Missed criterias, clothing bans, triple punishment and vanishing spray

The International  Football Association Board (IFAB), the lawmaking body tasked with authorizing changes and amendments to the Laws of the Game, convened for its 125th Annual General Meeting in March 2011, in Wales.  Their rule changes sanctioned will come law on 1 July 2011. Up for consideration were some of the following vexing issues:

Goal Line Technology:  

FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter announced that none of the ten companies which had been invited to test their technology had so far been successful in meeting the specific criteria set out by the IFAB meeting on October 20, 2010. IFAB therefore agreed to a one-year extension of Goal Line Technology tests. Blatter explained:

If you have no system which is responding to the criteria that has been fixed by this entity, you cannot just jump in.

We must first have the answer to our basic principles – accuracy, speed – which means the immediate delivery of the result – and a system that is not too complicated to implement. And we haven’t achieved these three things so far with our independent laboratory.

Therefore, it is a question of one year. What is one year? It is nothing. Just a little bit of patience is needed. But it was a very positive approach in the meeting …. and there was not one single person there, despite the fact that we had a lot of special guests today, going against the tests.

The ten systems all had to demonstrate they were 100% accurate and that they could transmit the result of a goal being scored, or not, to the referee within a second. Blatter said the issue of Goal Line Technology would be brought back to the attention of IFAB next meeting – March 2012, in London – when a final decision will be taken.

Chuck Blazer

FIFA executive committee member Chuck Blazer, one of the body’s delegates to IFAB and General Secretary of CONCACAF said:

“It has got to be reliable, quick and affordable and nothing has worked at the moment. If anyone can meet that criteria I continue to be open to it. I don’t have a problem with keeping the testing open until we get something that works.”

FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke mentioned that the world governing body are “ready to pay”  for further goal line technology tests. The goal-line system developed by a British company, Hawk-Eye, was not one of the tested systems. FIFA has given the British company the assurances that they are still under consideration.

Hawk-Eye, the most established technology, having already conducted stadium testing at Reading in England, declined even to take part in FIFA’s experiment prior to the 125th AGM, apparently in anticipation of the difficult testing environment. Their version of the specific technology needed a stadium environment for their cameras. Hawk-Eye remains confident its system would pass Fifa’s tests – the company is in the process of being taken over by a larger company and it will be eager that IFAB will give them some  guarantees that IFAB will want to continue with goal line technology in the future.

The ten technology Companies had only a few months to attain Fifa’s criteria of 100% accuracy and relaying results back to the officials with speed – and it proved too difficult a task for them.

IFAB is made up of representatives from each of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland’s FAs, plus FIFA, the international governing body for football. Each UK association has one vote and FIFA has four. IFAB deliberations must be approved by three-quarters of the vote, which translates to at least six votes. FIFA’s approval is necessary for any IFAB decision, but FIFA alone cannot change the laws of the game and requires the support of at least two of the UK members.

The Welsh and Northern Irish Football Associations, which until now had backed FIFA in opposing any goal line technology, about turned their stance and are now also leaning towards supporting more tests on goal-line systems.

Fifa has announced a timetable for goal-line technology during 2011. Companies, interested in presenting their goal-line systems, need to declare their interest before 3 June 2011 to Fifa headquarters in Zurich and have to formally apply one month later with a $20,000 registration fee.

Germany's GK, Neuer, fails to save England's shot by Lampard in World Cup 2010, a catalyst for FIFA to re-evaluate their stance on goal-line technology.

Presented systems will be tested during the first phase between September and December 2011, and all systems reporting a 90% or higher accuracy in simulated match conditions would be invited back for the second phase of testing, being conducted between March and June 2012. The second phase will be more rigorous, entailing the evaluation of the qualified systems under different weather conditions, shock resistance, immunity to electronic interference and under different types of playing surfaces. Trails will be held behind closed doors and manufacturers can choose their preferred stadium for conducting such tests.

Ben Buckley, GM of the Australian Football Federation, offered his federation's services as guinea pig for FIFA's goal-line technology tests.

Australia’s Ben Buckley has already offered Fifa his willingness to help out evaluating and testing goal-line technology within the Australian Football Federation. Said Buckley in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph:

“We believe the infrastructure of the [A] League is of high enough quality to give it a meaningful trial. [Australia] took the initiative on using video technology to penalize simulation retrospectively, and pleasingly you now see very, very little of that in our game. Everyone wants to see the correct decisions made by the officials, and this seems to be a way of supporting them in that.” 

AAR’s during the EURO 2012: 

Europe’s (EUFA) president, Michel Platini, wants extra officials behind each goal line instead of technology. (Getty Images)

A presentation was also made to IFAB on the use of  Additional Assistant Referees (AAR’s) behind each goal line and IFAB approved  the continued experimentation thereof in the  EUFA Leagues and sanctioned it for the upcoming European Cup, EURO 2012, to be held in Poland and Ukraine.

Vanishing spray: 

The English Football Association (FA) asked IFAB to consider the use of ‘vanishing spray.’  The usage of coloured vanishing  spray is common practice in Brazil and South America where officials use a spray on the grass to prevent the defensive wall encroaching on the 10-yard gap at free-kicks. The spray evaporates after a minute. The small canisters of spray are carried by referees in velcro clasps during matches. The CONMEBOL football federation was granted approval to trial the use of vanishing spray in their football associations.

Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct : ‘DOGSO’s ‘Triple punishment’: 

The punishment of players, when send off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, coupled with a penalty kick if this occurs in their own 18-yard area, as well as the follow-on administrative expulsion – guilty players may have to sit follow-on matches out due to specific league rules with regard to red cards offenses) was discussed. IFAB ruled that this issue, as well as the possible usage of radio communication  in the technical area should be postponed and referred them both to FIFA’s Task Force Football 2014 team.

Snoods, Undergarments and Performance clothing  worn underneath playing kit: 

IFAB ruled neck warming scarfs (snoods) are not permitted as from 1 July 2011

Snoods, or neck warming scarfs and/or hoods, are to be outlawed as from 1 July 2011 under Law 4 – Player’s Equipment. IFAB also clarified and re-iterated that the colour of  the increasing popular usage of performance clothing (leg tights or baselayers), if worn, must match the colour of a player’s shorts.   //

The International Football Board (IFAB), the sole body tasked with football law changes, is about to discuss the next round of possible changes to be effected, or not.

The games’ law-making body will meet on March 5 with Fifa and a specific topic, marked “V.1.b” on the “Any Other Business” section of the annual meeting agenda, will be of interest to referees and some football players wearing certain garments, called snoods or neck warmers.

Arsenal player Samir Nasri wearing a snood, soon to be out-lawed by Fifa?

Fifa raised health and safety concerns, citing the issue as follows: 

“We want a debate whether it could be dangerous. There may be a safety issue – if for example a player was running though on goal and an opponent grabbed his snood, that could pose a potential danger to his neck,” a FIFA spokesman was quoted.

Players Samir Nasri (Arsenal), Argentinian Carlos Tevez (Manchester City) and Emmanuel Adebayor (loaned to Real Madrid) are among the adherents in the professional game wearing the snood winter accessory. Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, has banned his players from wearing them. Arsenal coach, Arsene Wenger, is of the opinion that snoods actually protect against injury, in reference to thermal characteristics of these garments on a player’s neck.

Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment, states:

“A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).“

It is debatable how dangerous the wearing of snoods really are, given snoods are made of soft clothing and are nothing more then a warm scarf wrap-around, usually used in those countries where players play in close to zero temperatures. This argument is apart from the issue whether players should be fashionistas, or not, in today’s modern game. The use of certain player apparel – gloves – are defined and interpreted by referees, while not mentioned anywhere in Law 4, as posing no risk of injury to player and opponent. Most referees allow snoods to be worn, being of the opinion, based on their interpretation of Law 4, that these items pose no risk to players. Or do they?

They’ve all gone soft – Roy Keane, former Manchester United Captain, on players wearing neck warmers

A scarf or snood has a higher chance of getting snagged onto a cleat, a boot, a hand, a finger, an arm.  There is a risk of neck injury, a very susceptible, exposed and weak body part due to the proximity of vertebra.

Though the chance is admittedly small that this might occur, the danger to players’ safety can be considerable. Parallels can be drawn to the Roman Law of Delict, where one of the defining principles of negligence can be summed as follows: If the chance of an incident occurring is quite remote or unlikely, but if does occur and then result in major/serious damage to property or person, then steps must be actively taken to negate or diminish such possibility of remote damage. In the absence of such active steps to prevent injury, a party or person can be held liable for negligence.

Although Law 5 (Decision 1 of the International F.A. Board) define the role of match officials, inasmuch that they cannot be held liable for any kind of injury a player might suffer due to a match official’s decision to “….allow or not to allow a player to wear certain apparel or equipment”, Fifa is of the opinion that player safety is of tantamount importance and should outweigh any thermal benefits – or fashion trends – of snood-wearing players.

Fifa wants to give guidance and clarity to referees in allowing these specific garments. By wishing to define Law 4 with possibly concrete examples of clothing items that should or should not be allowed on the field of play, Fifa endeavors for consistency in the exercise of a referee’s discretion. The issue of defining the Laws for clarity and consistency, whether such considerations to do so are based on player safety or uniformity, is akin to IFAB’s ruling a few years ago that “jerseys or shirts”  must have sleeves.

The snood has been an popular piece of kit for the professional footballer and shot to fame after Manchester City star Carlos Tevez began wearing one.

I venture to say Fifa, couching their rationale into player safety and health terms, will have a greater chance in having IFAB agreeing with their opinion in possibly having these items out-lawed. Players, for the most part, did and still do without them, and the benefit of neck protection certainly is negligible, despite their thermal attributes. Contrast this with thermal undershorts, where the player’s leg muscles are constantly stretching and flexing due to running and kicking motions, where the player is at far greater risk of pulling a leg muscle than having a neck muscle going into spasms due to lack of thermal clothing.

There is no empirical incidents detailing injuries by opponent’s studs or body parts snagging onto thermal legging under garments, as a safety hazard, and causing thus serious injury. Can the same (soon) be said for snoods if their use become more prevalent, especially since they are close to a very vulnerable part of a player’s body, his neck? I doubt it.

In my humble opinion, neck warmers are potentially far more dangerous then their benefit as thermal wear, and certainly unimportant, irrelevant, immaterial, inconsequential and trivial if snoods are to be worn for fashion reasons on the football playing field. Ultimately, referees should adhere to the following FIFA guideline pertaining to extra equipment used: thoroughly inspect said equipment  before kick-off and ascertain whether the extra equipment worn are to

(1) physically protect the player (e.g. from adverse weather elements,  or from further injury during the match where the injury was sustained earlier etc.)

(2) and  are, in the opinion of the referee, not dangerous to the player or anyone else.

If the above conditions are not fulfilled, then the referee must instruct the player/management of the team to do away with the “snood goods.” For good.

Belated congratulations to Spain for winning Fifa World Cup 2010, South Africa!

Spain, World Cup 2010 Final: 1.Iker Casillas, 15.Sergio Ramos, 16.Sergio Busquets, 3.Gerard Piqué, 11.Joan Capdevila, 14.Xabi Alonso, 21.David Silva, 8.Xavi, 7.David Villa, 6.Andrés Iniesta, 5.Carles Puyol

Since the World Cup ended on 11 July 2010 as well as my personal involvement therein, I had a long break from football … and the keyboard. Much needed.  The 2009-2010 referee season was cut by almost 9 weeks to give some recuperation time for the 2010 World Cup players, certainly the shortest and busiest season experienced since I came onto the referee panel in 2003.

Time is now of the essence to get back onto the Premier Soccer League (PSL) referee panel for the 2010-2011 season, which kicked off in great style recently at the Cape Town Stadium with a double header. Newly promoted Cape Town team Vasco da Gama debut against Orlando Pirates, scored first but lost 1-2, while Ajax Cape Town got the better of Bloemfontein Celtic with almost 45,000 people in attendance at this magnificent stadium. The fan walk that worked so well during the World Cup did its magic again, with young and old showing the World Cup atmosphere certainly will not be a once-off for the mother city.

Alas, apart from suffering serious food poisoning during the World Cup, I tore a calf muscle 3 1/2 weeks ago doing some stamina (hill) reps in preparing for the obligatory Fifa fitness test at the start of a new referee season. My first serious injury in 17 years. My physiotherapist is doing wonders with the calf with numerous 5cm needles being pushed into “pressure points” to speed up the recovery.  A combination of eastern medicine pressure, western medicine ultra-sound & laser treatment, painful deep tissue massage (you really do sweat on a table without ever moving a muscle!) as well as regular gym work/swimming to keep fitness & stamina levels up for the oncoming Fifa fitness test,  are all doing  its magic on my calf muscle. This (balanced) treatment recovery program has even my physio astounded at the recovery speed. Healthy eating via wife’s Portuguese/Mediterranean cooking… well, her food should not be underrated in this sorry escapade.

