The sending off of Vincent Kompany in the FA Cup 3rd Round caused a huge debate given the importance of the match, but it is just one of a number of controversial refereeing decisions this season. There has been an inevitable chorus of former footballers who have groaned that “football is in danger of becoming a non-contact sport”. Robbie Savage complained in his column in the Daily Mirror that, “they are trying to take tackling out of the game and it saddens me. What happened to Vincent Kompany on Sunday at Eastlands was outrageous. A hard but fair tackle in which he maintained control was rewarded with a red card.”
 |
| Look at my tackle... |
Tackling is to many supporters the greatest expression of their conception of the game. It encompasses qualities so admired in English football such as passion, strength and bravery.
The issue of tackling was also fundamental in the initial formalisation of the game. It is commonly known that a disagreement about whether a player should be allowed to carry the ball was one of the reasons for the split between football and rugby. Less known is that a conflict over the level of physical contact allowed that was also a key to the split.
In earlier drafts of the original FA rules rule 10 stated that, “If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him.” Most of delegates involved in forming those first rules agreed that carrying the ball and hacking should be outlawed, but the FA’s first treasurer F.W. Campbell objected saying, “hacking is the true football.” Campbell withdrew his club, Blackheath, from the FA, and Association Football began its life with a clear philosophical distinction from Rugby Football.
The idea that physical contact should have clear limitations was a fundamental component of original laws of the game, and not a more recent innovation from FIFA.
 |
| Ah the good old days |
Rules do change over time however and many have been introduced to benefit attacking football. Take the offside rule. Originally forward passes weren’t even permitted, a rule that remains in rugby to this day. They become permitted in 1866, but only if three defensive were between the receiver and goal at the time of the pass. In 1925 this limitation was reduced to 2 players to promote attacking football, which resulted in a rise from 4,700 goals in the 1924-25 Football League season to 6,373 the following year. Continuing in the desire to open up the game, the rule was liberalised further in 1990, by allowing the attacking player to be level with the second-to-last opponent. Finally, in 2003, FIFA issued new guidelines stating the attacking player is only offside if they are “active”.
 |
| If only it was this simple... |
The same trend has been seen in the laws for tackling and the changes have been equally beneficially for the game. The greatest players of all times suffered at the hands of opponents using brutal tactics to force them out of the game. Pele was famously kicked out of the 1966 World Cup by Joao Morais and Maradona was fouled 23 times by Claudio Gentile in one 1982 World Cup match, after which Gentile famously quipped “football is not for ballerinas.”
 |
| Police arrest that man! |
In an attempt to reduce injuries, such at the one that forced Marco Van Basten to retire prematurely at 28, FIFA outlawed the tackle from behind in 1998. This trend has continued, the intention being to reduce injuries and favour attacking football. UEFA president Michel Platini has made the point that it was hard to compare the play of current world player of the year Leo Messi with previous greats since today, “he can play football and express his talent… before talented players had to think first to avoid blows.”
 |
| The true golden balls but the best ever? |
The current laws of the game set out which challenges constitute a sending off offense – “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.” The referee thus has a simple decision to make – is the tackle dangerous to the point of endangering the opponent.
All the debate surrounding Kompany's tackle concerning over whether he won the ball, how high he was off the ground when contact was made, and whether Nani complained about the challenge becomes rather irrelevant in this light.
Tackling is a skill that is learned in the same way passing or shooting is. It has to be acknowledged, however, that when the tackler goes to win the ball, the risk of injury is very much weighted in the person he is challenging. Most players, managers and fans love a good clean hard tackle, and will accept in some situations mistakes are unintentionally made and injuries occur.
All the debate surrounding Kompany's tackle concerning over whether he won the ball, how high he was off the ground when contact was made, and whether Nani complained about the challenge becomes rather irrelevant in this light.
 |
| Hmm... I'm sure it's supposed to be one of these |
Tackling is a skill that is learned in the same way passing or shooting is. It has to be acknowledged, however, that when the tackler goes to win the ball, the risk of injury is very much weighted in the person he is challenging. Most players, managers and fans love a good clean hard tackle, and will accept in some situations mistakes are unintentionally made and injuries occur.
