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).

Nasty Tackles EPL Round 36: Part 2 of 2

Link to Part 1 of 2

Aston Villa v Wigan Athletic on Saturday 7 May 2011. The match finished 1—1.


Head injury vs playing advantage

In the 33rd minute, Emile Heskey of Aston Villa is fouled by Wigan's Antolin Alcaraz. Even from the distant wide-angle camera view, the left arm of Alcaraz can clearly be seen to be used against Heskey. However, Referee Mike Jones (infamous for the "beach ball and poor application of the Laws" incident) plays advantage. The first thing to consider here is whether there is a head injury to Heskey. The second thing to consider is whether Alcaraz led with his forearm and elbow (e.g. Leading with elbows is serious foul play). The third thing to consider is whether playing advantage is the correct option (since it is 2 attacking players against 4 defending players; plus the fact that there are grounds for issuing a card) or to award a direct free kick in a potentially dangerous dead-ball position.

The second consideration appears to have been missed by everyone; no one (commentators, coaches, fans, journalists or referees) raised a query about Alcaraz's unfair challenge on Heskey. It seems everyone were too consumed and distracted by Heskey's reaction and later actions, to consider what Alcaraz may have got away with.

Following a foul and a head injury to Emile Heskey (maroon), Referee Mike Jones waves "Play On"

I know all this sounds difficult and possibly complicated for Referees to do (consistently well), but this must be tempered by the fact that all EPL match officials are full-time professionals. They are trained and prepared to know what to do in these type of incidents, so they are expected to get these decisions more correct than wrong. Professional Referees set the benchmark for the rest of us.

The following is what Heskey did next.


Violent conduct towards Referee

After the defending team commits a foul and the subsequent advantage peters out, Heskey gets up and charges Referee Mike Jones.


The Referee whistles play to stop and Heskey walks away. Heskey then returns and adopts an aggressive and threatening stance right in Mike Jones' face. Heskey walks away but then returns again and holds two fingers up (indicating that he is telling the Referee that he has been fouled twice).

Eventually Mike Jones shows a yellow card to Heskey

Does anyone know what the restart was?

According to match reports (here's one example), Heskey continued to cut an angry and frustrated figure and continued to harass Jones for the remainder of the half. At half-time Heskey confronted Jones again, this time in the tunnel. Even Gary McAllister, Aston Villa's caretaker manager in the absence of Gerard Houllier, understood Heskey's unstable mental state, and promptly took him off and allowed him to leave the stadium without needing to stay to watch the second half.

Referee Mike Jones therefore had two opportunities to send off Heskey, and failed both times. Jones' leniency is to be condemned, particularly in light of the EPL's new campaign launched only last month calling for renewed respect to match officials and a curtailing of player and coach abuse toward match officials (see Education, Education, Education).

Contrast this to the bold Brazilian Referee who took immediate and decisive action against a player who did a similar thing to what Heskey did to Jones (but without the physical contact). This should be the benchmark.

Let's repeat what Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore regards as unacceptable behaviour:

"As to what we think is unacceptable; it's vitriolic abuse towards match officials and that has on occasions gone unpunished; the surrounding of referees is unacceptable; the goading of referees into trying to get opponents sanctioned we think is unacceptable; and also the undue criticism, where it spills over into questioning the referee's integrity or his honesty is also unacceptable."

It is always nauseating to read or hear commentators, coaches and playing colleagues describe that such-and-such a player is a "gentle giant" or a "gentleman", in much the same way as others describe such-and-such a player is a "tough tackler" or has a "nasty streak", as if this is supposed to exonerate and excuse such players for their immediate "uncharacteristic" behaviour during a present match. We've seen it with Harry Redknapp (in Part 1 of 2) saying it was "uncharacteristic of Charlie Adam" to do what he did, and the TV commentator John Motson effectively said much the same thing about Emile Heskey who is "sometimes accused of being too gentle for a big man to suddenly flare up like that". Referees do not have that luxury to consider. Yes, Referees should do their homework and prepare for likely scenarios according to previous behavioural traits in some players. But for every match, Referees can only make decisions based on what has actually happened during that match. Referees do not have the luxury, nor should they need to have, to base their decisions on a player's previous history.

Therefore, Referees do should not care whether Emile Heskey is a gentle giant most of the time, or whether he is an intimidating and imposing big black bulging player some of the time. Referees should only care about what happened there and then in real-time and in the moment. It would be interesting to know what was going through Mike Jones' mind during the incidents with Heskey (just as it would be interesting to know what Jones was thinking during the beach ball incident too).

