During
the summer, my fellow Evening Post columnist, Melinda
Webb, created
some controversy
writing about 'the goal that never was', in the England-Portugal
quarter final of Euro 2004.
When you
realise that Melinda's column usually appears under 'Family
Matters' and is entitled 'Kidzone', you may
wonder why she was
writing about football. If you read her column every week,
as I do, and, as witnessed by
the letters to the editor, many other men do, you
will know that the
Webb household is a hotbed of football. Husband Ralph's
name is not unknown to
referees in the Reading Sunday League.
I have to
admit that the question I was asked all summer long was,
'should the
goal been allowed to
stand?', in other words did the Swiss referee, Urs Meier,
make a mistake.
Most
people think that the goal was disallowed because John
Terry prevented the
Portuguese goalkeeper from reaching the ball with his arms.
If, and I say if, that was the
case, then I go along with ex-Premiership referee
David Elleray, who
illustrated on television why he thought Terry had not
committed an offence.
Terry jumped up to head the ball and as we know it is
very difficult to jump
without raising your arms. The Portuguese goalkeeper
then jumped for the
ball but was prevented from reaching it by Terry's already
outstretched arms. In
other words Terry had not held the keeper.
As
referee's we
have incidents like
this all season, not of course in such dramatic situations but
they all need a
judgement. Did the player fall or was he tripped? Was the
player
held or did he run
into the opponent's arm?
I said if that was why the goal was disallowed because,
although most
newspapers
concentrated on castigating Urs Meier, some quite
disgracefully,
one newspaper reported
the referee as saying, that was not why he did it. Instead
it was for an earlier
push by an England player.
Unfortunately
the television
playback starts with
Terry's jump for the ball but if you watch it, you will see
that the referee had blown his whistle and indicated a push with
his hands rather
than holding. What
Melinda wanted was for the referee to be able to call for a
video replay as they
do in rugby, which she was sure would have given England
the goal and victory. But of course it is not quite so simple as
that.
What the
video replay is used
for in rugby, is to determine whether the ball was cleanly
grounded over the line
for a try. It may well be that in the future, similar
situations will be
covered in football at the top level but not whether a foul
has
been committed or not.
Melinda
complained that as it stands, the referee can do pretty much
what he
likes without comeback
and the hopes of an entire nation can be dashed with the
blow of a whistle.
Imagine if the referee had allowed the goal. He would have
still dashed the hopes of an entire nation, but this time it
would have been
Portugal.
Urs Meier
said after the game, 'I made the only decision possible.
'Everyone can see that
I was right. Except in England.' This is something all
referees learn, almost
every decision makes you a hero to half the players on the
pitch and a villain to
the other half.
To get
back to the question, 'was it a goal?' The answer is very
simple. No it
wasn't. Why? because
the referee said so. The Laws of the Game say 'The
decisions of the
referee regarding facts connected with play are final'. And
just
to rub it in, it goes
on to say, 'facts connected with play shall include whether a
goal is scored or not
and the result of the match'.
Dick Sawdon Smith