A two-footed tackle, however, is a very deliberate action. It is not in the same bracket as a 'late' one-footed challenge, which can also be dangerous if mistimed and excessively forceful. Making a two-footed tackle requires a specific technique and body movement – it is inherently aggressive and by its nature, dangerous.
The mass hysteria regarding Kompany’s challenge and the ‘death of the tackle’ is bemusing. Week after week in the Premiership superb tackles are made with players going to ground to make challenges and well timed sliding challenges are an enjoyable and essential part of the game. If tackling was been outlawed, would it be possible to England captain John Terry and Manchester United skipper Nemanja Vidic to be considered two of the best defenders in world football, when their game is based on their physical presence and strong tackling? Even the most graceful defenders of all time, such as Paulo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Bobby Moore and Franz Beckenbauer, have needed to produce sliding challenges on numerous occasions, but their technique meant it was rarely reckless.
 |
| One word... legend |
Of course it’s would be ridiculous to expect every defender to have the grace of Baresi or Moore. But Kompany’s challenge was not a sliding challenge in any sense of the term. He was in mid-air from the moment he launched himself at Nani, and therefore, unlike in a genuine sliding challenge, at no point is his weight supported by the ground. His entire body weight is directed at Nani’s ankles.
 |
| Is it a bird, is it a plane... |
Luckily for Kompany (and more pertinently, luckily for Nani), Nani saw Kompany flying directly at him and decided to pull out from challenging for the ball and jump over Kompany's oncoming studs.
If Nani had not seen Kompany coming there would have been a huge danger of a repeat of the shocking injuries to seen to Aaron Ramsey and Eduardo in recent seasons. Sadly if Nani had been seriously injured it is likely the debate over Kompany's challenge would be less vociferous, but really should it take a player to get seriously injured before a challenge is deemed to be dangerous and reckless? Not according to the laws of the game, and not according to fair minded observers.
The physical side of the game is integral to football, and it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to use physical attributes to compensate for a lack of technical qualities. But even in extreme contact sports such as rugby or boxing, there are rules in place to prevent the physicality from being potentially dangerous. In rugby, for example, the spear tackle is punishable by an automatic red card, as Welsh captain Sam Warburton found out to his cost in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi-final. It was thought to be harsh by many commentators at the time, but even in a sport based around physicality player welfare is considered an imperative.
 |
| Ok you can have the ball and I'll keep my legs thanks |
If Nani had not seen Kompany coming there would have been a huge danger of a repeat of the shocking injuries to seen to Aaron Ramsey and Eduardo in recent seasons. Sadly if Nani had been seriously injured it is likely the debate over Kompany's challenge would be less vociferous, but really should it take a player to get seriously injured before a challenge is deemed to be dangerous and reckless? Not according to the laws of the game, and not according to fair minded observers.
 |
| Hard but fair... are you sure Vincent? |
The physical side of the game is integral to football, and it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to use physical attributes to compensate for a lack of technical qualities. But even in extreme contact sports such as rugby or boxing, there are rules in place to prevent the physicality from being potentially dangerous. In rugby, for example, the spear tackle is punishable by an automatic red card, as Welsh captain Sam Warburton found out to his cost in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi-final. It was thought to be harsh by many commentators at the time, but even in a sport based around physicality player welfare is considered an imperative.
 |
| That's more like a Rugby tackle... oh yeah it is |
The same thinking underpins FIFA’s attitude to two-footed tackles. There is no legitimate sporting justification to making such a challenge and they have rightly been outlawed. Once Kompany jumped at Nani with both feet off the ground, whether he made contact with his opponent, injured him or won the ball are irrelevant. As Lee Dixon pointed out in a recently BBC blog on the subject, “players have a responsibility to not make tackles like that… I was a tough tackling full-back and in the past I've made some strong tackles from behind and the side, but in 22 years of playing I never made a two-footed tackle. I don't understand the need to jump in with both feet.”
 |
| Are you sure Dixon? |
A large reason for the frustration regarding refereeing this season has been the lack of consistency. We have seen Yohan Cabaye and Frank Lampard, amongst others, getting away with leg-breaking-type tackles, while Nedad Milijas was sent off for a far less dangerous offense. The inconsistencies were highlighted further when in Manchester City’s next game, Liverpool’s Glen Johnson committed what appeared to be an equally dangerous tackle to Kompany’s, but referee Lee Mason didn’t even give a free kick for the challenge.
 |
| Anything Kompany can do, I can do better |
 |
| Now lads, I'm not telling you how to do your job but... |
Consistency needs to be brought in if referees are to be given the respect they request and deserve. The fact is, however, more proscriptive instructions are the only way to produce more consistency in decision making between games. While consistency within a match is expected, it seems more accepted that referees will differ in their philosophy and thus have a different interpretation on the same event. FIFA have become more and more proscriptive with the referees in order to try and get consistency, saying that if X happens the referee should do Y.
Many complain that this doesn’t allow for ‘common sense’ and referees have to go against their better judgment. They complain referees are being assessed from the stands by some Sepp-Blatter-loving crony who’s aim in life it is to turn all referees into mindless robots. While it is important that referees use their intelligence, their primary job is not to 'manage' the game and support the spectacle, but to apply the laws in a fair and consistent manner.
 |
| While I appreciate your suggestions... I'm not listening |
Another large complaint from pundits and players has been over the FA appeals process, which typically upholds the decisions made by the referee. While it might be frustrating, the panel can only make amends for serious and obvious errors, such as Jack Rodwell’s dismissal in the Merseyside derby. The ability to appeal red cards is actually unique amoug the major European leagues, and something that FIFA are very much against. In both FIFA and UEFA competitions red cards will only ever be rescinded in the case of mistaken identity, hence why Darren Fletcher missed the 2009 Champions League final, even though he was sent off for a perfectly clean challenge in the semi-final against Arsenal. They believe the referee should be supported at all times and the FA therefore have to be very careful in overturning decisions given the friction over this matter.
 |
| Oh no, now we're going to have to play with Anderson in the final |
Unfortunately, while the higher echelons of the football pyramid are doing much to promote fair play and reduce dangerous play, their campaigns on respecting referees have led them to be in denial that there is a problem with the standard and consistency of decision-making. There are continuous debates over the merits of goal-line technology, video technology and extra officials but the consistent tone from FIFA and UEFA suggests the problem is exaggerated and there are no solutions beyond better refereeing.
Bizarrely Platini also suggested the debate caused by controversial refereeing decisions was also beneficial to the popularity of the game - ‘Football has also based its popularity on injustice You can remember them and talk about them in the bars. You can talk about 1982, France-Germany, it was an injustice like the hand of Maradona or that of Henry. The notoriety also comes from negative things in football.’
He steadfastly refuses to entertain the idea of using technology to improve decision making, believing extra officials behind the goal-lines are the solution to all the problems. The reality has shown they have had minimal impact on the decision making process and have so far been well paid spectators.
Bizarrely Platini also suggested the debate caused by controversial refereeing decisions was also beneficial to the popularity of the game - ‘Football has also based its popularity on injustice You can remember them and talk about them in the bars. You can talk about 1982, France-Germany, it was an injustice like the hand of Maradona or that of Henry. The notoriety also comes from negative things in football.’
He steadfastly refuses to entertain the idea of using technology to improve decision making, believing extra officials behind the goal-lines are the solution to all the problems. The reality has shown they have had minimal impact on the decision making process and have so far been well paid spectators.
 |
| I think human eyes are better than those of a hawk |
No problem can be solved before the problem itself is acknowledged to exist. While FIFA have recognized the problem of dangerous tackles and put measures in place to protect players, they have yet to acknowledge the inconsistencies and injustices that occur on a weekly basis. While Chris Foy rightfully dismissed Kompany for his dangerous challenge, Lee Mason also got it wrong in missing Glen Johnson’s two-footed lunge three days later. Kompany is currently serving a four game ban, while Johnson will go unpunished. Whetever your feelings about tackling and red cards, that’s a situation everyone can agree is a true injustice and needs a solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment