All Leagues, EPL, England, Europe, Features, Ian John, Leagues, Regions POSTS
Ruling by Fear?
Published by Ian John on September 21, 2009
Are you a soccer fanatic? Do you have strong opinions about the game? Think you have the chops to write about it? Contact Us then...
This weekend’s dramatic events on the field have once again put into sharp focus the role of the referee and in particular, the role of the referee whenever one of the big four teams are involved.
The stunning game between Manchester United and Manchester City should not be overlooked for the spectacle it was, but once again it is hard to feel some sympathy for Manchester City boss Mark Hughes who was at a loss to explain the six and a half minutes of injury time (the official board showed four, which was already incredibly generous given the non-stop nature of the game).
Apparently the fourth official explained it away by saying the referee had added a minute on for cities goal celebrations after Bellamy equaliser again on full time. That therefore means 5 minutes. So why the extra?
This mythological extra time is a bug bear for me. I am all for stopping time wasting, but the game yesterday saw neither side indulge in that. It was an incredible game, with an incredible finish but a finish that. nonetheless, happened well in excess of when the final whistle should have been blown.
Following quickly on the heels of that we saw Tottenham take on Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. A 3-0 easy victory for Chelsea ensued but once again, not without controversy. Spurs were denied a clear penalty when Keane was taken out by Carvalho. A crucial decision which Howard Webb (remember Him Spurs fans? The penalty at Old Trafford he did manage to award against you last season?) turned down and which a few seconds later saw Chelsea break to make it 2-0.
How many times do we see the bigger teams (and I include Arsenal and Liverpool in this) get the rub of the green in crucial decisions? How many times do we see mythical time added on for the bigger teams to try and mount a late challenge to secure a vital win or a draw? Or is this just the ramblings of somebody bitter?
What irks me is that Chelsea, nor United, needed any help. They are excellent teams, however it is increasingly common that crucial, match changing and season changing decisions go their way. Are officials afraid to rule against them, particularly at home? Are they ruled by fear of what Sir Alex or Carlo will say in their post match press conference, or in the build up to the next game they officiate involving them?
I don’t question the integrity of officials, however I think it is utterly fair to assume that their impartiality is sometimes skewed by the teams involved and the stadium in which the game is taking place. I think most football fans concede that, but does it have to be so blatant when it comes to the best teams? Why is it important that they are seen to get it right?
Well because if they’d got it right yesterday, City would have earned a point from the game (scarcely deserved mind, United could have had seven) as it would have finished after 94 minutes and the controversy would not have been an issue. Gary Neville, soldier of fortune, would not have had to race down the touchline to celebrate in front of Man City fans, before pretending he was warming up (interesting to see what the FA make of this, a repeat offender. If Adebayor got a 3 game ban, why should Neville be any different? Oh hang on! He wears the RIGHT coloured shirt! My mistake!) Also Spurs would have had a penalty to make it 1-1. Again, it may not have stopped Chelsea winning the game, but it would have not seemed like Spurs were the unfortunate victim of another terrible decision by Howard Webb.
We’re told refereeing errors even themselves out over the course of the season. That’s rubbish, some teams get the rub of the green and the crucial decisions going their way far too often and you have to ask why that is and if it is indeed fair at all.
Image courtesy of ***big baad Dom*** at flickr.com
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...320 views
8 so far
Nabyl Charania on Tue, 22nd Sep 2009 10:03 pm
I watched both the Chelsea game and the Man U game, and in the Man U game I couldn’t believe that the ref continued to let the game play… it did appear as though he was hoping Man U would score
The Keane penalty appeal was justified, he was tripped up. SO in both games ref errors did affect the outcome in favor of the bigger teams, you think the FA is reading this
Diego Zidane on Tue, 22nd Sep 2009 10:17 pm
The FA reads this blog! those refs need to be charged!
Naheem Charania on Tue, 22nd Sep 2009 11:08 pm
The human element in and of itself within refereeing ensures that there will always be errors. Lescott summed it up best when he stated that Man City’s focus in the aftermath of the derby should be on their sub-par football that allowed England’s favourite son (my terminology, not Jolene’s!) to slot in the winner.
Ian John on Wed, 23rd Sep 2009 2:25 am
I agree, human mistakes are inevitable with refereeing, but when it comes to timekeeping, that is an area which is black or white really.
It also doesn’t sit well with me to see the fourth official dismiss Mark Hughes complaints with a wave of his hand in one moment, then seconds later be seen sharing a joke with Sir Alex at the side of the pitch.
Al-Nashir Charania on Thu, 24th Sep 2009 3:22 pm
Let’s settle this once and for all. Here is the sequence of events:
1. The Ref indicates 4 mins of stoppage time.
2. That despicable, but extremely talented, ‘Welsh fellow’ scores and celebrates for a minute (Time left is now 4min + 1min = 5min)
3. Carrick subs in (Time left is 5min + 30seconds= 5min 30s)
4. Owen scores at 95 min 26 sec (5 min 26 sec is 4 seconds less than the alloted 5 min 30sec.)
5. Time left is 4 sec…why did the ref give an extra 16 seconds? for ManCity to try and score?
In conclusion, the time alloted for extra time was accountable and transparent. In fact, ManUtd have a case of bias AGAINST them as 16 extra seconds were played.
Now stop this nonsense about how ManUtd benefitted. That is all.
Ian John on Thu, 24th Sep 2009 4:37 pm
But hang on a moment…
Bellamy scores and so the referee adds on one full minute.
Michael Owen scores and celebrates (lets not forget Gary Neville and Fergie and co all joined in too) and the referee adds on a total of 16 extra seconds?
Where is the fairness and equality in that?
So if Man City equalise, United get an extra minute, but when United went in front, City only get a maximum of 16 extra seconds and at the same time as this Sir Alex is having a cosy up to Alan Wilkie on the sideline, just seconds after he’s dismissed Mark Hughes?
That United get an extra minute added after City score, and city just get seconds after United score doesn’t seem fair to me at all.
Al-Nashir Charania on Thu, 24th Sep 2009 5:43 pm
Ian, I think you are the first person I know to argue that ManCity only got 16 seconds after Owen’s goal. All other arguments, including the city gaffer, center around the validity of time added UP TO Owen’s goal.
Now that we are in agreement that Owen’s goal (5 min 26sec) was within the time alloted (5 Min. 30 sec), if I understand you correctly, you are arguing for an extra minute to be given for Owen’s celebration? Here’s why that doesn’t make sense. If there are 4 seconds left on the clock, once the game is restarted, why does the referee need to add 1 min? He should only play 4 seconds after the restart. Which he did.
You second argument is the conduct of the Wiley and why he dismissed Hughes and was ‘cosy’ to SAF. Without having a pitchside transcript, it is impossible to say why Wiley was smiling at SAF’s remark. I am positive that Wiley, or any other 4th official for that matter, would be more receptive to what seemed like a quip, rather than spitting rage directed at the person.
What you need to pay attention to is the manner in which city scored. They scored with a really bad Foster play, and an equally bad Ferdinand play. And don’t forget how Tevez missed an open goal. And how Berbatov should’ve burried at least 1 of his 5 chances. As SAF said, it could’ve been 6 or 7. But ‘if’ is a very big word.
Any ManCity/Arsenal/Liverpool/Chelsea fan arguing that ManUtd got more time than deserved, or that officials were cosy towards SAF, is not only deluded, but is wearing blinkers over their eyes on the lack of performance of their own teams.
Ian John on Fri, 25th Sep 2009 4:25 am
Hi Al-Nashir,
What I don’t understand and still don’t, is the discrepancy. If the official adds 1 minute on for Man City’s goal, why did he not add 1 minute on after the United goal? This surely is unfair?
Also, I’m not at all convinced that there should have been 4 minutes of injury time in the first place. I cannot remember many stoppages to be honest, that game was so good it seemed to race by in an instant.
This isn’t a Man City/Arsenal/Liverpool/Chelsea v Man Utd thing. I just don’t understand if the referee added a minute on to the time extra be played for the 4 goals scored up to Owen’s goal, why when Owen scored, did he only add on a few seconds?
That would stand if it had been City who scored the winner, or Arsenal, or Leyton Orient really. It isn’t a criticism of United, just how the officials worked out what time was left. However as this is discretionary, then they have the perfect answer of course. However that doesn’t make it right.
I can see why City are aggrieved and have questions. However don’t let that detract from what United did. Their determination for the win was admirable and is what makes them champions. That doesn’t come from any amount of added time, but a fierce will to win and quality at key times.
All I was questioning is why there are so many key decisions in recent times (Mendes goal that wasn’t, the penalty award against Tottenham last season, extra time against Aston Villa last season that again led to a winner, Neville’s antics against Liverpool and now City, Ronaldo’s blatant diving going largely unpunished, Mascherano’s sending off to name but a few) always seem to go United’s way? And yes, you can do the same for all the other big clubs in the Premier League at home. Which is why I asked if referees rule by fear at these grounds, I used United as an example mainly because of the City game being recent news. I could have done the same for all of the top sides I think. It isn’t a United issue, it’s an officiating one.