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live:

"... before Wembley we got the pillows out in my hotel room and were kicking them all over the place. Bouncing off the bed as high as we could and then trying to do tackles on pillows, two-footing lamp shades and half-volleying anything we could get our hands on. Getting a bar of soap out and doing a cross volley into the window."

"I remember lying in bed and the doctor came in and said, 'Look Paul, we've heard the noise, you're going to have to take these tablets'. It was a nice feeling. I think that's how I ended up in rehab!"

The tablets were Valium (or it may have been an injection, depending on which interview of Gazza one listens to), so no wonder Gazza had a "nice feeling".

Anyway, this reveals the youthful, irresponsible and uncontrolled mindset of professional footballers in the 1980s and 90s. They did not know what the word "professional" meant. These were young men—immature men—who needed guidance and quite often a good kick up the backside, rather than more money and adulation. Footballers caught up in the whirl of celebrity and the whole media circus were ill-equipped to handle the crash-course in opulent and excessive lifestyles that their working class and poorly-educated backgrounds could never practically prepare them for.

Paul Gascoigne was a poster boy for the generation of professional footballers in England who did not know how to behave like a "professional". At that age and stage, it would not be surprising if Gazza had thought he had had it all—and that it would last. Gazza was simply excited about the prospect of playing in Wembley for the FA Cup, which was possibly every English schoolboy's dream at that time. He never thought about taking care of himself and taking steps to prevent himself from picking up serious injuries. At that age and stage in his career, Gazza simply felt invincible.

In the opening seconds of the Cup Final, Gascoigne sunk his studs into the chest of Nottingham Forest's Garry Parker. Here are the freeze frames:


Gazza said:

"I wish I'd got sent off for the first tackle on Parker. I remember he'd clattered me in one game but I waited two years to get him back."

"He was one of their playmakers and what you try to do is injure his legs. If you're going to challenge him, make sure he can't kick a ball as well as he can if you hurt his feet or legs. But I nearly took his windpipe out! It was a terrible tackle I suppose."

This is how some footballers, nurtured from a tough street-smart insecure-adolescent background and surviving in tough "British-style" physical football matches, view the world around them. If a player perceives that he has been the victim or loser of previous encounters, or believes that his macho or footballing reputation has been sullied and tarnished (especially in front of his peers), oftentimes he will seek retribution on the football pitch.

Similarly, in his autobiography (ghost-written, naturally), Roy Keane famously admitted to seeking revenge on Alf Inge Haaland. Here's Keane's quote:

"I'd waited long enough. I f***ing hit him hard. The ball was there (I think). Take that you c***. And don't ever stand over me sneering about fake injuries."

"Even in the dressing room afterwards, I had no remorse. My attitude was, f*** him. What goes around comes around. He got his just rewards. He f***ed me over and my attitude is an eye for an eye."

These are extremely powerful on-pitch value judgements that some players harbour, often for a long long time. Referees need to be aware of this as best they can; but primarily coaches and those closest to players should be more aware of these powerful emotions in players. All players, particularly those who play each other regularly, have a built-in tit-for-tat counter. Some counters, whether based on factual sleights or perceived sleights, become skewed and may make a player snap, just like that.
[Note: as an outside observer, watching Emile Heskey suddenly snap last weekend made me think of the possible reason(s) for his "uncharacteristic" behaviour. It may have been Alcaraz that set off Heskey, but there may be a deeper-lying cause too; we simply don't know. It could also be non-football-related. Perhaps with time, the truth will out?]


Back to Gazza:
Minutes later [following the chest-high collision with Garry Parker] Gascoigne lunged wildly at Gary Charles and ruptured his own cruciate ligament in his right knee. In the words of the great Jimmy Hill: "He [Gazza] just takes a fly-kick at his shins. Whack!" Here are the freeze frames:


Gazza's move to Lazio was put on hold while he was out of the game for a year. Gazza said:

"I didn't go into that challenge to try and really hurt Gary Charles. I said sorry afterwards and wanted to make sure he was alright and still had a career ahead of him, and he appreciated that."

"I tried to get a good challenge on him to let him know he was in a game. I just mistimed it. It was daft and I'm gutted about that. I'm just probably one of those players who couldn't tackle. When I see the challenge I cringe myself. It's the biggest regret of my career."

So, for Referees, it is important to have an understanding of the footballing culture of the country, region or locale where one is officiating in. What things upset players and what things, within the Laws, can players accept? And why players make certain challenges. During a match, if a Referee can sense something is definitely up in a player or between certain players, it would be proactive to try to sort it out before it blows up.
Disclaimer: This advice does not apply to the minority of players who are just plain idiots who cannot learn to control themselves. But, for the majority of players who are willing to listen, what's the worse that can happen to a Referee who is trying to manage the match?

The Referee for the 1991 FA Cup Final was Roger Milford. His reflection on the events of that Cup Final are interesting too. A future post about that beckons, I reckon.


FOOTNOTE

An excellent contrast to Paul Gascoigne would be Ryan Giggs. By the time Gazza was in his early 20s, it was probably too late for an authority figure to control and manage him. However, when Giggs emerged on to the scene as a wiry and talented teenager, Alex Ferguson was shrewd in allowing Giggs to be exposed to the excesses and dangers of his celebrity. Sir Alex Ferguson is to be applauded for the way he carefully developed Giggs from his teens (Cristiano Ronaldo and others have benefited from this in their early professional years too).

Bug on Blogger

Some comments and posts on here went missing over the past couple of days (see Blogger Status May 12-13).