NOTE: It appears something is not quite right with Emile Heskey. Some people have claimed that Heskey's frustrations are due to his and his team's erratic form this season. This is pure speculation. Only Heskey and those close to him may know why he had such a sustained emotional outburst, and the reason(s) for this may not necessarily be football-related. We simply do not know. It will be interesting to observe how Heskey is over the next few matches.


SUMMARY

Whether they like it or not, professional Referees set the benchmark for the rest of us. And when players, coaches and fans witness any leniency or incidents that are poorly dealt with in the professional arena, it makes it that much harder for the rest of us in the semi-professional, amateur and youth ranks who are trying to apply the Laws consistently to facilitate matches that are fair, safe and enjoyable.

Nasty Tackles EPL Round 36: Part 1 of 2

As the business end of the Premiership season hots up, there appeared to be a number of serious incidents that were perhaps missed or poorly dealt with by match officials over the weekend on Saturday 7 and Sunday 8 May 2011. This is a time when match officials have to be at their very best. Although it has been a long, tiring, intensive season, and despite the fact that fitness and concentration levels may be waning, this is no time to perform poorly.

Here are some of these missed or poorly dealt with incidents from three premiership matches. As usual, there is a SUMMARY at the end of Part 2 of this long two-part post which comments mainly on nasty tackles.


Stoke City v Arsenal on Sunday 8 May 2011. The match finished 3—1.

Two Jack Wilshere tackles were particularly nasty.

First Wilshere tackle

In the 15th minute, Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere lunges wildly and makes contact with his studs on Stoke midfielder Dean Whitehead. Wilshere then reacts because Whitehead lands on him due to his own poor tackle. Handbags come out.

After the handbags, Referee Mark Halsey gives a no-nonsense public warning to Jack Wilshere. Halsey clearly says "No more".

Second Wilshere tackle

In the 69th minute, Wilshere goes in studs first against Stoke midfielder (and ex-Arsenal player) Jermaine Pennant.


This is not a fair 50-50 challenge. As mentioned in previous posts about unfair challenges (e.g. here), one player (in this case, Wlishere) is clearly endangering the safety of his opponent, as opposed to the other competing player who is focused on playing the ball. In 50-50 challenges, both (or all) players are entitled to challenge for the ball. What they are not entitled to is to do so in a manner that will, or could potentially, endanger the safety (and career) of their opponent.


Mark Halsey was wrong to only caution Wilshere; especially in light of the fact that he had already given young Jack an ultimatum of "No more" earlier in the 15th minute of the match. The yellow to Jermaine Pennant was correct.


Tight Offside not called

In the 12th minute, there was an offside decision to make.


I acknowledge that this is a tight and tough call, However, we have seen ARs correctly make these calls before (look out for a future post on this: tight offside calls), so there is an expectation generated here; perhaps unreasonably so.

The problem is that, unless there is a clear directive from the FA that promotes attacking play, whenever the media expose and highlight these tight offsides as being "wrong" (despite the fact that ARs are human and in such tight decisions giving the attacking team the benefit of doubt is indeed promoting attacking play) all the blame and bile and bitterness gets aimed directly at the match officials. Therefore, is it clear to all that attacking play should be promoted in the Premier League?



Tottenham Hotspur v Blackpool on Saturday 7 May 2011. The match finished 1—1.


Charlie Adam serious foul play

In the 61st minute, Spurs winger Gareth Bale rides a challenge from behind by Keith Southern (who Bale just nutmegged) but cannot avoid Blackpool captain Charlie Adam, who aggressively charges in and stamps on Bale's left foot with his studs. Oftentimes, inferior opponents react negatively when a piece of skill is executed well and leaves mud on the face(s) of opponents. Did this have a bearing on Adam's nasty tackle?

[Beware: the following freeze frames may induce a sensation of horror and sympathy, simultaneously!]

Scotsman Charlie Adam makes a nasty tackle on Welshman Gareth Bale

Did Referee Lee Probert have the angle?

The answer appears to be "No". Furthermore, the location of the incident also meant that the ARs and 4th Official could not see what actually happened either.

The FA should take retrospective action against Blackpool's Charlie Adam. If the FA does so, it will send a clear message to players and coaches that tough aggressive tackles that pose a threat to player safety (and could even be career-threatening) will not be tolerated. The FA has taken retrospective action before with Lee Bowyer receiving a three-match ban for a stamping incident earlier this season.

However, Spurs boss Harry Redknapp refused to blame Adam and said:

"It was a bad challenge by Charlie [Adam] but it's out of character for him."

Next, Part 2 of 2