billymumphrey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 1,603
Rob McNichol said:I described Manchester City v Manchester United on Twitter (@RobMcNichol) on Sunday as the kind of game that you had to put aside feeling about footballers and their wages and egos - and if you couldn't enjoy that game, then you might never enjoy a game of football again.
But surely to anyone who is able to put to one side any partisan leanings and just view the game as a piece of entertainment that was as exciting as football can get. It also, hopefully, puts the bed the horrible platitude we are often force fed which suggest that red cards ruin games of football.
Look, if you are a Manchester City fan then of course it ruined it from your perspective as it seriously hampered your chances of winning the football match. But for everyone else, the sending off of Vincent Kompany was an early stomach churner on this rollercoaster of a cup tie.
It was a little like the protagonist's girlfriend getting kidnapped in the opening act of a thriller movie, setting up the hero to retrieve the situation against the odds. It wasn't pleasant, and you hated to see that happen to her, but it didn't half heighten the excitement for the remainder of the flick.
With all that said, it was a pretty woeful decision in my eyes. And my eyes are ones that look at it from an official's perspective. What I mean by that is I try to identify a good decision by whether it correlates with the Laws of football, as opposed to whether, in an ideal world, I think it ought to be allowed or not.
For instance, when a player gets cautioned for removing his shirt. I hate that. Why should a player be sanctioned for enjoying himself in the thrill of scoring a goal? It's a nonsense. But I don't blame the referee for showing the yellow card. He is following the rules. It's his job.
But in this instance, I think Chris Foy got it wrong on all counts. I believe I will quote the Laws of the Game in a second and show why I think it was wrong. It will just be my opinion, of course, and that phrase is going to be crucial as we analyse the incident, and indeed some of the upshots of an occurrence such as this. There will be some that could use the very same words, in black and white, to explain why they think I am wrong and Mr Foy was right.
Right, here we go. The first three paragraphs of the section under the sub-heading 'Serious Foul Play' in Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct read as follows:
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Starting with the first paragraph, I do not believe that Kompany's challenge on Nani was brutal, nor did he use excessive force in my opinion. The second point is a thornier one. There is an argument to say that every tackle ever made could endanger a players' safety in some way. If you leave to one side trite phrases such as 'two footed tackle' and 'leaving the ground' and simply watch the tackle, I think you will see that Kompany is relatively careful and restrained. If he had any thoughts of 'endangering the safety' of his opponent, he would have hit much harder.
And then there is the last paragraph, in which it does not necessarily say that a two-footed tackle is worthy a red card. It says that any tackle - with 'one or both legs' - which falls into the 'excessive' or 'dangerous' criteria is a red card offence. I think you have to put out of your mind any preconceptions, in a similar manner to 'you can't raise your hands' or any other piece of nonsense that is perpetuated by the ill-informed spouting them over and over again, look at the tackle and ask yourself if you think it was so dangerous that Kompany had to go. I think, very simply, that there was little wrong with it.
Of course, as soon as any bad decision (or something perceived by some to be a bad decision) occurs, the technology brigade instantly declares that football will suddenly become perfect with the advent of technological advancements being allowed into football.
A while ago I was completely anti-technology, and I have mellowed somewhat. I agree that goal-line technology, providing that tests show that it is almost infallible and quick, should be brought in as soon as possible. I would also stretch to officials being allowed to look at off the ball incidents which they missed to pass judgement on.
Calling for technology and saying it will eradicate errors - or even decrease them - is very short sighted in my opinion, when it relates to an incident such as this. There are two major arguments to make, with the first likely to be played out on the comments section of this article.
As soon as I posted on Twitter that I didn't think it was a sending off, I got a huge selection of responses. Most agreed, but there were many - enough to be a significant and notable percentage - who felt I was wrong. Kompany, they said, WAS in breach of the Laws. He did use excessive force, said they. He was endangering Nani's safety. No doubt the opinions you will shortly be debating on this page will see conflicting opinions. That's great for a site like this, but it's not so great for officiating a game of football.
A ball crossing the line is either a goal, or not a goal. A tackle like this has no official definition. It's either a red card or not, in someone's opinion. Not in fact.
So where exactly would technology help? Are you saying he should call for a replay, Cricketing third Umpire style? If so, there is still no guarantee that the decision will be the best decision. If it is down to the ref in the stands watching a TV, he could still call it either way, and still someone will be upset.
The only semi-workable plan would be that if a referee is not sure, he can ask for a replay and go and watch it himself. Technologically that would be possible, because they do it in American Football. However, where do you stop? Do you only do it for red card tackles? What about for deflections when you are not sure if it is a corner or a goal-kick? You'd be stopping after every second. And if you think players hound referees enough now, what will they do if they know the ref has the ability to stop play and check if he was right or not? Also, some referees are that pig-headed sometimes they probably would refuse to call for a replay, thus angering everybody even more.
There actually might have been one incident worthy of a ref looking at a replay, which was the 'handball' by Phil Jones. Whether or not you think it was a penalty, Mr Foy had a poor view for the incident (although I'm not necessarily blaming him for that). I suppose if the technology was readily available he could look at some angles to get a better idea of events. I know that in real-time I shouted 'penalty' but when I saw a replay I changed my mind.
Again, though, this has a flaw, because the argument would always be 'what if Manchester United got the ball and had a chance to break at pace?' If we stop the game to review, it kills one of the great selling points of football, which is that it is so fast flowing and natural. Every other sport that employs this kind of technology (Cricket, NFL, Tennis, Rugby) has natural breaks in play. Football doesn't.
It's sad in some ways that a truly wonderful game like this Manchester derby might be defined by one bad decision, but of course it's my job to dwell on such matters. Have your say on this - it is of course wholly welcomed - but then move on and revel in the fact that when football is done right, when it is done like this, there truly is no better form of entertainment on Earth.
Rob McNichol
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.football365.com/faves/7419795/Ref365" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.football365.com/faves/7419795/Ref365</a>
