Sour Grapes And DVDs

This column makes no apologies for yet again mentioning Tony Pulis.

The Stoke boss yet again has decided to make an idiot of himself following his Centre Half Robert Huth getting sent off against Sunderland.

The rights and wrongs of the decision not to rescind the red card are not what is being debated here, but Pulis’s reaction. First, rather than accepting the red and the subsequent three match ban, the Welshman (supported by his Chairman Peter Coates) used his press conference last week to explain that he was going to put together a DVD of all the bad challenges of the last two weekends.

Challenges, he says, that are worse than the one his player got sent off for. And thus invoking all the get out clause of all desperate managers: That of two wrongs making a right.

Then on Saturday at Craven Cottage Fulham’s new signing Pavel Pogrebnyak, who had earlier scored on his debut, committed a foul in front of the dugouts – a reasonably high tackle that went unpunished.

After this, the Potters supremo went on the attack, raging in his after match Media appearance, about the tackle: “If Chris Foy has missed it, then Kevin Friend sees it, but the lad doesn't even get a yellow card," he complained.

"The fourth official can contact the ref, so it's just not good enough really.
"It's a shocking challenge. He's gone in with his studs up and one foot off the ground and caught Wilson below the knee – it's a worse challenge than Robert Huth's by a country mile.
"The inconsistency this year has been shocking. This is a big decision that would have affected the game.

"They could have been down to 10 men in the first half. I'm not making excuses, but it doesn't help you when you get decisions like that going against you."
Now, as you might have guessed from the blatant Stoke bias to this article I am a paying supporter. I was there at Craven Cottage on Saturday with my brother like we always are, and I will confess that we – like

Mr. Foy and Mr. Friend – didn’t see the challenge. We did see two bad ones in the first half, one for which Wilson Palacios was booked and one – an Andy Wilkinson kick on Damien Duff which happened right in the corner where we were sitting – which went, just like Pogrebynak’s, unpunished.

As we have said before, you cannot have the level of consistency that these managers call for, simply because referees are human, and refs do have bad games sometimes. Just like Chris Foy did in the Stoke v Spurs game in December, when I don’t recall Pulis bleating and moaning when Spurs had a goal disallowed for offside that was yards on and a player sent off who didn’t deserve to be.

Stoke City are on a bad run of results. Just like they were in October when it was all the Referees fault according to the Manager, just like they were last season when a series of bad decisions set him hopping mad.

That is the risk that Manager’s who moan about officials run. Even if they do have a valid point – and Pulis very, very rarely does – it always does look like sour grapes.
The facts are that the Referee didn’t cost Stoke City on Saturday. The team’s inability to defend, the chronic lack of threat from the forwards, and Pulis’s appalling team selection on the other hand, did.
But I suspect he knew that anyway.

Helping Out Your Fellow Pro

If we ignore the fact that, yet again, Stoke boss Tony Pulis decided to jump up and down on the touchline like some sort of baseball cap wearing Yosemite Sam lookalike and moan, yet again, about a refereeing decision at the weekend, he did have one or two interesting things to say.

If you recall the incident that sparked the debate, it saw Stoke defender Robert Huth making a tackle on Sunderland’s David Meyler. The Black Cats midfielder rolled around the floor and Huth received a red card.

After the game Pulis took to his Press Conference to rage about players rolling around the floor and called for the Authorities to act: “it is cheating a fellow-professional,” Pulis said. “It is like a disease in the game, and it needs stamping out as soon as possible.

'It has become more ingrained in the game, and it is something Gordon Taylor and the PFA should really get to grips with. The game is difficult enough for referees, because of the pace and tempo, without players trying to fool them by rolling around when they've not even been touched. Sometimes they may have been touched but are not really hurt.
We want to be as competitive and fair as we possibly can, but it's creeping into the game where players are going down with the intention of getting others booked or even sent off. It's something we seriously, seriously have to look at.”

And here, at Referee Jobs we have some sympathy for his argument. It is an unedifying spectacle to see players rolling around the floor, feigning injury. It is not right for the players, its not right for the fans and it does no one any credit whatsoever.
It also makes the referee’s job even harder than it needs to be. As we all know the men and women in the middle and on the line have a tremendously difficult job to do. They get one look at things that the TV can pour over again and again (and are, on nearly every occasion correct under the rules of the game) and they could do their job a lot better if the players had just a little honesty.

If people didn’t dive, if people didn’t cheat – like Gareth Bale did on the game on Monday night – then how much better would the game be, and how much easier would the referees job be?

Also, on Saturday we saw Djibril Cisse sent off at Loftus Road for grabbing Wolves player Roger Johnson. There was much talk about how it was a soft sending off and how Johnson had committed a foul in the first place. But, as we always say on these blogs, ask yourself seriously, what choice did the referee have? It is clearly in the rules that if a player raises his hands to another player then he gets sent off. Do the pundits, fans, managers, or whoever think the referee wanted to send people off? No, of course they don’t.

But, yet again, faced with the unenviable task of having no choice the referee made the right choice.

Which is more than can be said for Messrs Cisse and Huth, who it could be said possibly cost their teams the game – but its just easier to blame the refs all the time.

And, like Tony Pulis said, if those involved could give them some help by not cheating, that would really help.

News and Reviews

Amit Bhatia became the latest person at QPR to take to Twitter to air a grievance last week.

It does rather seem that down Loftus Road way that anything more than 140 characters doesn’t need to be said, given the way that Joey Barton and co-owner Tony Fernandes behave, but Bhatia took to that medium to become the latest person within football to call for the introduction of a “referral” system in football.

Bhatia said (one assumes in a series of tweets) "I'm convinced it's time to allow the challenge system in football. Almost all other sports around the world allow it now. We have to have some kind of video replay system so that harsh decisions can be reviewed. So much is at stake in every game. In a season when results count, every decision really does matter and I can already think of a few decisions that have cost us points [in the Premier League].

"And it's not just us, but all the other clubs too. Mistakes are made. Decisions are difficult and that's fine, but why not allow those difficult decisions to be reviewed? One challenge per half per manager wouldn't slow the game down by any more than 30 seconds. I think it's got to happen. Every fan and player in the land would appreciate a fair review of a difficult decision. It's not rocket science. And my rant isn't about today's decision. It's a general observation about football and applies to us all who want fairer decisions."
To be fair Bhatia isn’t the first person in football to express these sentiments. Other football figures have also made a call for the challenge system to be implemented, in a similar way to how it is in cricket and tennis.

It is the first of these sports that interests us at http://www.referee-jobs.com/(given that tennis isn’t a sport and shouldn’t be taken seriously….) and the bald facts are that the decision review system in cricket presents more questions than answers.

Because of the vagaries of the hawk-eye system (that is the computer generated prediction system that works out where the ball would go) cricket has to adopt the “Umpires Call” decision. Which means that if there is a big enough margin for error and the ball, say, was clipping the stumps they back the umpire, so if the on-field umpire has given a wicket then it is out, if he has said “not out” the decision is not overturned.
Which is fine until you factor in the fact that effectively means the same decision is both “out” and “not out” so exactly who does that help? And how does that stop confusion?

My worry when this is applied to football is a simple one, if a system that is supposed to help referees only creates more grey areas, doesn’t the situation just get worse?
And anyone who has watched cricket in the last couple of years has seen the rise of the so called “tactical review,” that is, when a team has two reviews left they will just “take a punt” and see whether they have taken a wicket or whether they can keep all their batsmen on the field. Usually, of course, the umpires decision is right and the game is held up for no apparent reason, but can you imagine this delaying tactic being applied to football?

Take the game between Manchester United and Stoke City on Tuesday night. It is reasonable to assume that Stoke would have appealed the first half penalty that was given for Jermaine Pennant’s foul on Patrice Evra, and its equally reasonable to assume that it would have taken a couple of minutes to make the decision, such were the fine margins involved. Ref Mike Jones would have been found to be correct and the penalty would have been awarded. So far, so good, except that all this time Javier Hernandez has been standing, waiting to take the penalty – which has everybody knows is hard to do, so in that respect were Manchester United being disadvantaged?