I promised earlier to do Part II, Referee Body Language. Specifically, actual exercises to hone the referee’s body language style and repertoire to communicate with players on field. It will be forthcoming…very soon. Watch this space.

I am of the opinion the Referee for the opening match between South Africa & Mexico, Ravshan Irmatov of Uzbekistan, did exceedingly well, including his 1st assistant whom correctly ruled Mexico’s goal offside. Ravshan control of the match was calm, focused, with excellent body language; he was also quick off the mark to get into good viewing angles. He did not seem  flustered or nervous given the occasion. Rated currently #15 in the world, he has a bright future and if he’s consistent, will soon break into the World Top 10 Referee List.  Well done Ravshan and your officiating team!

Mexico's Efrain Juarez, left, became the first player to be booked in the World Cup by referee Ravshan Irmatov (Uzbekistan) during the World Cup group A soccer match between South Africa and Mexico at Soccer City in Johannesburg, South Africa, Friday, June 11, 2010

World Cup match 2: Uruguay vs. France, Cape Town, 11 June 2010:

A very good performance from Japanese referee Nashimura given some of the flying tackles during this fast, chaotic match. Well controlled, using his discretion and common sense, where allowed, to rather talk to players  as opposed to be completely yellow-card happy.

Nashimura quickly took charge of the delaying tactics of the captain of Uruguay at a free kick (awarded to France) near the penalty area late in the match, cautioning the player  for failing to adhere to the referee’s instruction to move the required 10-yards away.

Referee Nashimura was also spot-on with the first red card of World Cup 2010  in the 81st minute,  a second yellow/caution for the hot-headed Uruguayan substitute Lodeiro due to the latter’s late, reckless lunge on his opponent. Lodeiro managed only 18 min. on the pitch.

Lodeiro, brought on as substitute in the 63rd minute, received his first caution in the 65th minute  for delaying the restart of play; kicking the ball away after the whistle was blown for an infringement.

Most importantly, Nashimura looked as if he enjoyed the match, being stern when needed, but also showing a relaxed body language (and a smile!)  in lesser confronting situations between the two teams. He was not too officious, correctly maintaining a balance between being firm, fair as well as approachable by grumbling players, without entertaining too much lip from them.

Despite the French coach Domonech’s complaint after the match about a possible handball to be awarded for France in the penalty area late in the match, the Laws of the game were correctly applied: If the ball did indeed struck the hand of the Uruguay defender after a shot from a French forward, there was certainly no deliberate movement of his hand towards the ball, given the speed of the ball and the distance between the two players involved.

Another very good performance from the FIFA Team officials!

Body Language of Elite Football Referees — Part 1

The best referee is the one who is seen and heard when the game or situation requires him to be seen or heard. Referees should attempt to manage the game in the background. When the players are not cooperating, the referee must then make his presence known and his message must be seen and/or heard. — USA Referee Training Program (2009)

You need to be a good communicator, not just of decisions made but equally important have the ability to get your message across to players, managers and spectators. Referees are required to remain calm, controlled and develop high concentration levels to be successful. — Ian Blanchard, ex-head of FA’s National Referee Development (2008)

A good referee need nerves of steel and a cool head … a strong personality and be able to exercise self-control, especially when provoked. You also need to communicate well with the players. If you go on the field with an arrogant, dictatorial attitude, it is very difficult to be accepted and win respect. A glance from the referee should be enough to make a player understand that he is breaking the rules. Body language is very important, especially when you cannot communicate in a foreign language. Sometimes everything can depend on the way you look at a player. – Massimo Busacca, Fifa & World Cup referee (2006)

Staying calm and focused is one of the golden rules of refereeing. – Pierluigi Collina, 2002 World Cup Final referee (The Rules of the Game, 2003)

Watching FIFA’s history of World Cup 1990 (Italy), 1994 (USA), 1998 (France) 2002 (South Korea & Japan) and 2006 (Germany) I noticed  the gradual and sophisticated improvement of referees’ communicative skills over the last 2 decades, in particular body language referees utilize to control football matches. Experienced referees are often masterful in their self awareness and control over communicative body language.

Referee Roberto Rosetti of Italy using his personality, presence and body language to handle a protest from French captain Zidane (Spain vs France, World Cup 2006)

However, elite referees have the advantages of natural abilities and aptitudes, helped by the experience of hundreds – or even thousands – of games officiated, as well as rigorous, regular and expert mentoring and feedback from referee instructors. Most amateur referees are committed and willing, but do not have such advantages.

There is little evidence and studies on which to base match officials communication and body language skill training. A recent review of empirical scientific literature found that there are very few articles that “specifically examine communication skills in sports officials.” (Mascarenhas et al, 2005). This shortage of research data helps to explain the lack of communication practice and training in formal referee curricula. There is a dire shortage of specific training tasks for referee communication skills.

Most elite level referees acquired their communicative skills through many years of officiating matches and, of late at the highest level, only some perceptual-cognitive specialized training with feedback. MacMahon et al. (2007) also notes there are few exercises available for assisting referees to develop more effective communication and interaction skills with players. Although the importance of communication is widely recognized and conventional referee wisdom at amateur and pro levels are plentiful, the processes and importance of certain communication displays through the medium of body language are often not well understood. The point is stressed by some scholars that future sports research should explore and examine the training referees receive in communicative skills and the use of body language.

"Sometimes everything can depend on the way you look at a player."

Referee training programs at most levels of officiating tend to emphasize acquisition of knowledge of the Laws of the Game, physical strength and conditioning exercises, largely overlooking referee skills in decision-making and communication. Referees are often required to perform at a high level in a complex and dynamic match environment when only partial or incomplete information is available to them due to various factors (angle of view, split-second decisions, non-availability of video replays etc.). Blowing the whistle and calling on field fouls use to be a simple process. Not so in the modern game, as successful performance (to stay in the top officiating panels) is typically dependent upon the ability of  match officials to work both independently and as a team in an effective manner by combining their perceptual -, cognitive -, motor – as well social skills.

At all levels, referees execute and communicate their decisions under stressful match conditions. The stress factor ratchets progressively higher as referees themselves get promoted to top officiating structures. Stress is omni-present due to, in no small part, ever-present video broadcasts and the financial stakes involved. Even at amateur levels referees don’t escape from stress. As David Elleray, Fifa & EUFA Referee Instructor succinctly noted:

“Every time the referee blows his whistle, he upsets half the players and roughly half the crowd.”

Referees frequently debate the most effective techniques and each have an opinion about the best way to communicate their onfield decisions. Conventional and well supported referee wisdom dictates that referees should execute and communicate their decisions calmly, and that a brief explanation of decisions in certain circumstances improves player reactions. Take for instance the act of displaying a yellow card (caution) to a player and the apparent conflicting views expounded by various referees …

The different approaches above reflect the complexity of human interpersonal action and individual differences in referees personalities, experiences and beliefs. It could be argued that in different circumstances each approach might be the best or the worst to adopt. But the different approaches also illustrate what Mellick et al. (2005) called the variable “hidden curriculum” referees rely on to develop their communication skills.

This hidden curriculum is based on personal experience in and outside football, and advice from refereeing assessors, colleagues and mentors, not all of whom are always experts. The advice referees receive about appropriate use of tone, gesture and talking with players is largely based on hearsay, and often conflicted. Some referees advise a personable style with a focus on respect for players, others recommend a terse style with a focus on detachment and maintaining their authority (Simmons, 2008). Complicating the issue is the referee’s endavour in displaying a calm body language whilst dealing with players and onfield problems – a difficult skill to learn at best.

Why then is communication skills and body language so important in the world of refereeing? Swiss sports psychologist Mattia Piffaretti, tasked by the European Football Association (EUFA) to help Elite referees on this matter, has this to say:

“Part of the art of good refereeing is finding the right balance in decision making, communication and discipline. A referee’s use of body language can establish relationships on the field with the players, while also remaining in control of a match. It can show confidence, calmness, firmness, authority, or even the referee’s human side if a player is injured, for example.”

Swedish referee Peter Fröjdfeldt showing empathy (Germany vs Portugal, World Cup 2006)

“Referees use body language to enhance performance, show leadership, enhance game management skills such as mediating and creating a connection, and to win trust and respect from players. Body language should be changed to suit the situation. It is a form of communication; it needs to be natural and fluent.

“But you have to make reasonable use of body language, because players might start to perceive you more as a friend than as a leader.”

“You don’t have to show off or exaggerate. You have to use the right quantity and quality of body language – otherwise you will force yourself into a character which you were not, and players will perceive this. You have to remain yourself.”

Piffaretti identifies four key reasons why referees’ body language is such a crucial part of their communication skill.

(1) Body language skill transcends language barriers;

(2) It’s very useful in a noisy match environment where verbal communication can be difficult;

(3) Body language can have an immediate effect, reducing the need for a referee to stop a match to address an issue verbally.

(4) Sometimes it’s difficult to address players’ emotions in words, so the referee can use gestures instead.

Studies show that we communicate roughly 55% through body language, 38% through the tone of our voice and 7% through the actual content of what we say. Referees in the top echelons of officiating know that body language, in addition to player-management, are central to effective refereeing and quality football.

Simmons, in a recent study presented to Fifa’s Scientific Committee in 2008, underscored the importance of communicative skills for referees. The conclusion reached (inter alia) is that proper communication skills influences player perceptions of fairness and correctness in referee decisions and referees will benefit from their understanding and mastery thereof. I will come back later to Simmons insightful study, sponsored by the  João Havelange Research Scholarship. It should be made required reading for all upcoming and experienced referees.

However, Simmons is also quick to note that for some players, who are intoxicated by revenge or rage (or substance!), referee communicative skill will have no influence, but that generally referee sensitivity to players and situations are doubtless important.

It seems no amount of communicative skill would have “saved” referee Andy D’Urso from being chased around the field given the verbal onslaught from United captain Roy Keane & company. (Manchester United v Middlesbrough, 2000.)

Referee Andy D’Urso (above) awarded Middlesbrough a penalty kick due to a foul committed by Dutch defender Jaap Stam. Upon awarding the penalty kick, five Manchester United players (Jaap Stam, Roy Keane, Nicky Butt, Ryan Giggs and David Beckham) chased D’Urso to object the decision; the resulting video images were freely circulated by the media. D’Urso himself offers a solution, with the benefit of hindsight:

“It was my first season in the Premier League, my first time refereeing Manchester United and my first time at Old Trafford. With more experience I would have stood my ground. I kept saying “go away”, but the further back I walked the more they walked on. A more experienced referee would not have retreated.” See the video.

In part 2 I will soon give some pointers on what communication tools the referee has at his disposal and how to use these tools to the best advantage in controlling a match.

PS: I have just been informed I am to officiate the 1/2 Final of a  knock-out competition. So much for thinking my season came to an end, so match preparation will start in earnest.

Until later…

Massimo Busacca (Switzerland, rated #1, born 1969)

Roberto Rosetti (Italy, rated #2, born 1967)

Howard Webb (England, rated #3, born 1971)

Jorge Larrionda (Uruguay, rated #4, born 1968)

Frank de Bleeckere (Belgium, rated #5, born 1966)

Wolfgang Stark (Germany, rated # 9, born 1969)

Hector Baldassi (Argentina, rated #10, born 1966)

Carlos Amarilla (Paraguay, rated # 12, born 1970)

Note: Amarilla will not officiate in the 2010 World Cup due to one of his assistant’s failing his fitness test – see here.

Alberto Undiano Mallenco (Spain, rated # 13, born 1973)

Ravshan Irmatov (Uzbekistan, rated #15, born 1977)

Oscar Ruiz Acosta (Colombia, rated # 16, born 1969)

Benito Archundia (Mexico, rated #18, born 1966)

Martin Hansson (Sweden, rated #19, born 1971)

Eddy Maillet (Seychelles, rated #24, born 1967)

Marco Rodriquez Moreno (Mexico, rated # 25, born 1973)

Jerome Kelvin Damon (South Africa, born 1972)

Yuichi Nashimura (Japan, born 1972)

Joel Aquilar Chicas (El Salvador, born 1975)

Michael Hester (New Zealand, born 1972)

Peter O'Leary (New Zealand, born 1972)

Viktor Kassai (Hungary, born 1975)

Pablo Pozo (Chile, born 1973)

Olegario Benquerenca (Portugal, born 1969)

Stephane Laurent Lannoy (France, born 1969)

Carlos Eugenio Simon (Brazil, born 1965)

Carlos Batres (Guatemala, born 1968)

Koman Coulibaly (Mali, born 1970)

Mohamed Benouza (Algeria, born 1972)

Note: Benouza will not officiate in the 2010 World Cup due to one of his assistant’s failing his fitness test – see here

Kahlil Al Ghamdi (Saudia Arabia, born 1970)

Subkhidden Mohd Salleh (Malaysia, born 1966)

EDIT: 27 May 2010 — Martín Vázquez from Uruguay has been announced as replacement for  Amarilla’s Paraguayan team. Fifa will not call in a replacement for the Benouza (Algerian) trio of referees.

Referee Martin Vazquez (with assistants Carlos Pastorino & Miguel Nievas, all from Uruguay) was called in by Fifa to replace the referee trios headed by Amarilla & Benouza.

The above 2010 FIFA World Cup middle referee  list is provisional. Provisional in the sense that they all must pass their final hurdle, a fitness test. The World Cup African contingent of trios/referees will be evaluated at my hometown Coetzenburg Athletics Track, Stellenbosch, on 8th May under the auspices of South African FIFA co-ordinator Carlos Henriques.

For a list of all the World Cup assistant referees, see here.

We are not gods.  We make mistakes. – Swiss referee Massimo Busacca to Greek player Basinas (Greece vs Sweden, Euro 2008) – see the critically acclaimed film, Les Arbitres.

Coetzenburg Track, Stellenbosch, South Africa

The FIFA World Cup is the biggest test an international referee will ever face, both professionally and personally. Of the 29 referees representing 26 nations (Uruguay, New Zealand & Mexico have 2 middle referees each) taking charge of the 64 World Cup games in the month-long tourney in South Africa, 10 are from Europe, 6 from South America, 4 from Asia, 4 from the CONCACAF region, 3 from Africa and 2 from New Zealand. Each referee has his team of two assistants who have worked with him over many months in various FIFA international and Association tournaments, their performance and fitness constantly being monitor by the FIFA Referee Committee.

During the tournament, the referees and assistants will be swathed in a protective blanket of security, locked away from the world’s prying eyes at a luxury hotel where they will be provided with a continuous healthy diet, sports psychologists to boost their confidence and video technological tools for briefing/debriefing to allow them to study the strengths, weaknesses and favourite ploys of the teams they will be officiating.

It has been a 3-year+ journey for all the pre-selected World Cup referees and after many reductions on the final referee list, countless fitness evaluations, workshops, aptitude tests and constant health & diet monitoring , these are the men that FIFA trust to control the greatest sporting event on the planet.

I wish all the above FIFA referees, assistants (and their families) the very best and may your dreams be fulfilled!

Have a great Whistle & Flag!

Swiss Ref Massimo Busacca voted the top match official for 2009

Swiss Referee Massimo Busacca has been voted as the top international football official in the 2009 IFFHS list, garnering 225 criteria votes.  Runner-up on the 2009 list is Italian Roberto Rosetti with 147 votes. He topped the list in 2008.  Third is English referee Howard Webb with 52 criteria votes.

All three referees are in the final group for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa and are expected to officiate in the tournament that starts on 11 June.

Penalty! The penalty kick, Law 14. Is the penalty kicker allowed to feint in the execution of the penalty kick? Well, it depends on what – admittedly artificial – type of feints you classify them into, or the Football Association you belong to, or the discretion of the referee if no guidance is forthcoming from his association. FIFA is apparently not 100% sure about where the line should be drawn either; the International Football Associations Board (IFAB) has reviewed the rule with regard to feinting at penalty kicks on 6 March 2010. They propose outlawing run-up feints to the ball altogether.

The issue of “feinting” underwent a significant change in 2000. Prior to that, the kicker was expected to make one continuous, uninterrupted move to the ball; in 2000 (based on the FIFA Questions & Answers), certain forms of feinting or deception were allowed. FIFA clarified in 2002 that the kicker may seek to deceive (or feint) at the taking of a penalty kick.

As a good starting point, the current Law:

Feinting to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the feinting is considered an act of unsporting behaviour, the player must be cautioned.

Simple, or is it? The rule makes it clear that feints, in principle, are part and parcel of football. It forms part of player’s repertoire of skill, to be able to feint and get your opponent off-guard. Reading the second sentence, the rule clearly implies that not all feint acts should be allowed. The Law puts an over rider in the second sentence, subjecting some feints to the discretion/opinion of the referee if it crosses the boundary into unsporting behaviour. Not all feints are equal in the eyes of the Law.

Buffon of Italy unable to save a penalty, World Cup 2006, Germany. Voted by Fifa as best GK during the World Cup 2006 Finals.

Which feints then are considered as being unsporting? Well, in the absence of examples, or criteria, we don’t really know. And Fifa doesn’t say. FIFA leaves the unsporting examples to the interpretation of the various football associations or to the referee’s opinion – a very broad discretion. It is up to referee and his common sense or sensibility. And this is the dilemma. What is actually considered legal? What actions cross the line from sporting to unsporting behaviour? Should we, in some form or not, take pity on the poor goalkeeper’s reduced chance of stopping a penalty kick? Or should it be a case of “Basta, tough luck dude, you wear gloves. Use them.”

The type of feints witnessed during my career are the following:

1. Stop-start runs before getting to the ball on the penalty mark;
2. Stop-start runs when getting within playing distance of the ball (1 metre);
3. Stop-start kicking actions where the kicking foot feints behind the ball;
4. Stop-start kicking actions where the kicking foot feints over the ball.
5. A combination of any of the above 4  (see video 2 – first kick – at end of this post)

It can be argued that making a distinction on the type of feints are all artificial. Some argue that if (1) and (2) above are allowed, but not actions (3) and (4), that it comes down to not being consistent with the definition of a “feint” and with Fifa’s general statement that feints are in principle allowed. The argument further goes that all 5 of the above feinting actions are allowed during dynamic play on the field, so why should it be any different during a penalty kick versus the goalkeeper and thus not allowed? [I don't subscribe to this view. I sympathize with goalkeepers and their slight chances to save penalty kicks.]

A  possible problematic situation arises for the referee’s decision-making process: the penalty kicker, due to his feint, induces the goalkeeper do move off his goal line before the ball is kicked. If the goalkeeper saves the penalty kick, do the referee now recall the penalty kick due to the goalkeeper’s Law 14 infringement in those instances where the referee rule the feinting actions to be sporting behaviour?  Should the referee here apply the reasoning the penalty kicker cannot avail himself to a penalty kick recall if the kicker’s antics were the very reason for the goalkeeper’s infringement? Moreover, should this reasoning  be applied to the analogous scenario where the attackers take a quick free-kick while some defenders have not fallen the required 10-yard distance back and thus intercepts the ball? As an upcoming referee on the Ask the Ref forum posted:

“My head hurts!”

BIG SIDENOTE: Statistically, penalty-taking success is heavily loaded in favour of the penalty kicker. In World Cup finals dating back to 1982, the penalty success rate ranges from 73% to 80% in 1998, the year after FIFA changed the law to allow goalkeepers to move on their goal line.

When it comes to the World Cup Final, it is a passion, and when it goes to extra time it is a drama. But when it comes to penalty kicks, it is a tragedy. – S. Blatter, Fifa President, 2006

“Hit your penalties as hard as possible,” is still a good option according to researchers at the University of Greenwich. Research there indicates that a penalty struck at more than 20 metres per second (73 km/h+) stands a greater chance of hitting the back of the net than a slower one, as a goalkeeper has less time to analyse visual clues and react.

Exhaustive analysis in competitive international football during the World Cup, European Championships and the Copa America show some fascinating results regarding kicks from the penalty mark (penalty shoot-outs). [Jordet et al, 2006, Journal of Sports Sciences]

The average % success rate converting penalty kicks in World Cups are 71.2% compared to 82.7% in Copa America versus 84.6% in European Championships, possibly reflecting the greater importance and consequent pressure being on a bigger world stage for kick outcomes. The success rate of each penalty kick changes throughout the competition:

• 1st kick 86.6%
• 2nd kick 81.7%
• 3rd kick 79.3%
• 4th kick 72.5%
• 5th kick 80%
• ‘Sudden death’ kicks 64.3%

For the most part a penalty kick is a zero-sum game according to empirical and statistical evidence. (For an interesting take on the game theories behind penalty kicks, read this article.)

Once the penalty-taker kicks the ball, it takes roughly 0.3 seconds to hit the back of the net—unless the goalkeeper can somehow prevent it from going in. That is simply not enough time for the goalkeeper to pick out the trajectory of the ball and intercept it. He must guess where the striker will kick and move just as the ball is being struck. Therefore, a goalkeeper who does not guess correctly where the ball is going to go has no chance.

Game theory, applied to the problem of penalties, says that if the striker and the keeper are behaving optimally, neither will have a predictable strategy. The striker might favor his stronger side, of course, but that does not mean that there will be a pattern to the bias.

… each choice of [penalty shot] should be equally likely to succeed, weighing up the advantage of shooting to the stronger side against the disadvantage of being too predictable. If shots to the right score three-quarters of the time and shots to the left score half the time, you should be shooting to the right more often. But as you do, the goalkeeper will respond: Shots to the right will become less successful and those to the left more successful. It might sound strange that at this point any choice will do, but it is analogous to saying that if you are at the summit of the mountain, no direction is up. – Tim Harford

One irate forum dweller succinctly posted the following in trying to define the line between unsporting and unsporting feints.

“There is only one (almost immobilized) defender during a penalty kick on the goal line, 12 yards away. The goalkeeper. What little chance the goalkeeper has to stop the ball going into goal consists of a “good guess” where the ball is going. Should we now allow the penalty kicker to feint drastically to eliminate the “good guess” possibility?”

Yes says Brazil. No says South Africa. What you allow in your country is not sporting, according to my association, SAFA. By now, you get the point. At best it is, in the absence of FIFA giving direction in classifying certain type of feints as permissable or not, a murky situation. At worst, it’s downright confusing in delegating the discretion to various associations trying to come up with a solution to consistency and clarity. After all, Fifa has previously given clearer direction in certain rule applications for the sake of clarity and consistency.

I propose FIFA should do so again. Or, at the very least, give some examples as a guiding light to our broad discretion. That’s what I want as a referee. The players deserve that too. I don’t expect the Law to cover any and all possibilities. And FIFA, as custodian of world football, owes the football fraternity clearer direction on the referee’s wide/broad discretion when feints are unsporting behaviour, or not.

So what do I propose? I humbly suggest (c) below. This proposal will still be compatible with Law 14 (Penalty Kick) and Fifa’s current stance pertaining to feints:-

(a) allow feints at penalty kicks

(b) allow no feints, as the opposite extreme

(c) if (a), then some criteria or basic examples what types of feints are permissible, or not.

Currently FIFA is dictating (a) above without giving any criteria/examples, save for the referee’s very broad discretion/opinion. And now Fifa is proposing (b) as a possible rule change on 6 March 2010! Unclear indeed, wouldn’t you say?

In the absence of clear direction, clarity and consistency falls victim to confusion and inconsistency. Each referee/Association will use his/their discretion to try and define and make a distinction what type of feints are permissible or not. If you are, as national referee, lucky enough in that your Association gives direction and concrete criteria as to how you should apply your discretion, well… you are the blessed few.

Laws loath to narrow discretions down to simple examples, lest they not cover all eventualities. If you believe this to be spot-on and correct, be warned. You cannot have a wide discretion as defined in the Law and have consistency in its application. My applied discretion as referee, in the absence of any criteria from Fifa and/or direction from my association, is based on what I believe, subjectively, as to what feint acts are unsporting. My opinion is certainly not going to be necessarily consistent or in line with a referee from another association, another country or continent, or even from the same country! Clearly to be avoided, you would think.

Some Football Associations do try and clarify the line between sporting and unsporting behaviour at penalty kicks. The USA Soccer Federation (USSF) for example, in a memo dated October 2004 on this subject, identified 4 specific actions by the kicker that could constitute unsporting behaviour:

1. the kicker delays unnecessarily after being signaled by the referee to proceed,
2. the kicker runs past the ball and then backs up to take the kick,
3. the kicker excessively changes direction during the run to the ball,
4. the kicker makes any motion of the hand or arm which is clearly intended to misdirect the attention of the goalkeeper.

USSF referees have to abide by the above ruling. My association, SAFA, agrees with actions 1, 2 and 3. SAFA has yet to consider/rule on #4 with concrete examples. SAFA may come to the same conclusion as the USSF on this point. Most of the EUFA associations also loath the “step-over” feinting action (kicking initially over the ball in the air).

A valid argument can be made (and added) if the kicker feints so well with his stop-start run-up action and thus duping opponents and team mates alike into entering the 18-yard penalty area before the ball is kicked, that such actions are an example of misconduct and to be cautioned with a yellow card. This type of mass confusion at penalty kicks are frowned upon, particularly in the USSF and in most EUFA associations.

It’s not that the above notable endavours by various Associations to try and classify certain feints as sporting/non-sporting are without merit. They are striving for some clarity.  Its Fifa’s lack of direction for so long in allowing the various Associations their own interpretations, which sows confusion. With Associations stepping in and instructing their national referees how the Law should be applied, we have the scenario where no two associations might – and do not – agree. What feints are allowed in, say for example Brazil, will not be allowed in my country South Africa, or England. Again, inconsistency in interpretation from country to country, association to association.

Should FIFA re-examine the definition of “feint” to get some clarity?

Feints are maneuvers designed to distract or mislead, done by giving the impression that a certain maneuver will take place, while in fact another, or even none, will; A deceptive action calculated to divert attention from one’s real purpose; A mock attack or movement designed to distract an adversary. — Webster Dictionary

Back to the Law. Fifa opinions that feinting is part of football. Movements to mislead, or maneuvers to distract or mock attacks to confuse opponents are allowed. This ties in with FIFA’s basic premise that the lawmakers (IFAB) do not want to take feinting skills away from such players. Thus, all player movements connected directly to the action of executing a feint should, in principle, be allowed anywhere on the field.

In practice, all body actions/movements of the players arms, legs and torso to distract or confuse while taking the penalty kick should then be allowed. For example, stepping over the ball and not kicking/touching it during the player’s initial kicking motion  falls within the ambit of the Law and the definition of a “feint.”

This is the stance and reasoning at one end of the spectrum, as followed by some South American countries, in particular Brazil.

In Brazil they call a well-executed feint a “paradinha.” Portuguese for “little stop.” A little stop in the run-up to the ball on the penalty mark, a little stop in the actual kicking motion of the kicker. In Brazil a step-over is legit. No artificial feinting distinctions for Brazil. The viewpoint, as per my Association, that  kickers are only allowed to feint in their run-up action and that it’s not legal to feint with the actual kicking action/motion once players arrive within kicking distance of the ball (defined as 1 metre) are being scoffed at. It’s too artificial a distinction for Brazil!

In the land of the 5-time World Champions, it is reasoned – reasonably some would say – that to feint is a God-given talent. And skill damnit – Pele and company put it on the map decades ago! It’s a real art to feint properly, to feint completely, to feint with conviction. For Samba players, fooling an infield player or the goalkeeper for that matter should be no different, so they argue.

FIFA disagrees with Brazil. Said Sepp Blatter on the “paradinha”:

This is cheating. This “stopping” must be stopped.

In Brazil, the reasoning is that there is no point in run-up feints only. This type of feint alone is just not that convincing. Whether it’s the run-up action or the kicking action itself, it’s all legal. They are classified as feints and as such should be allowed. Brazilian referees seem to agree. Have a look at the examples below.

For the record, the first two examples below are NOT allowed in South Africa.  In Brazil there seems  no sympathy for the goalkeeper if he gets thoroughly fooled by the deceptive actions of the penalty kicker…

And this one from Fred in Vasco-Fluminense …

The gods certainly smiled in this example, taking pity on the poor shot-stopper’s soul …

I propose: Bring back clarity and consistency will follow!

Edit: The International Football Association Board (IFAB), soccer’s rule-making body, amended on 18 May 2010 Law 14 (The Penalty Kick) as follows:

Feinting in the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted, however feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is now considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behaviour for which the player must be cautioned.

The decisions concerning the Laws of the Game taken by the International Football Association Board will come into effect on 1 June 2010.

“We saw some video examples, which make it clear it’s very unsporting when the player gets to the end of a run up, feints to kick completely over the ball, the goalkeeper goes in one direction, the player pulls his foot back, and kicks the ball in the other direction,” IFAB member Patrick Nelson, chief executive of the Irish Football Association told reporters. “It’s clearly unsporting.”

Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke admitted it would be a race to introduce the new rule in time for the World Cup on 11 June 2010. “We have to make sure the referees, players and coaches understand what it is about and will use videos as an example for the players to see where we are coming from.”

Fifa decided to go for option (c) as suggested above. In my humble opinion the most reasonable decision. Only run-up feints (stop-start runs) will be allowed. Kicking action feints will now be sanctioned with a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

There we have it; clarity at last!

The referee’s ability to identify tactical fouls is tested virtually every game.  This is particularly the case given the speed of the modern game and the counter-attack style many teams employ.  In addition, the severity of punishment for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a tackle that involves serious foul play (both = red card + expulsion) “forces” a  player to foul further away from his own goal and to look for other ways in stopping the progress of an attacker respectively.  The skillful and creative player in the center of the field or the speedy winger is often targets of such tactical fouls.

What is a tactical foul? Trying to find a definition (any definition!) that fits all possible scenarios is never easy, but for the purpose of this article, let us define it as follows:

A tactical foul is a foul that stops a promising attacking move, thus gaining a clear advantage for the defenders. They have a tactical implication because they are designed to normally impede the progress of an attacking opponent.

Tactical fouls require a yellow card for unsporting behaviour. [See also 12th UEFA Advanced Course for Elite Referees, page 5, Madrid 2004)

I am deliberately refraining from using the word “professional foul” in describing tactical fouls for two reasons. Firstly, Fifa does not use the term “professional foul” anywhere in the 17 Laws of the Game or in the Additional Instructions to Referees. Secondly, it leads to confusion as this term is normally being used (in my humble opinion, incorrectly!) to describe the known red card offence of “denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity” to an opponent.

Referee Frojdfeldt cautioning Gattuso for a tactical foul.

Since the idea is to stop or slow down the opponent and his attacking play, tactical fouls are tackles/challenges that do not (necessarily) endanger the safety of an opponent. Often, such fouls are “minor” and easily escape punishment as referees do not recognize the tactical implications of the challenge and fail to read the tactical, attacking advantage that has been denied. They are usually non-reckless, being mostly careless in their nature. Sometimes tactical fouls are commented on as being “cynical.”  Such a subjective term is not really helpful to a referee. He needs a more objective set of criteria to identify tactical fouls.

How to identify cynical/tactical fouls? As referees, we are instructed according to Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct)  that careless challenges per se don’t warrant cautions for unsporting behaviour. We know the Fifa formula: Reckless challenges = free kick + yellow card. Careless challenges = free kick only. Since tactical fouls are mostly careless, we can clearly see the difficulty in identifying now a careless challenge suddenly as also warranting a yellow card for unsporting behaviour!

The Laws of the Game don’t offer much guidance to referees with regards to criteria for tactical fouls, save a short mention regarding blatant handball to deny an opponent getting possession of the ball, or blatant shirt pulling in preventing an opponent from taking up an advantageous position.

The Oracle: “Why was the foul committed here?”

Reply: “Whadda you mean …. WHY?”

Tactical fouls are not deserving of a yellow card on its own merit, if seen in isolation. But when taking the match situation as a whole into consideration, the foul warrants a caution. Therefore, as a first step in identifying a criteria for tactical fouls, referees should ask themselves the “HOW” as well as the “WHY” the foul was committed. It is the “WHY”  that unlocks the identifying process. This will enable referees to identify the true nature of certain fouls as being tactical fouls.

As mentioned, tactical fouls are committed in order to strip a team of an effective promising attack. As such, a tactical foul is one for which the tackler is willing to accept the likelihood of getting a yellow card in exchange for stopping or slowing down a promising attack.

Paul Tamberino & Brian Hall identifies six common characteristics of tactical fouls:

1. Tactical fouls occur usually close to the attacking end of the field. Defenders commit the foul because they are aware the attackers will have a credible opportunity to attack their goal with a high degree of effectiveness. The attack may develop from a counter-attack after dispossession of the ball, and speed is of the essence to get the ball/player into the attacking half of the field.
2. Tactical fouls are used to gain a numerical advantage for defenders to stop or hinder the attack.
3. Tactical fouls give defenders time to defend. It gives the defending team time to get goal-side of the ball, thus creating a numeric advantage for defenders.
4. Tactical fouls prevent the ball and/or player from advancing with his promising attacking move (e.g. deliberate handball or obstruction or holding attacker). The foul is committed to prevent the ball and/or attacking player from getting into space behind a defender or behind the defense. It is the theory “if the ball gets by, the player doesn’t or “if the player gets by, the ball doesn’t”. Look for open areas/space that the ball would normally be played into or where an attacking player would run into if they were to receive the ball. The open areas would be behind a defender and close to or in the attacking half of the field.
5. The defender knows he is beaten. The defender knows that he has not the skill and/or the speed to stop the attacker. Tactical fouls usually occur in one-versus-one situations. Not to be confused with denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (red card).
6. Tactical fouls are usually minor in nature, i.e. they are more often then not careless in nature as opposed to being reckless. These fouls are often considered minor because they normally don’t involve hard, physical contact. Due to their “careless” classification, these fouls often go unpunished. Shirt pulling or using the defender’s body to make contact with the opponent and impede his progress are frequent examples.

Referees should ask themselves, “why did the player commit the foul here?” Often, tactical fouls occur in the wide open channels and spaces (close to the sideline) on the field, so it is critical that assistant referees also be aware of these characteristics and provide the referee with the necessary assistance via communication.

As play develops, referees and assistants need to anticipate potential actions by defenders that wants to slow down the attack. Recognizing these warning signs will aid referees in positioning themselves pro-actively prior to the defender’s challenge, so that they have a better angle of view of the tactical foul. Also, it may aid the referee by increasing his presence (getting closer to the ball) and thereby preventing a foul by a defender. A well positioned referee will be in the defender’s vision and his presence may deter the defender to initiate a tactical foul on an attacker.

Assistant referees should feel empowered to provide assistance in identifying and bringing these tactical fouls to the referee’s attention when the referee has not been successful in identifying the tactical nature of the foul. The assistant referee should utilize a signal – agreed upon prior to the game – if the assistant believes the situation warrants a caution.

Let us look at some examples of tactical fouls.

Example 1: Everton FC vs MLS All Stars, 2009 – (Move the video clip to 5:16 and then play onwards to 5:30)

Blue counter-attacks in their own half and the ball gets passed with speed to his team mate, Fredrik Ljungberg. The defender (white) knows he has no support or cover behind him so his only options are to either stop the ball or stop the attacker.

The defender sees the speed of the attacker and the ball has clearly bypassed him. He identifies his only option: Deny the attacker from getting into the space behind him! He clips (trips) Ljungberg. The referee is well-positioned to spot the tactical foul.

In the above video clip, the speed and skill of the attacker puts the defender in a position of having to foul in order to eliminate the potential for a dangerous attack. The referee does a good job of recognizing the nature of the foul and makes a correct decision to caution the defender for unsporting behaviour.

The simplest method to prevent the progression of the attacker is to deliberately interpose his body between the attacker and his pursuit of the ball. Remember, players work hard to disguise tactical-type fouls and to make them difficult for officials to recognize.

You should watch the tackler and analyze his actions/movement. Useful Indicators that will help the referee to identify tactical fouls are:

• The defender’s eyes are not on the ball but on the attacker he is about to tackle;
• The ball is past the defender when he initiates contact with the attacker.
• The defender takes a few steps into the attacker’s movement path while making no attempt to chase the ball that has been played behind him into space by the attacker.
• The attacker and ball are moving faster than the defender can.
• The defender may put his hands up in the air during/after the tackle to disguise the infringement.
• One-on-one situations. There are no players supporting or covering the defender in his attempt to close down or slow down the attacker.

In closing, still snapshots illustrating and highlighting the criteria mentioned above.

Example 2: LA Galaxy vs. Real Salt Lake, MLS CUP Final, 2009. Here we have a scenario where all the tactical foul indicators are fulfilled, making it very easy for the referee to spot the nature of the foul and caution the defender for unsporting behaviour.

White Attacker played the ball (earlier) past the Red Defender in a promising counter attack. Defender is only interested in taking out the Attacker due to his eyes only following the Attacker. The Attacker is moving faster than the Defender. This is an one-vs-one situation where the Defender knows he's beaten.

Red Defender prevents the Attacker from advancing into space with his promising attack. He puts his hands in the air to disguise the tactical foul.

