The outrage that followed Cuneyt Cakir's decision to send off Manchester United winger Nani in their Champions League game against Real Madrid this week was to my mind baffling.
Cakir's decision and overall performance has been variously described as 'outrageous', 'disgraceful' and 'ridiculous'. Adrian Chiles on ITV looked like a child whose home has been ransacked by the Grinch on Christmas Eve. Alex Ferguson was apparently so upset at this great miscarriage of justice that he couldn't be trusted to fulfil his post-match media obligations.
Yet despite the advantage we have of half a dozen replays of the incident, from different angles and slowed down to a speed which I feel always distorts the truth, pundits haven't reached a universal agreement. Was it the right decision?
Roy Keane incurred the wrath of Manchester United fans on Twitter for daring to go against the rest of the ITV studio and back the referee. His completely irrelevant disciplinary record as a player one of many things used against the validity of his view. Paddy Crerand suggested that his own opinion held more weight than Keane's because he'd played in a European Cup final; Keane missed his chance through suspension.
Former Premier League referees Dermot Gallagher and Graham Poll and couldn't agree either. Gallagher said "at worst it was a yellow". Poll's view was that the referee was doing his job and didn't deserve the criticism he was getting.
It's easy to forget that the referee sees an incident once, from one angle and at full speed. They make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are pretty horrific. There isn't a single referee who hasn't made a decision in good faith based on what they've seen (or think they've seen) that was later shown to be completely and indisputably wrong. Cakir didn't make such a decision.
Chiles rather helpfully read out the relevant section of Law 12- Fouls and Misconduct. Incidentally I'd recommend anyone who is paid to comment on football has a good read of FIFA's Laws of the Game. John Motson may want to pay particular attention to Law 11- Offside. 'Daylight' isn't mentioned Motty.
Unfortunately Chiles' standpoint was basically "here's the rules but they're rubbish so the referee is still wrong". What hope do officials have of building Respect when the Laws themselves don't seem to get the respect they deserve?
For clarity here are the relevant points from the Interpretation of the Laws section of Laws of the Game:
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
A player that is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off."
So the decision Cakir had to make was did Nani 'endager the safety of an opponent'? When you consider that Nani was flying through the air, both feet well off the ground, studs showing and thus having little to no control over his challenge it is easy to see why the referee felt it was dangerous. And if he felt it was dangerous he had no choice but to send Nani off.
Nani was unlucky. He was trying to control the ball and had no intent to injure his opponent. But unfortunately for him that's not something the referee has to consider when making his decision. Handball is the only infringement which has to be deliberate.
The referee, under scrutiny from assessors, is paid to apply the Laws of the Game. So why the abuse? You can disagree with his interpretation of dangerous and thus the red card. But it isn't your interpretation that matters. 'If in the opinion of the referee...' is a phrase repeated throughout the Laws. The referee's opinion was that Nani was dangerous and that certainly isn't an 'outrageous' or 'ridiculous' view.
One final bug-bear of mine is commentators calling for 'common-sense' refereeing. Alan Green on BBC Radio Five Live was very critical of League Cup final referee Kevin Friend for sending off Bradford City goalkeeper Matt Duke. Green argued that as Swansea's victory was already assured by the time of Duke's foul, the referee should have taken that and the occasion into account and let Duke off with a yellow card. If Friend had applied Green's version of 'common-sense' he'd quite rightly have been marked down heavily by the assessor. Referees can't pick and choose when to apply the laws.
There are aspects of the Laws and how officials are told to apply them that as fans we might not agree with. But the officials work under the Laws. Cakir and Friend may well have wanted to give yellow cards and keep 22 players on the field. Instead they have to be honest. Cakir thought Nani acted dangerously so he had to send him off. Friend felt Duke had denied a clear goalscoring opportunity by tripping his opponent so he had to send him off.
Perhaps instead of looking to attack officials we should try to understand their jobs and the Laws better. Until players, managers, fans and pundits really do try to understand the tough job officials have the FA's Respect campaign is doomed. They should start by reading the Laws. It never ceases to amaze me how many people paid to write/talk about football don't even know the Laws. The ignorance shown by high profile public figures such as television pundits filters down to grassroots football. And that ignorance makes the job of the parks football referee even more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment