Bigmouth Strikes Again

It's not often I can turn the car radio on and hear them talking rugby league. Less so at drive time on a station that isn't Talksport. And that is Dr Marwan Koukash's great strength. His press conference on Tuesday was the latest in a long line of outbursts to make headlines beyond rugby league circles. He single-handedly gets the sport in the newspapers and for that we as a sport should be grateful. But should Salford fans? 

Dr Koukash flew into town and saved a dying club. But that does not mean the Salford faithful have to accept everything he says and does. And he has a lot to say. News coming out of Salford seems to be a stream of negativity. Whether it's the usual soft target of the RFL, players departed or even their own supporters there's always someone in the firing line.

Tim Sheens' appointment is a big coup for Salford. That should have been the story on Tuesday. Fanfare ought to greet the recruitment of a World Cup winning coach but it was lost in the noise of accusations and threats. Whether it is a good appointment or not remains to be seen (penny for Iestyn Harris' thoughts) but as a news piece it should have been standalone and something to shout about. 

What did Dr Koukash and Salford really gain from making accusations, counter-accusations and threats against the Council and Kevin Locke? The intention was some sort of rallying call to supporters but I think it was ill-advised and badly timed. The reaction from fans has been one of unease, not the 'us against the world' mentality Dr Koukash must have had in mind.

Negativity breeds negativity and I think in Salford we have a club with an image problem. They're desperate to increase attendances to help meet the huge rent costs of the AJ Bell Stadium. In March Dr Koukash announced the club could lose up to £20,000 a game if crowds didn't grow. Clearly attendances have been a major worry at the club culminating their official Twitter account calling out the fans after a poor turnout against Huddersfield in May. The backlash from fans couldn't have been clearer. 'How to alienate the fans', 'embarrassing', 'pathetic and small time' just three responses that summed up the mood. You can't expect thousands who wouldn't otherwise have gone to a game to turn up because you're telling the world you can't afford them not to. 

Putting aside issues with the ground itself, the location and access being the main bugbears, there is one thing that guarantees better crowds and that's a successful team. To that end Dr Koukash has done his best. He's funded some big names and pushed for the marquee player rule to come in so he can bring in a real crowd-puller. But it will take time to build a team that can challenge. This isn't football where relatively quickly you can assemble a title-winning side provided you have deep enough pockets. In the meantime you have to build a unity, the sense of a club all pulling in one direction. That is where Salford are completely failing.

Look at Leigh and the journey they are on is clear. The stories coming out of the club are relentlessly positive. They're attracting Super League players and have the momentum of a town behind them. The club is everywhere in Leigh. Of course it's easier to get everyone onside when you're a full-time side in a league of part timers and win comfortably most weeks. Salford don't have that luxury so what are they to do?

I think the time has come to shut up shop and focus on getting things right on the field. They can learn some lessons from across Manchester. When Manchester City won the lottery the club was the focus of lots of negative attention. When it started to get to those entrusted with running things they stopped talking. Motormouths like Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Garry Cook were given the boot. They even hired a manager whose press conferences are so outstandingly dull reporters have been seen drifting off at the back. Salford could benefit from a similar approach because the noises coming from the club are so overwhelmingly negative they can only be damaging.

Players and coaches can claim they don't let outside influences affect them but I don't believe that for a second. The negativity and image coming out of the club impacts directly on the team when it deters potential signings or makes current players think twice about signing a new contract. And it impacts indirectly when it affects the number of people watching games and the mood they are in when they get to their seat.

A strong Salford side would be good for rugby league but they need to reassess their approach as a club if they are to realise the owner's dream. They have much to be positive about, not that you'd know it if you read the newspapers. 

A Little Respect?

There's nothing like a controversial refereeing decision to expose the ignorance of players, managers, fans and the media.

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.

Defenders or Eastenders?

The scorelines belong in the 1930s but the coverage does not. Far from reading about the goalscoring heroics of a centre forward or the bravery of a plucky goalkeeper (for he's a jolly good fellow!) the back pages remain rooted in the drudgery of 2012.

There were 37 goals in the fourth round of the League Cup, the highest number since 1964. This came off the back of a Premier League weekend containing a pulsating Merseyside derby and a top of the table clash, not to mention a 3-3 draw between Reading and Fulham complete with four late goals.

You'd be forgiven for not realising what an exciting week of football it has been. Handshakes, t-shirts, Twitter and name-calling continue to take all the headlines. Why have we allowed the 'beautiful game' to be dragged down to this level? I can't be the only one to find the soap opera surrounding and engulfing the top level of English football a big turn-off.

And no, I'm not trivialising the race issue that has erupted from a few isolated albeit high-profile incidents. We'd be foolish to think racism had ever been eradicated from football in this country. It remains a part of wider society and as such will always have an unwelcome presence in sport no matter how much work is done to kick it out.

But let's not talk ourselves into believing we have major issues. As a sporting fraternity and a society we're not mired in the problems facing Serbia for example. In The Sun newspaper Rob Beasley opens his piece on Chelsea's to-and-fro 5-4 extra-time win over Manchester United with the following: 'It took only a matter of seconds for the racial abuse to break out at Stamford Bridge'. What had he heard? United fans chanting "where's your racist centre half?" towards suspended John Terry. That clearly does not constitute racial abuse.

Isolated incidents of racism become huge stories partly because they are so rare. The Luis Suarez affair was handled appallingly by Liverpool FC and became a bigger story because of it. John Terry and Anton Ferdinand's row was dragged out for months because of the inexplicably long wait for the judicial process to run its course and then the subsequent Football Association investigation.

In both cases the choreographed nonsense surrounding matches exacerbated the problems. I don't think I've spoken to another fan who thinks the pre-match 'fair play' handshake does anyone any good. It disrupts the excitement which builds leading into a game. What was wrong with two teams, led by their captains, running out of the tunnel to opposite ends of the ground? After the game they can shake hands signalling an end to 90 minutes of competitive hostility.

The talk after a game should be focused on footballing issues. Tactics, performances, managers and naturally and unavoidably referees. We aren't short of talking points. Brendan Rodgers, Martin O'Neill, Mark Hughes and Roberto Mancini are all said to be under varying degrees of pressure. The latter’s experiment with a back three is an interesting tactical development. Last year’s two-horse race looks to have a third runner while at the other end Southampton’s matches have seen goals galore. Summer imports have had mixed fortunes. Michu and Hazard have impressed but Anita and Lloris have struggled for game time.

We need to remember that for all the column inches and phone-in calls it generates, the ‘drama’ of a handshake snub or nasty tweet can never and will never beat the genuine drama and excitement of a last minute winner or comeback from 4-0 down. There’s a reason football’s worldwide success eclipses that of WWE. Let’s not forget it.