Rummaging through my football referee paraphernalia lately, I came upon a prized pair of red and yellow cards in my possession, with the name “K. Aston” signed in person in big black, scrawling letters on each card. A present from an American referee friend, all the way from Chicago. [ Thank you again Timothy Orosz! ]

Ken Aston (1915 - 2001), inventor of yellow and red cards. Author has a signed pair.

Kenneth George Aston, known as “Ken,” born in Colchester, Essex, joined the Royal Artillery during World War II before transferring to the British Indian Army, where he reach the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Aston was involved after the war in a war tribunal (Changi War Crimes Tribunal) and the hanging of senior Japanese officers. 21 officers were charged with war crimes against humanity and 8 were eventually sentenced to death. It was Aston’s duty to inform them of their sentence and then he had to attend the hangings.

Aston later settled in the United States. He was knighted by the Queen for his football activities and work  in the States.

Aston was one of the match officials in the 1960 European Cup Final between Real Madrid and Eintracht Frankfurt. This match is regarded by many as the greatest European Cup Final ever played. Madrid won 7–3 in front of a crowd of 135,000  at Glasgow’s Hampden Park, with both Alfredo Di Stéfano and Ferenc Puskás scoring a hat-trick for Real Madrid. Madrid were crowned kings of Europe for the fifth straight time, prompting the legendary Bill Shankley, after viewing the match, to say: ” Real Madrid are the greatest club side the world has ever seen”

Another notable achievement for Ken was as middle referee for the 1963 FA Cup Final between Manchester United – managed by Matt Busby – and Leicester City, attended by 99,000+ spectators at Old Wembley stadium, which was then fully roofed for the first time. The match was broadcast live – black and white – with the BBC requesting the one team change kit as the red of United and blue of City would have been indistinguishable to the viewers. Leicester changed into a mostly white kit, as they loss the toss for team colours. Gordan Banks was in goal for City. Despite fielding 9 internationals, including Denis Law and Bobby Charlton, United had struggled during the league season while their opponent had performed well, doing the league double over Manchester in the process and thus entered the FA Cup final as slight favourites. United won 3-1.

Ken Aston invented a few ideas during his service to football, not least of which are the yellow and red cards that referees use today to either warn or expel players if they step on the wrong side of the Laws of the Game. He is also credited for other innovations &  ideas in football refereeing, including:

• The first referee to wear black with white trim as an official uniform, which later became the standard apparel for referees;
• The first referee in England to introduce the neutral bright yellow linesman flags (in 1947) in place of the home team pennants;
• In 1966 he introduced the practice of naming a substitute referee who could take over in the case of the referee being unable to continue – his eventually evolved into the practice of having a designated fourth official;
• The number boards to announce substitutions;
• He successfully proposed that the pressure of the ball should be specified in the Laws of the Game;
• During the 1966 World Cup in England, he came upon the idea of issuing yellow and red card to players.

The story goes that, as FIFA Head of World Cup Referees in 1966 (he was in charge of all referees for the 1966, 1970 and 1974 World Cups)  Ken received a call from Jack Charlton, the England player. The latter explaining that he read in the newspapers that he apparently received a caution from the German referee Rudolf Kreitlein in England’s World Cup match versus Argentina, but that he was unaware of such a caution being issued verbally, as was the custom then. Kreitlein also could only converse in German.

Aston, returning from Wembley Stadium to Lancaster Gate that same evening, mulled over the language confusion that Charlton mentioned. On his trip from Wembley in his MG sports car, he passed many a traffic light. Aston came upon the idea to use coloured cards with the same colour coding (yellow/amber and red) used by traffic lights. He reckoned that showing coloured cards to players will transcend language barriers and clarify to spectators and players that they have been cautioned or sent off.

The use of red and yellow card to warn and/or sent off a player was first implemented in the 1970 World Cup in Mexico.

Referee Aston trying to control tempers, World Cup 1962, Chile vs Italy.

But there is another notorious incident(s!) that Ken is remembered for; he officiated the infamous “Battle of Santiago,” a 1962 World Cup match between Chile and Italy in Chile’s capital. On the bench as substitutes for Italy that day were the future star players and managers Cesare Maldini, father of famed and elegant AC Milan left back Paolo Maldini, including Giovanni Trappatoni – the only football manager to have won all UEFA club competitions and the Intercontinental Cup – as well as Lorenzo Buffon, related to the grandfather of Gianluigi Buffon, the current goalkeeper for Juventus and the Italian national team.

This match was not unlike the 2006 World Cup match in Nuremberg between Portugal and Holland, except the tackles and wild swinging fists were of such brutality that by today ‘s standards most of the players would have been sent off. Tensions were running high before the match as two Italian journalists, Antonio Ghiredelli and Corrado Pizzinelli, had spent weeks labelling Santiago in the newspapers as a poverty-stricken dump, full of loose women. Chile’s organization for the tournament had suffered through poor infrastructure, a problem made worse by the Great Chilean Earthquake of 1960. Fearing for their own safety, the two Italian journalists left the country before the World Cup kicked off.

When the match was shown on BBC television, reporter David Coleman introduced the Group B game with this classic statement:

Good evening. The game you are about to see is the most stupid, appalling, disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of football, possibly in the history of the game.

He wasn’t far off the mark! Those with squeamish stomachs should not click on the football video below. Chile won 2-0.

Notice the very last few seconds of the above clip, where the 1st assistant quickly runs onto the field to stand next to referee Ken Aston as the latter was about to separate another fight after he blew the final whistle. Aston said his assistant, Leo Goldstein, uttered the following: “Ken, don’t bother sorting this mess out!”

Ken Aston admitted afterwards: “I wasn’t reffing a football match, I was acting as an umpire in military maneuvers.”

Simulation is one of the worst things in football. It’s a cancer in football – Pierluigi Collina, World Cup Final 2002 Referee

One issue that concerns me personally, is technically termed ‘simulation’. Let’s get real – this is diving. Cheating in fact. We’ve all got to show more honesty here. Every week, referees are coming under intense scrutiny when making split-second judgment calls in this area. It’s impossible to get them all right and everyone has got to take a greater level of responsibility — Brian Barwick, The Football Association, 2005

Nobody in the game supports the act of simulation and I think that’s true of managers and all the organisations in the game -- Keith Hackett, GM of the PGMOL in England, 2009

Diving is an attempt by a player to gain an unfair advantage by diving to the ground and possibly feigning an injury, to appear as if a foul has been committed. Dives are often used to exaggerate the amount of contact present in a challenge. Players do this so they can receive free kicks or penalty kicks, which can provide scoring opportunities, or so that the opposing player receives a yellow or red card, giving their own team an advantage.

Most spectators of football abhor players diving, or faking a fall, usually to win a penalty appeal.  In the FA Premier League National Fan Survey, supporters were asked to comment on player behaviour and refereeing at the top level (Williams, University of Leicester, 2000). 89% of all fans said the thing that most angered them about player behaviour was how players sometimes “pretended to be fouled.”

We know there are players who cheat. We know diving exists. We know it gets worse the greater the financial prize at stake. Players dive and that puts pressure on referees to identify such unsporting behaviour . Ultimately it’s down to players not to commit acts of simulation. However, as referees, we have a responsibility. Referees need to put themselves in the right viewing angles to see what is happening. It is difficult and sometimes the speed and quality of the player catch referees out.

For me, it is the scourge to get rid of in the game. Better known as cheating – as there is no better word to describe it -  it is called simulation by Fifa and it’s the referee’s duty to spot, recognize and to punish such actions and to act firmly against those players trying to con the referee, the opposition and spectators.

There are four types of simulation to look out for:

1. When there’s clearly no contact;
2. When there’s minimal contact and it’s exaggerated;
3. When the player drags his leg;
4. Over-reaction, such as when a player goes down clutching his face after an opponent brushed past him.

Referees are instructed, in no uncertain terms, to give a mandatory caution to such players for unsporting behaviour in accordance with Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct:

Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the Referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour. — FIFA, Law 12 Decision 5

Blatant simulation is a mandatory caution; if there is minimal contact, consider a caution. – Fifa directive, World Cup 2006, Germany

It takes a brave referee to show a yellow card for simulation when an attacking player falls down too easily in his opponent’s penalty area. Cautioning a player is not always an easy decision to make, especially when players are jostling each other at high speed. However, Referees as primary guardians of the image of football, should not fail in their duty to punish such blatant cheaters.

The referee should be 100% certain that a player has simulated or feigned an unfair tackle before cautioning him for unsporting behaviour. The referee must be convinced that there has been no – or very little – physical contact by the player who is challenging for the ball. Players who initiate contact with an opponent (dragging his leg over a sprawled goalkeeper) or use slight contact to deceive the referee must be identified and sanctioned with a yellow card.

If, however, the referee is not totally sure, but there is a hint of simulation, the referee is advised to take the earliest opportunity to be seen to warn the player(s) involved. It is not recommended that a referee makes any gesture with his arm/hand indicating possible simulation, as this may aggravate the situation.

Even players acknowledge that it is a difficult aspect for referees to spot and punish accordingly. In this article I hope to share some pointers in identifying simulation, gleaned from various national and international referee workshops over the years and articles from former referees and Fifa referee instructors.

How to identify simulation? A player who is tripped, will pitch forward, his head will go forward and down, his back will arch away from the ground, his arms will fly forward and down to instinctively cushion his fall.

When a player simulates a dive, he will do the opposite of the above mechanics to some degree. He pitches forward, but he throws his head up and back, he arches his upper back away from the ground, his arms fly up - usually above shoulder height - and backward. He deliberately engineers a controlled fall by curving his body away from the ground to maximize the impact in the eyes of the referee. A further significant feature in all cases of tripping versus diving is that a trip is abrupt and sudden, whereas a dive is relatively slow and naturally graceful.

Clearly, not all instances of players falling to the ground are simulated. Some collisions are genuine fouls. Equally, on many occasions, the fouled player could have continued without falling down and making a meal of it. It is the Referee’s job to differentiate the genuine from the simulated. Even rarer is the incidence of player honesty where the referee got it wrong, as in the case of ex-Liverpool player Robbie Fowler’s apparent honesty in March 1997 at Highbury (Arsenal vs Liverpool) when, appearing to tumble under the challenge of goalkeeper David Seaman, he seemed to argue with referee Gerald Ashby against the latter’s decision to award the penalty, claiming the keeper had not touched him! Seaman saved the penalty, but Jason McAteer rammed in the rebound and Fowler ended up winning Uefa’s Fair Play award for his honesty.

A new study by Dr Paul Morris, a psychologist from the University of Portsmouth, could help referees to identify when a football player has genuinely been fouled or taken a dive. Dr. Morris has found that footballers use a series of distinct actions when faking a fall during a match. His research shows that there are distinct actions which footballers use – either individually or in any combination – when faking a fall. These four-point tell-tale signs of cheating include:

1. Clutching their body where they have not been hit;
2. Taking an extra roll when they hit the ground;
3. Taking fully controlled strides after being tackled, but before falling;
4. Holding up both arms in the air, with open palms, chest thrust out, legs bent at the knee in a false dive what he calls an “archer’s bow” position

Dr Paul Morris demonstrates the “archer’s bow” fall. The arms raised above the shoulder/head is a dead giveaway of a false dive.

“Referees have a very difficult job and given the demands of the task they do it remarkably well. We think even experienced professionals could enhance their decision-making by studying the categories of deceptive behaviour we have identified,” said Dr Morris, who specialises in how people show emotions and intentions. Dr Morris said that the “archer’s bow” was one of the most revealing as it would not occur in a natural fall.

He explained:  “In most dishonest tackles the behaviour itself does not indicate dishonesty, the deception is revealed in the timing and co-ordination of the behaviours. But one action is unique to a faked fall – the archer’s bow. This occurs in many dives but bio-mechanically it does not occur in a natural fall. The arms [in a non-fake dive] either go instinctively down in an attempt to cushion the fall or out to the side for balance. The moment both arms go above the shoulder is a clear indication of deception. Although this behaviour is absurd, the fraudulent footballer does it to try to deceive the referee into believing that the tackle was illegal, and the histrionics are necessary to get the referee’s attention in the first place.”

Eduardo of Arsenal simulating a foul - notice the position of the hands

During his research Dr Morris showed 4-second clips of tackles from televised live games to over 300 people. The participants were only allowed to see the clip twice in real-time before they were asked to spot the fakers. The results showed that there was a high level of agreement by participants in their classification of the players who intended to deceive and those who did not. Although participants were in agreement about which falls were faked, Dr Morris then needed to test that their judgements were correct.

