In one EAR, out the other EAR

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

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


Incident One DOGSO Handball Call and an Ineffective EAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Incident Two Reckless Challenge and an Effective EAR

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

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

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

I say: "No Goal"

I say: "Because he said so!"

Now I say: "? ? ?"

What is this double arm signal?

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

The match officials were:

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

Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soft Referee Not Helped By Poor Team of Assistants

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


Incident One Handball and Penalty Call

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


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


Incident Two Penalty Call

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

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

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


Incident Three Stopping A Promising Attack

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

Referee Markus Strömbergsson (Sweden)

Braga's Ewerton benefits from soft-option refereeing

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

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


Incident Four Tight Offside Call

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

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

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

Incident Five Incorrect Offside Call

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

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

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

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

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

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


SUMMARY

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

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


The match officials were:

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

Throwing Your Toys Out Of The Pram

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

Please insert your own funny caption in the Comments section below

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

Where's Wayne?

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

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

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