The other crucial thing about the system is it allows for human error. Anyone who saw the staggering decision from third umpire Billy Bowden not to give a wicket when a decision was appealed by Pakistan in the second test match last week (the ball was clearly hit by the England batsman and was clearly caught by the fielder but according to Bowden the was “no clear evidence” to overturn the on field umpires original not out decision) would have been left scratching their heads.

Bowden is not a great umpire (Sky TV pundit Bob Willis famously suggested that he should take to the field in floppy shoes and a red nose) but that rather is the point. Those clamoring for reviews would do well to think on the fact that allowing Managers to challenge decisions would undermine the referees authority (and a leading cricket umpire gave up his job in protest at his decisions being constantly questioned), and not only that it’s a far from perfect system with too many grey areas - and crucially one which still allows for human errors – and is that really something that football needs?

Treating Players Differently

Whatever you think of Mario Balotelli (and my personal opinion is that he is a great player and interesting character) and whatever you think about his stamp on Scott Parker (my personal opinion is that he meant to do it) it is hard to ignore the player who has had, shall we say, a tempestuous time of things in England.

From the sendings off, the sulks, the letting fireworks off in his bathroom, to the trips to Knowlsley Safari Park, the staggering tales of philanthropism and the great goals it has not been a dull 15 months in Lancashire.

But – if comments from his agent are to be believed, it is a stay that could be coming to an end in the near future.

And as always it is the hapless men in the middle that is getting the blame.

For it is refs, so says Mino Raiola that will drive his man away. “Mario doesn't want to leave the club. It's fantastic; he loves it and feels at home,” he said. “But if every week some referee [does this] with Mario, maybe you say, 'That's enough', and he goes to another country."

Now this might be hyperbole – and indeed it is difficult to think that Mario has been victimised, despite the now legendary “Why Always Me?” t-shirt he sported in the derby match earlier in the season – but Riaola did go on talk about how his client was treated differently from other players, and on this fact there is evidence from this very week that he might just have a point.

It is something that Manchester City Coach David Platt alluded too this week when he criticised what he termed “Monday Morning Refereeing.” As you know from our blogs, we at referee-jobs.com are fully in favour of Refs being backed as they make honest decisions, and we have also railed against pundits who seem to have little understanding of the rules of the game so we have some sympathy for Platt when he said: "There seems to be a huge inconsistency in refereeing matches on a Monday morning, if you are going to look at law 12 [violent conduct], shouldn't you then revisit everything that has happened over the weekend under law 12?"

He was referring to an incident in the same game as Balotelli’s stamp, when City defender Joleon Lescott seemed to commit a forearm smash on Spurs defender Younes Kaboul which ref Howard Webb saw and let play continue. Because Webb had seen the incident no action could be taken.

And that has always been one of my arguments against video evidence, using for everything is stupid, but surely you either use it for everything or not at all?

Other players get away with incidents. The day before that tumultuous game at Eastlands, Stoke City striker Peter Crouch was seen to poke West Brom defender Jonas Olsson in the eye, it seemed pretty clear – or at least it appeared clear, although not to the FA who decided to take no further action.

And therein it is possible to have sympathy for the statement that Balotelli’s agent made. I have no idea whether Crouch meant to poke Olsson in the eye, any more than I know whether Mario Balotelli meant to stamp on Scott Parker – a challenge that even Platt conceded “didn’t look good” when slowed down – but I do know that if Joey Barton, for example, had poked Olsson in the eye then there would have been an entirely different reaction form the media and from pundits (and I dare say from WBA players).

It does seem that certain players get away with things others don’t. Not from the refs – who we stress again are always fair and give what they see – but from the treatment dished out from elsewhere. For instance it never seemed to matter how many bad challenges that the likes of Jamie Redknapp and Paul Scholes made, they were “not that sort of player.”

Sometimes it is about perception and that, might be the point that Mario’s agent was trying to make on behalf of his client.

He could have summed it up as: “why always me.” That would look good on a t-shirt….