He employed over 30 experienced amateur footballers to stage a scenario taken from a Football Association coaching manual. Attackers were instructed to dribble the ball past approaching defenders and then deceptively exaggerate the effects of a tackle to varying degrees. 50 observers were asked to judge if the attackers were faking and the level of exaggeration, if any.  The relationship between the intentions of the tackled player and the observer’s judgement of the player’s intentions was consistent.

Previous research at the university’s department of Psychology and Sport and Exercise Science focused on whether incidental factors such as the colour of clothing, crowd expectation, or a team’s or player’s reputation subconsciously affects a referee’s decision about cheating players.

“The result shows how, that regardless of factors such as team allegiance and players’ reputations, behaviour during a fall is a clear indication of the intention to deceive,” said Dr Morris.

The greatest asset that a referee has in relation to making the correct decision, is his proximity and ‘angle of view’ during diving incidents. This is why it is important for a referee to work hard in achieving creditable monitoring positions when attacking moves approach the penalty areas. The nearer you are, and the better view you have when making a decision, the more credibility you will have. The one important factor that always sells a decision on simulation, is where was the referee when he made the decision?

Factors referees need to consider before issuing a caution for simulation:

• If you decide to caution, be very strong and swift in your action. No pussyfooting about here! Be strong, assertive and believe in your decision.

• Once you have made the decision, stick with it and deal swiftly with any dissent by issuing a caution in record time! This will take you to the point of no return. Players will see that you have applied the correct punishment, and know that you will not be changing your mind. The more delay you have in issuing the caution, the more time players have to try and influence you.

• Don’t make a meal of the occasion by humiliating the perpetrator. A swift caution clearly shows what you think of his antics. Further chastisement by you will only inflame the situation. Get the game restarted as soon as you can.

• If you are in the centre circle catching up with play, forget to make that call!  There is no credibility in making a decision from inside the centre circle, involving a simulation act inside of the penalty area.

• Be brave. You get nowhere as a referee if you lack courage. Simulation is no different to a foul.

• Trust your instinct always, as it often proves to be correct, even though you believe that you have maybe not assimilated all of the facts.

• Accept that you will get a few decisions wrong.

In 2009 Australia’s Football Federation (FFA) confirmed it would bring in new disciplinary measures that will allow A-League players to be retrospectively cited for simulation.  The A-League’s match review panel will go over games to find instances of simulation missed by the referee, where players have won penalties or had opponents sent off.  Players found guilty of diving can receive suspensions of up to two weeks.  The league will become only the second in world football, behind the Scottish Premier League, to impose such sanctions.

In a televised game, even close-up camera shots can be inconclusive when trying to identify simulation, but citing players on video evidence will certainly go a long away in making players accountable for their simulating actions.

Out of 10 incidents of simulation, there will probably be one occasion that was a genuine foul. If a referee can accept that he will occasionally penalise a player for simulation when no simulation has occurred, it will increase that referee’s endeavour to play his part in ridding the game of this blight.

 Goal line technology is up for discussion (again) on Fifa’s 2010 annual general meeting come March, as promised by Mr. Blatter.

 Points up for discussion and consideration are proposals/amendments submitted under the regulations of IFAB, the International Football Association Board tasked with changes to the 17 Laws of the Game.

 For a self-explanatory and detailed breakdown of the agenda, see Fifa’s Agenda for the March 2010 AGM. (PDF document, 640KB)

EDIT: 6 March 2010: Fifa decided, inter alia, not to pursue goal line technology.

But it seems Fifa has pulled the plug on all forms of technological aids for referees, judging by this statement:

The 124th Annual General meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in Zurich on 6 March 2010, which, as is the case with every FIFA World Cup year, was chaired by myself on behalf of FIFA, … IFAB decided not to implement technology in football. FIFA supports this decision, based on the following points:

The universality of the game: one of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football. This means that the game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world. If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV. The simplicity and universality of the game of association football is one of the reasons for its success. Men, women, children, amateurs and professionals all play the same game all over the world.

The human aspect: no matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else? It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have ten different opinions on what the decision should have been. Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport.

 The extended use of technology: the question has already been raised: if the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision in every area of the pitch would soon be questioned.

 The nature of the game: association football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in order to review a decision. If play were to be stopped to take a decision, it would break up the rhythm of the game and possibly deny a team the opportunity to score a goal. It would also not make sense to stop play every two minutes to review a decision, as this would go against the natural dynamism of the game. – President of Fifa, Sepp Blatter [FIFA.com] 

Fifa HQ's, Zurich, Switzerland

With the World Cup almost upon us in South Africa (kick-off 11 June 2010), I am getting numerous phone calls from people asking for football advice and general information on the Laws of the Game. The Fifa World Cup, being the biggest sporting event on the planet, and being an occasion as much as a football extravaganza at the highest level,  have inspired some non-football watchers and friends of mine to apply and get World Cup tickets. (They seem to have better luck getting tickets then I do!   ) Callers and friends are of the opinion that they are not going to miss this historical event being held for the first time on African soil, a lifetime experience to be enjoyed and savoured, even though some are not regular watchers of football, or soccer as its called here.

I was recently invited to a two hour radio talk on the Laws of the Game and the most common questions asked were how many fouls are there and when/how do you as a referee decide when it is a foul or not? The answer to the first part is easy: ten fouls as descrided in Law 12, but getting to grips on the how and when to identify fouls consistently and correctly, given Law 12’s  instructions, can take referees years to master if they want to become top class officials.

Referee decision-making is a fascinating and complex area. Each referee will deal with decision-making in their own individual way, and will often rely on a combination of intuition, experience and their knowledge of the Laws. Certain referees are capable of making instant decisions, whilst others rely more on having the infringement played over in their mind before calling a foul, thus giving them time to appraise all of the relevant information and factors.

Information overflow ...

Experienced referees rely greatly on their “gut feeling and instinct,” and their own automatic conscious or unconscious reactions when making judgement calls. Decisions based on well-developed instincts are often proven to be correct. Trusting your own instinct will serve you well as a referee, more often then not. That is to say, if your instinct is well developed! There is no substitute for experience, as instinct -  that “gut feel”  – is acquired over time and practice. The essence of outstanding referees are their ability to make decisions instinctively within the simple framework of the 17 Laws of the Game.

Making correct decisions are complicated by a number of factors:

(1) a sine qua non is knowledge of the 17 Laws,

(2) the speed of play,

(3) the distance between the incident and the referee – also known as “closeness” to play;

(4) his fitness;

(5) whether there are players obstructing the referees’s line of sight (viewing angle);

(6) whether assistant referees are available or not;

(7) the referee’s technical aptitude or natural ability;

(8) the referee’s eyesight, including his peripheral awareness.

All the above play a role in various degrees. With regard to closeness to play – given the saying “presence lends authority” – the following footnote: In the 1986 World Cup, detailed referee analysis showed that decision errors were more likely to be made when referees were too close to the incident. When the officials got it right, they were, on average, 17 metres away from the action. The average distance in the case of decision errors were 12 metres. Research shows the optimum distance for correct decision making to be roughly 20 metres from incidents.

An astute referee understands that there will be many decision-making situations that do not neatly fit the answers provided by the Laws. The ability to interpret the Law is therefore an important asset. It is not only an understanding of the 17 Laws  that makes a good referee; it is also his interpretation or decision-making ability, in conjunction with common sense, self-assessment, managing the temperature of the game, self-analysis and adhering to the overarching principles of  “Spirit of the Game” and “Fair Play.”

Thinking out of the box - Ref Mike Riley sent off Reading mascot "Kingsley Royal" for, well ... looking like a Reading player! (Reading vs Newcastle, 2007)

Research shows that in football matches referees are expected to make many decisions (observable and unobservable) during 90 minutes. Analysis in the Euro 2000 Final tournament suggests that an international match official make 137 observable interventions on average (the range is 104-162 decisions) during a game, including awarding free-kicks, penalties, corners, throw-ins and halting play for serious injury. 64% of these decisions were based on direct communication with his assistants and/or 4th official. (Helsen & Bultynck, 2004).

Roughly a quarter of those decisions relate to possible interventions pertaining to fouls and misconduct (Law 12). Each decision must be calculated in the smallest fraction of time, usually within a second or two. The possible responses of a referee who identified a foul vary from (a) indirect free kick, (b) direct free/penalty kick in combination with a yellow card (caution) or a red card (sending off). All of these sanctions have clearly an impact on the course of a game. Empirical observations done indicate that on average 20% of referees’ decisions are wrong when it comes to identifying fouls and misconduct.

According to the Max Planck Research Institute, learning to make accurate referee decisions inter alia require repeated exposure to infringement incidents (via video training material) with corresponding feedback. Hardly a surprise, given the old adage  “practice makes perfect.”

Fifa published a starter document in 2002 to aid match officials in foul recognition, i.e. when fouls are being considered careless (a free kick only), reckless (free kick + caution) or being committed with excessive force (free kick + expulsion).

The definitions of careless, reckless and excessive force in football vernacular are stipulated as: A careless tackle is defined as a player showing a lack of attention or consideration when making his/her challenge without precaution. A reckless tackle is a player that made an action with complete disregard for, danger to, or consequence for, his opponent. Using excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

Bear in mind the definition of a foul. It’s a specified unfair action within the ambit of offenses – as defined in Law 12 – that is committed:

1. against an opponent (not a team mate);
2. while the ball is in play;
3. on the field of play

All the above criteria must be present before the specific unfair action can be classified as a foul. Further, fouls are only committed against opponents. If a player hits his own team mate, that action is classified as misconduct, not a foul. The restart will be an indirect free kick to the opponents, and not a direct free kick as the case where 2 opponents were slugging it out against one another. Does this happen in modern pro football? Oh yes they do… It seems the English league is never short of football examples to instruct referees. Have a look here …

Lee Bowyer vs Kieron Dyer, fighting one another. Newcastle (0) vs. Aston Villa (3), April 2005.

The Football Association fined Lee Bowyer £30,000 and imposed an additional three-game ban, and his club Newcastle fined him a further six weeks’ wages (+/-£250,000);  Dyer was not fined as Bowyer was perceived to have thrown the first punch. In addition, Bowyer was charged by Northumbria Police in connection with the brawl with offences under section 4 of the Public Order Act. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of using threatening behaviour, paying a further £1,600. Newcastle ended the match with 8 players as Steven Taylor had earlier been sent off for a second cautionable offence!

But I digress.

Indicators that referees, according to Fifa, should use to identify specific challenges as being executed in either in a careless manner, a reckless manner or using extreme/excessive force – sometimes referred to as brutality – are below.

1. Judging the body actions of the tackler by noting the point of contact – referees are instructed not to judge intent, but only action. The reasoning is that we are not able to conclusively interpret player intentions, therefore we are limited to judging their physical body actions (flaying arms, trailing leg, raised boot with studs showing, two- or one-footed lunges off the ground etc.);
2. Noting the speed of the approach by the tackler on the player about to be tackled;
3. Looking for any signs of aggression shown by the tackler;
4. Recognizing any signs of violence associated with the tackle;
5. Position of the tackler: is the tackle from the back, or the side, or from the front;
6. What opportunity the tackler has to play the ball fairly –  getting the ball first does not necessarily imply no foul was committed if the tackler uses speed and/or aggression disproportionately. (A seemingly difficult concept for some pro players to accept!)
7. Taking into account the atmosphere of the game, or the feel of the game.

Fifa  has since clarified that the position of the tackler is about fairness and player safety; that is, whether the player about to be tackled is aware of the opponent’s location. (Do note:  a tackle from any direction which the referee judge to be careless, reckless or using excessive force should be punished accordingly).

Being aware of  match atmosphere reminds referees to be alert to the type of match they are controlling, that is whether it is a bad tempered, fouling affair or a skilled sporting contest. If it is a nasty contest referees should  be very alert and suspicious when a player runs hard at an opponent. This is a good example of being pro-active in their control, as they should be.

Julian Carosi identifies 3 types of decision-making processes referees are faced with.

1. Statutory decisions: These are objective decisions – i.e. they are either right or they are wrong according to the Laws of the Game.
2. Interpretational decisions: How the Referee interprets the Laws. A subjective decision, i.e. reading between the lines
3. Impossible decisions: The ability to quickly and confidently make a ‘best guess’ or ‘default’ or ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’ or an ‘equal’ decision (such as a drop ball).

Note that in order to correctly INTERPRET the Law, you have to KNOW the Law. Thus (1) above is a pre-requisite for (2).

