Football used to be a game between two teams of players but now it seems to more to do with the managers trying to gain psychological advantage over their opponents by pronouncements in the media.
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, a past master of the art, is now trying to work his psyche on referees for the remaining games of Manchester United, who look as if they might bring to an end Chelsea’s run of winning the Premier League championship.
‘I didn’t realise,’ he said on television, ‘that the rules of football have changed. It seems you cannot give penalties against Manchester United and you cannot give them for Chelsea.’
What Mourinho was of course referring to was the last- minute tackle by John O’Shea in Manchester United’s home draw against Middlesborough. The television replay seemed to show that an offence had been committed in the penalty area, but I think the referee was right not to give it.
The Middlesborough player, Dong Gook Lee, was running with the ball in the Manchester United penalty area when he was brought down by O’Shea. What the law says is ‘A direct free kick (penalty) is awarded to the opposing team, if a player tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball and makes contact with the player, before touching the ball.’
Looking at the television replay in slow motion it is clear that O’Shea’s outstretched leg touched the player before knocking the ball on, so why do I say I believe the referee was right not to award the penalty that could have seen Middlesborough inflict a crucial defeat on
United?
It was a break-away attack and the referee was following the two players. Good refereeing is about positioning but in this instance the referee had no chance of attaining the optimum position, which is ‘side on’ to the incident. He could not see from his position whether the Manchester player had touched the player or the ball first. And if he didn’t see it, he shouldn’t give it. He shouldn’t guess what happened. He was also right not to put the onus on his assistant referee who, although level with the play, was too far away on the other wing.
It is too easy to make decisions because a tackle looks bad but where no offence had been committed. Also, in the past few weeks alone in televised games, we have seen defenders make some marvellous last-minute tackles that have saved certain goals but which we have had to wait for the replay to convince ourselves that the player had played the ball and not the player.
Not giving it unless you see it, does mean of course that mistakes will be made, but at least they will be honest mistakes. As some footballers miss open goals, referees, whether on the Premiership or the local parks, will miss offences. This is not a cop-out for referees, it is a fact of life but if, like footballers they miss too many, they won’t progress in the game.
This is my last column of the season so may I thank all the readers who have stopped me to pass comments about the column, mostly favourable I’m pleased to
say? I also include the e-mails and all the phone calls, including one incidentally two weeks ago from John Motson, who told me he was pleased to read the column when I related that consideration is being given to treating players on the field, whilst play continues.
Mark Lawrenson had convinced him he was dreaming when he mentioned it on television. I also understand that the column has caused arguments in at least one local pub. I rather hoped to settle arguments, not cause them.!
My thanks to David Wright, the Evening Post
Sports Editor, for once again allowing me the opportunity to give
The view from the middle..
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2007