Making statutory decisions depends greatly on a Referee’s knowledge of the Laws and his ability to keep abreast with Law changes, – developments and – amendments during his career. Statutory decisions are the easiest to make – because the referee knows (or should know!) beforehand, exactly which Law is applicable for punishments or conclusions or decisions he is basing his decision on. An example of a common statutory Law error made by new referees, is the failure to understand that when a free kick is taken inside the penalty area by the defending team, the ball has to travel outside of the penalty area before it comes into play, and before another player can touch it.

Learning the Laws by heart, and passing the initial referees’ exam is the easy part. The difficult part is being able to apply the Laws, being able to interpret the Laws in such a way that the players get the maximum enjoyment out of their game. The key to this is the ability of a referee not to be a complete dictator, but to recognize and react to the ambiance and feel of each game, and to be able to adjust his levels of control throughout the 90 minutes. Decision-making is key to this requirement – along with ability to bend and flex the rules in such a way that it promotes the Spirit of the Laws by using what is generally known as Law 18 – Common Sense.

A few examples of where good interpretation of the Laws and quick confident decision-making are required for a referee to retain his credibility as an official:  (a) Was the handball deliberate? (b) Should the player be cautioned or will a stern public warning suffice? (c) Can a referee drop the ball to the goalkeeper without any other players being involved? (d) Is the attacking player standing in an offside position, actively involved with play or not? Common sense and Law interpretation used fairly and correctly, separates the good referees from the not-so-good officials.

The third part of the decision-making process is the impossible decisions. There will be many occasions in each game, when it will be impossible for the referee to make a correct decision: (a) Has the ball crossed the goal line marginally with the referee (or his assistant) many yards away and not 100% sure? (b) Two opponents are competing for possession of the ball very near to the goal line. The ball simultaneously hits the shins of both players, and travels completely over the goal line. Both teams are equally entitled to the decision. But what should the referee award – a goal kick or a corner kick?

The decisions mentioned in the above examples seem to be the most difficult ones to make, but with a little preparation they are, according to Julian Carosi, the easiest decisions to make if you take note of the following criteria:

• Be ready by anticipating problems
• Get as near as you can to active play
• Be firm
• Be quick
• Be positive
• Do not waver or hesitate
• Stand erect when delivering your decision
• The more difficult the decision – the more you will need to “sell” it
• Look players in the eye confidently
• Provide clear and quickly delivered signals
• Do not be influenced by others once you have decided what to do
• Your decision counts and nobody else’s. So be ready to deal with the inevitable ensuing dissent
• Look at the reaction and the body-language of the players, i.e. don’t (out of hand) dismiss passionate shouts by a team for a decision in their favour
• Don’t worry too much if everybody else thinks you are wrong – for now, you’re right!
• And finally – maintain 100% concentration at all times.

Note: In situations where the referee has realized he made a genuine mistake, he can change his decision, according to the Laws of the Games, as long as play has not restarted or he has not blown for the end of the match. Players and coaches are usually receptive to an honest mistake being rectified – the referee just needs to admit that he was wrong in the first place.

Embed default decision-making scenarios in your mind. Some standard examples of these types of decisions are shown below. If you can adopt these, it will make your impossible decision-making very easy and automatic. The trick is to make life as easy as possible for yourself by lessening any potential trouble ensuing because of your decision.

If you need to make a decision but are not sure which way to go:

• Award throw-ins to the defending team.
• Award a goal kick rather than a corner kick.
• If you are unsure whether an attacking player is offside or not – give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team.
• If you are unsure of whether the ball was last played by defender or an attacking player when deciding offside, give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team.
• Award free kicks to the defending team – especially during corner kicks.
• Is it a direct free kick just outside the penalty area or is it a penalty kick? Award a direct free kick.
• Is it a penalty or not? No penalty.
• So called “Orange card” tackles – the foul is a caution/yellow (i.e. reckless challenge), but it borders on red (i.e. serious foul play). What to do? Sent off! Err on the side of an expulsion, as per Fifa’s latest mantra. Coaches will rather accept a “harsh” red then a “weak” yellow.
• Was the handball deliberate or not? Not deliberate. (See criteria below)
• Has a goal been definitely scored or not? No goal.

Fifa also defines the criteria to help referees assess the deliberateness of handball. Handball is defined as the whole arm, stretching from the outer shoulder to the fingertips. Handball is not an offense. It has to be deliberate. Factors that could help in classifying handball as deliberate and thus an offense punishable with a direct free kick are:

• distance of the kicker and the player;
• the reaction time the player has, if any, to move his arm away (unexpected ball);
• original hand/arm position of the player;
• whether the ball moved towards the hand/arm (ball kicked onto the arm) versus a hand/arm moving towards the ball.

If the above factors do not convince the referee to punish the infringement, he is instructed to refrain from calling handball. “Deliberate” means that the player could have avoided the touch with his arm/hand but chose not to. Moving your hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast, unexpected approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing the hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting his hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.

“That is NOT a foul ref!” or “Are  you booking me for that?” My usual retort on-field is to ask said player what Law has been transgressed or not, if he’s then so certain of his case? Silence is mostly the reply. If you want to interpret the Law correctly, you have to know the Law first. Paradoxically, given that they ply their trade in professional football, most professional players, coaches and football commentators – it seems ex-pro players going into journalistic careers are not exempt either -  in South Africa are clueless when it comes to the first basic step; real knowledge of the 17 Laws of the Game, never mind interpreting the Laws correctly according to Fifa directives.

The hardest aspect of being a English Premier League referee?  62%  of the referees revealed that they generally thought the uneducated, personal, biased and unfair scrutiny they were subjected to by the media was a burden on their officiating role in the Premier League. – Mason & Lovell 2000

A SAFA referee course was held some years ago for football commentators.  Most did not bother to pitch up. Yet, they are the so-called pundits where millions believe every word or opinion on the Laws they utter on live television and print. That’s not to say commentators are always incorrect and referees don’t make any mistakes; I’m willing to bet my FIFA toss coin that referees will have 50% less “trouble” if these football “pundits” really know the Laws and interpretations as they should be applied according to Fifa, as per the well-informed SABC television commentator Duane Dell’Orca (and a very small minority) that has shown consistently and admirably their knowledge on the Laws of the Game over the past few seasons.

I have lost count the amount of silly yellow cards I issued to players this season because they refuse to respect the 10-yard distance at free kicks in the professional league. In this regard the Law allow referees not much leeway or discretion. If a player refuses to move back  - usually after I warn them first –  they must be cautioned. Tell that to players, coaches and commentators complaining that referees should use their discretion in this instance. There is no interpretation, no discretion, no discussion. It’s black … or white.

South African referees, Jerome Damon and Enock Molefe (assistant), were included in the  list for match officials for the World Cup Finals starting on 11 June 2010 in South Africa.

See all referees selected for the 2010 Finals. (PDF document)

They have done themselves, their families as well as the international referee fraternity proud. Well done gents!

Referee Jerome Damon representing the RSA at World Cup 2010

Bloemfontein Celtic, playing away to title chasers Mamelodi Sundowns in the local Premier Soccer League, was robbed this week of a legitimate goal.  Who were these wretched match officials?

I was the middle referee. Moi, me.  I robbed the visiting side. There, I said it!  Therefore, I plead guilty to the charges of:

(1) I was not able to cover/run 30+ yards towards the goal line in just 1,46 seconds, being the total flight time of the ball from kick to bounce on the ground;

(2) Being complicit in not cajoling my assistant referee (AR2) to cover/run 18 yards in the above flight time to reach the corner flag/goal line;

(3)  Not being able to have the gall to guess – from where I stood – if the ball that bounced off the cross bar did in fact cross the goal line completely, i.e. the whole width of the ball and not just the centre of it. Parallax anyone? (I’ll come back to this funny word soon)

(4) Not having any video aid or even an assistant colleague standing on/near goal line at all times to clarify the call for a legitimate goal.

Humans have limits. Technology seems limitless, judging by Moore’s Law. How I wish I had some aid/technology/help to decide if the rocket shot at goal from the skilful and powerful Bloemfontein Celtic player, Kanono, had indeed crossed the line when the ball hit the cross bar, bounced (apparently) just behind the goal line, only to end up in the field of play. All this happened in 1,46 seconds from a 24-yard shot at goal. Yes, I timed the ball’s flight. Call me pedantic.

No hope in hell – from my position anyway – that will even allow me to guess where the ball bounced. Making a guessing call from that distance and that angle is a sure way to end with zero credibility as a referee. I need to know with 100% certainty it crossed the goal line. No match official should guess any decision from our natural (and hopefully correct!) positions on the field of play. Parallax again!

The golden rule of officiating is still applicable; if you or your assistant are not sure, then you cannot call any infringement …. or award a goal in this instance. Full stop.  As one match commissioner/referee assessor remarked about this incident in particular: 

“Do nothing, and if you did call that goal, I would’ve had a serious problem with you.”

He is referring to parallax, an optical illusion phenomena. It’s grade 6 school work. Well, it was in the 1970′s anyway. Parallax is an apparent displacement (or difference) in the apparent position of an object (the soccer ball), viewed along two different lines of sight (the referee’s current, oblique angle as compared to the correct viewing angle – the ONLY angle! – along or on the goal line), and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.

A simple everyday example of parallax can be seen in the dashboard of motor vehicles that use a “needle” type speedometer gauge. When viewed from directly in front (along or on the goal line), the speed needle may show 60 km/h, i.e. the needle appears against the ’60′ mark on the dial behind; but when viewed from the passenger seat (i.e. from an oblique angle, i.e. the referee’s view in the middle of the field of play) the needle can appear against a slightly lower or higher mark, depending on whether it is viewed from the left or from the right, because of the combined effect of the spacing and the angle of view. End lesson 1a.

Being aware of the optical illusion of parallax, and if he wanted to negate the effect thereof completely, my assistant referee (AR2) had some yardage gain on me to possibly set the record straight; he had to run only 18 yards to the corner flag in  1 second flat to see along the goal line and to give a 100% correct call if the ball crossed the line entirely or not,  thus making Mr. Parallax look silly. Alas, he’s no Usian Bolt either. Yes, despite the illusion of parallax, it would have been relatively easy to make the decision if the ball bounced meters behind the goal line. But this was clearly not the case.

It is not the first time that such an incident occurred in my match. It leaves a frank taste that I cannot avail myself to some form of aid/technology with so much riding professionally on this particular match.  And all other professional football matches for that matter. Let’s also be clear here: I do not support any football team in South Africa. In fact, I don’t support any football team anywhere. Never been a staunch supporter of any team, whether it’s football, rugby, baseball, basketball, underwater hockey …  you catch the drift?  Boring, I know.  But you have it now in writing and you can hold me to it –  so much for the South African football conspiracy theorists.

One of Mr. Blatter’s explanations for denying video technology inter alia to aid match officials are that such aids will rob the public of “talking points” on the match. I suppose being the referee and being subject to such a “talking point” encounter -  and more often being called various unsavoury things in between – are indeed points to talk about.

I know that in the EUROPA league EUFA is currently experimenting with 2 additional referees next to the goal nets. Their presence on the goal line next would certainly have helped to make the correct call. I just don’t envy these officials, having to stand for 90 minutes at roughly the same spot, so close to the always vocal – and hostile – supporters of the various teams.

The time has passed were we, and Fifa, can emphatically (and automatically) say no to any form of technology aids to assist in the accuracy of referee calls for the professional game. Who would have foreseen the referee communication system and bleeper flags 20-30 years ago? I sincerely believe that technological aids will be gradually introduced by Fifa, not after some thorough testing and criteria worked out before their introduction at international tournaments.

Be it as it may, I apologize sincerely that I, given the limits of human nature, but given the possibility of limitless technology advancement, was not able to award an apparent legitimate goal to Bloemfontein Celtic on the night. It is a talking point. Now discuss. One request though: stop calling me unsavioury names . I will let this matter now rest with the following quote:

We call it as we see it. Although television can give you 15 different angles, the only angle they can’t show is the referee’s — Paul Durkin, ex-FA Premier League referee, 1998

The still sequences below were taken during my match this week, Mamelodi Sundowns vs. Bloemfontein Celtic.

Kanono (white circle) about to unleash a powerful shot. The middle ref is the slacker that cannot guess.

Sundowns GK Baloyi well beaten, with the ball hitting the bar and about to travel downwards.

The ball seems to have crossed the goal line. The Assistant and I had an oblique angle given our respective positions, and given parallax, we were not 100% certain.

The third part of  referees I consider as role models – see the criteria here – is long overdue.

Pierluigi Collina – “A football game is a string of episodes. Each episode sparks a decision in your head as to how you should handle the situation”

Pierluigi Collina - Italy (active career: 1977 - 2005)

Pierluigi Collina, a financial adviser by trade, now helps to oversee match officials in Italy’s top 2 divisions (Serie A and Serie B) and serves as a member of UEFA’s Referees Committee.

Born in Bologna, he began officiating at just 17 and spent 14 years working his way up the ladder before he was  allowed to officiate in Italy’s Serie B and A in 1991. He earned his Fifa badge in 1995.

He lost all his hair at the age of 24 – in just 15 days – to a severe form of alopecia and to this day still does not know how it came about.

Voted by the IFFHS as Best Referee six years in a row (1998-2003), he also tops the IFFHS  list as the best referee of all time by a wide margin.

He professes to being unaffected whether he is a refereeing in front of 80,000 people or one.  “The concentration is so high you do not realize what is surrounding you” – but admits mistakes will always be made:  “If a player misses his first pass, he must continue, forget it, otherwise he could not play. It’s the same for referees” Collina says.

“We are only human. In Seria A [Italy's top league] there are 20 – 24 cameras positioned at different angles – it is not easy to compare that with just two eyes. Nowadays it is a hard job. We as referees have to accept that there is a match played on the field and there is another shown by the television. There is no place to hide. It is very difficult when you take decision because it is based on your angle of vision, but the camera’s positioning in a different way shows something you couldn’t see.

This makes it very challenging and very difficult for referees. You have maybe less than half second to decide something, and a half-second is nothing. It is all a matter of speed. I think it is very unfair to blame a referee always because he was wrong. It is impossible to see everything live and sometimes people blame referees only because a small camera has shown something that is impossible to be seen by the human eyes. People must realize that there is a limit on humans, not on the technology.”

He had this to say about credibility and plaudits from fellow referees and players: “Nothing comes by chance. You need to earn the respect and also the credibility in refereeing. Credibility is very very important and only a stupid person can think he’s perfect and never makes a mistake. It is important to remember and know that you can fail, that you make a mistake. I was very, very happy that I reached this kind of credibility and acceptance by the players.”

He is one of the rare European match officials that officiated most of the EUFA honours available to a referee: The 1996 Olympic Final (Nigeria vs Argentina), the 1999 Champions League Final (Bayern Munich vs. Manchester United), the 2004 EUFA Cup Final (Valencia vs. Olympique Marseille), the World Cup Final in 2002 (Brazil vs. Germany) and participated in numerous EURO matches.

As Man Utd. celebrated two injury-time goals, Collina attempts to comfort a distraught, sprawled Stefan Effenberg of Bayern Munich in the 1999 Champions League Final

The 1999  UEFA Champions League final between Manchester United FC and FC Bayern München in Barcelona was one of the memorable moments in his career:

“I will always remember it for different reasons – first of all, the reaction of the [Manchester] United supporters when they scored their second goal, it was an incredible noise, like a lion’s roar,” he remembers “Then, there was the reaction of the Bayern players – their disappointment as they fell down on the pitch after conceding that goal. The contrasting reactions of happiness and sadness, and the sad eyes of captain Lothar Matthäus when he looked at the trophy – all very unforgettable.”

Matthäus  captained Bayern in the 1987 European Cup Final and lost in similar circumstances to two late FC Porto goals. Matthäus had been substituted with just four minutes remaining, with victory seemingly assured, and the European Cup was the only major trophy he had failed to win during his career. This led commentator Clive Tyldesley to say: “What must Lothar Matthäus be thinking?” as United scored their 2nd goal within the space of 2 minutes in added time, then adding the comment: “Well, with the greatest respect, who cares?”

Matthäus later commented that “it was not the best team that won but the luckiest.”

Looking back at his career as active referee, Collina was recently asked what his greatest experience was, given that he was involved in many finals and high level games. His answer was not obvious:

“It is easy to say the World Cup Final, the Olympic Final, a Champions League Final, a UEFA Cup Final or matches like Barcelona-Real Madrid, England-Scotland; and plenty of other matches I refereed in like some Italian derbies, Milan-Inter, Roma-Lazio. There were many interesting and emotional games. Those are easy to speak about.

When I became a referee at 17 I became involved with players older than me. This is something that helps you to be more mature, to build up your personality. If I look back to my past as a referee, certainly I liked the big finals. But as I am also a man, I have absolutely to be grateful to the experience because it made me what I am now. A man. One of the main problems for people in every activity is decision making. It is something that can’t be taught … making a decision under stress is something you have to learn, for example, if you want to be a top manager in any big company. How better to learn these things than to be a referee?”

Players universally admired his sense of fairness, summed up by Marco Materazzi, the Internazionale defender, when Collina announced his retirement in 2005: “A referee as good as Collina should be cloned”

But perhaps the ultimate compliment paid to Collina came from the corrupt Juventus official Luciano Moggi, head instigator of the 2006 Italian football scandal. In a phone call intercepted by police investigators, Moggi was overheard complaining that Collina (and fellow referee Roberto Rosetti) were too “objective” in matches involving Juventus and in true Mafia style commented that these officials’ should be “punished” for it. [See the Italian 2006 Football scandal & wiretap recordings]

I wish everyone a beautiful festive season and outstanding prospects for the year 2010. World Cup 2010 is almost upon us. My best wishes and good luck go to South African Fifa referees Jerome Damon and Enock Molefe, both are still short listed for the 2010 World Cup on our shores. Do us proud gentlemen!

Fifa referee Jerome Damon (RSA)

Fifa assistant referee Enock Molefe

It is not right that we go to a [football] game as though it was the Stone Age and we cannot see replays, when someone sitting at home on the sofa with a cigar and a beer can see everything. – Gerard Houllier

The powers to be has decided with regard to the 2010 World Cup and video replays and/or referee technology – see report here.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter said no ... for the moment

Well, what can I say? As a referee, obviously I’m disappointed, but it was to be expected given the lack of time before World Cup 2010 kicks off on 11 June.  The last thing FIFA, I suppose, wants to do is to have half-baked ideas not properly tested and/or criteria worked out before the Big Event. It is akin to a big oil tanker needing many kilometres to turn on the wide open shipping lanes.  The ships helmsman has started to spin the steering wheel. Or has he?

There seems to be a gradual shift in FIFA’s thinking: Previously the question of any video technology to assist referees was answered with an emphatic no. Not that FIFA indicated that video technology will be on the agenda as a referee aid, as FIFA seems at moment to entertain the possibility of video technology, if only as one of the likely methods to assist referees. Blatter had this to say at the media brief after FIFA’s extraordinary meeting on 2 December 2009 in Cape Town, where FIFA discussed inter alia Thierry Henry’s  ”blatant unfair play”:

“We have decided to set up a committee to look in to all this [additional referees and/or video technology] - not just by the referees’ committee but also the football committee, the medical committee, technical committee to get deeply into this matter.”

FIFA has shown the mindset and intention to elevate the issue of introducing referee aids to diminish blatant unfair play by players and unsighted infringements to the highest echelons of their structure. I have the prediction that FIFA will introduce the following referees aids in the near future – hopefully before World Cup 2014 - and probably in the following order:

1. Extra/additional referees;
2. Goal line video technology;
3. Very limited video replay referrals with a set criteria when it can be invoked.

For the moment though, we have not yet moved out of the “stone age”. The bigger the swell and general discontent  to change the referee status quo, the bigger the impetus is for FIFA to actually do something about it. Let’s then keep on making waves  …

Rumour has it that when Maradonna was recently asked by the English press, as coach of Argentina for the 2010 World Cup, whether he has any regret about his “hand of God” incident during the 1986 World Cup in Mexico? His reply:

“No, not at all. Given the chance, I would have used my other hand, just to prove God is ambidextrous” — ( see also Gary Linekar interviewing Maradona on his “God’s hand”)

Four years later, at the 1990 World Cup in Italy versus Russia, Maradonna was again the centre of a handball controversy. The referee, a mere 5 metres away and with a seemingly unobstructed view, failed to award Russia a penalty kick after a clear and deliberate handball (arm moving towards the ball).

World Cup 1990 vs Russia: Maradonna showing that he can use his right arm. The referee, in perfect position, did not award a penalty.

Moments after the 1986 “Hand of God” incident, Maradona scored a goal that is regarded as one of the greatest in a World Cup Final, to be added to my personal favourites: Roberto Baggio and Saeed Owairan’s goals from this list. Not on the aforementioned list is this one vs Belgium, Mexico 1986.

Ireland’s World Cup play-off with France and its chances to reach South Africa 2010 is no more, courtesy of a handball (twice) before the ball entered the luckless Irish goals. See picture below. (Reuters)

Blame neither the French player Henry nor the Swedish referee, Martin Hansson. If blame is to be apportioned, direct it to the technological disadvantaged football referee system.

FIFA has already indicated that the possibility of an Irish/French replay is moot and that the case for a sanctioned replay is dissimilar to the World Cup play-off between Bahrain and Uzbekistan due to a mistake in law made by the match referee: A teammate of the penalty taker encroached into the 18-yard penalty area before the ball was kicked into the goal nets. The referee ordered an indirect free kick to the defending side. The correct call should have been a retake of the penalty. This, according to FIFA, was an instance of incorrect application of the Laws, to be distinguished from an unsighted infringement.

Henry “caressing” the ball with his hand (twice) can be compared to Maradona’s 1986 World Cup “hand of God” incident. The infringement, not sighted by the officials, but clearly seen by most people in the stadium, was not called and the goal stood. Unfair? Indeed. Tough luck? For the losing team, you bet.

A referee can only call an infringement that he sees. That much is crystal clear and cardinal in the world of refereeing. An old FIFA saying, gleaned from the various national referee workshops I have attended states: The correct decision can only be made from the correct position. Hence the additional criteria of fitness for referees over and above theoretical and practical knowledge of the Laws of the Game. But in no way, given the performance of the Swedish referee on the night, can I state that he was unfit. Nor was he incompetent.

The problem, from a referee’s viewpoint, is two-fold and needs some drastic intervention from the higher echelons of football:-

(1) How to eradicate/diminish player dishonesty during matches;

(2) How to assist officials missing infringements at the same time?

In 20+ years since the “hand of God incident” and legio other incidents, FIFA, as custodian of word-wide football, has as of yet failed to create and implement a creditable system that can help assist match officials to officiate the game in a more accurate way and to expose cheating players at the same time. Most players will not readily admit when they have infringed the Laws. That much seems clear. What to do? Bring in detection systems – extra Mark I eyeballs or electronic – to help the referee? Create a system that can facilitate both #1 and #2 above and yet keep the “human error” element – whatever way you want to define human error – without taking away the referee’s authority and control and/or making the game a stop-start affair?

Why not have limited video replay referrals as well as additional assistant referees (AAR’s)? For the current AAR experiment see here.

A few years ago the Danish National League (2003-2004 season) experimented with a slightly different version of match video replays: Each team/management had only 2 appeals/referrals to a video replay. Further criteria were defined when and how the 2 referrals should be invoked.

Obviously this is a compromise to FIFA’s current stance of no video replays at all. What happened to the Danish League experiment and the conclusions reached afterwards, I don’t know. It seems this idea will cover both points #1 and #2 above without completely taking control away from the match referee or making the game a complete farce i.e. stopping play to refer to video evidence for each and every infringement call, thus second-guessing and usurping the referee’s Law 5 powers completely.

Looking at the World Cup play-off match feed Ireland vs. France, I can see why the Swedish referee missed the handball infringement: He was positioned diagonally behind Henry, with another 2-3 players (on the edge of the 6-yard goal area) also between him and Henry. This can – and do – easily happen, judging by various matches I officiated the last 22 years. Being fit can only help you so much to get into the correct position. But infringements will be missed, it’s just a matter of time. I venture to say that even if the Swedish referee attempted to run wider during play to try and have a better view of the Henry handball infringement, he probably still would have had not enough time to get into a better position, given the speed of play.

I also assume that the leading assistant referee, seemingly having a better unobstructed view, can easily miss the infringement given the speed of play, the sheer distance to the infringement (35m -40m) and/or just not looking directly at the infringement.

Let’s hope FIFA’s AAR experiment at a minimum – as it’s more cost effective then video replays given the world-wide appeal of football from grass-roots level and up – gets implemented sooner rather then later. Will this be sufficient? Time will tell if the AAR experiment by itself will have the desired effect of minimizing unseen infringements and identifying dishonest players – the odds certainly look better then the status quo.

But for now, luck  – and time  – seems to have deserted the Irish football team.

I’m off to officiate this coming Wednesday (25 Nov at 19h30) Mamelodi Sundowns vs. Orlando Pirates. A possible humdinger.