Two freshers teams for me today, as Cripps had arranged a match against Rutland to take place just before exams began. I called a halt to my revision and headed down to University Park to referee it. I usually mention the weather in my reports - well in this game we had heavy downpours and bright sunshine all thrown in!
I thought Rutland had the better of the opening minutes, yet it was Cripps who took the lead. It came from the first free kick (some 9 minutes in) - the Cripps player took a shot, and the Rutland keeper parried it into the path of another Cripps player who had the simple task of scoring.
Rutland had a good side - in fact the two teams were pretty evenly matched. I tried to set a fairly low tolerance on fouls - getting all the late challenges but letting some of the more minor physical contact go. And of course I tried to keep the game flowing by playing advantage - as usual this worked better in some situations than in others. Cripps had a couple of penalty appeals but I turned them down.
We were limited to 40-minute halves, and the game continued apace after the turnaround. Rutland got their equaliser in the 54th minute, an audacious shot from the right hand edge of the penalty area - I'm not sure if it was intentional or not! The game passed without incident for the most part - of course I missed things and got things wrong, but not that influenced the outcome. I turned down virtually all the appeals for handball on the grounds that players were having the ball struck at them rather than deliberately handling it.
With a pretty frenetic 80 minutes coming to an end, and the scores level, there was, as ever, a decision to make. With no-one else coming to use the pitch, we settled on two ten-minute halves of extra-time, which were just as even and couldn't separate the teams. And so it was to penalties.
For the first six kicks, the two teams had an identical record. Rutland took first, and their first kick was saved, before the Cripps player blazed over. The next four each were all converted (some more easily than others!), taking us to sudden death. Rutland's player hit the bar with his kick, leaving Cripps with a great chance to secure the win, but the Rutland keeper managed to pull off the save. Rutland converted their seventh kick, and the keeper again came to their aid in saving the next Cripps kick, giving Rutland a 5-4 win on penalties.
Altogether, I enjoyed the match as ever, a pretty even encounter between two well-matched teams. I tried to let the game flow while clamping down on the worst of the challenges - and there were a few late tackles. However, the players were all quite happy with my handling of the game - I think they were happy just to have a referee! I was also amused by the Rutland player who was clearly more used to playing rugby - he is the first player in three years to have called me 'sir'! The game was a nice break from revision, and I'm sure there will be a couple more games to follow after exams.
Saturday 16 May 2009
Saturday 9 May 2009
Match 14 - Law Society vs Baker and McKenzie
The games are coming thick and fast for me at the moment. My next task was to referee a Friday night friendly encounter between Law Society and the Law firm Baker and McKenzie. LawSoc have several players with whom I am familiar, notably a couple of Cripps stalwarts - its always nice to see some familiar faces when I take charge of a game. The day had been a mixed one weather wise, but the 3G pitch was bathed in sunshine as we kicked off early in the evening.
The start was frenetic, with everyone chasing the ball wherever it went! Both teams seemed to lack a formation as such! Now, I rarely manage to describe every goal in the games I referee, and this will be so much more true in this game - there were thirteen! I've just had a quick check back through my records as to the games with the most goals which I have previously refereed. I have twice refereed a game with 10 goals - Wednesday's game was one of them, as well as a game two years ago between Nightingale and Rutland in gale force winds! Today's thirteen beats that record comfortably. I did, however, run the line to Doug two years ago on a BUSA game between Nottingham seconds and De Montford seconds, which Nottingham won 10-5!
Anyway, to return to the record-breaking game. Baker took the lead 5 minutes in, largely thanks to their powerful but skilled forward who was clearly their best player. He reminded me of Dider Drogba, except without the diving and swearing at the TV camera. They held the lead for a good part of the half; we had a stoppage midway through the half as a Baker played was badly injured in a challenge, so both teams had a chance to regroup. Immediately afterwards, LawSoc equalised; two minutes later they took the lead, and in the 40th minute they made it 3-1 (which came from a throw-in which I had reversed due to a foul throw). And so it remained at half-time.
The start of the second half was most bizarre, as within seven minutes of the restart it had become 6-1. I must make mention of LawSoc sports sec Chris's effort, which caught everyone by surprise, beating the keeper and nestling in the net from a ridiculously narrow angle (I think it was the 4th goal). I had to think for a minute to make sure what I had seen had actually happened, but it was definitely a goal - fluke or otherwise! Baker made it 6-2 in the 58th minute, before the goals dried up for 14 minutes! They pulled another back to 6-3, before another quickfire set of three goals in six minutes brought LawSoc's lead to 9-3. One of the goals came when a LawSoc forward was almost certainly offside, but I had no linesman at that point and so had to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and allow the goal - it didn't exactly affect the result in any case!
Baker had a series of penalty claims in the second half. The first two came in quick succession - first the forward I mention earlier went down but I wasn't sure as to the contact among the tangle of legs so let play continue. Then another player went down rather dramatically, and I wasn't convinced either - it almost looked like a dive. I was more sure of waving this one away. The next was the most convincing - a handball claim. I am probably too soft on handballs, and doubtless other referees would have pointed to the spot. I wonder if I should have too. The defender's arm was out and it clearly struck him - I couldn't have been better positioned, but my instincts at the time suggested the ball was just hit at him. I was immediately likened to Tom Henning Ovrebo! In any case, Baker got their penalty in the 89th minute when Caesari comprehensively bundled over the Baker striker and this time I had no hesitation in pointing to the spot. I was finally convinced, and unlike Ovrebo I had given one of the four decisions! The penalty was scored by the same striker to complete the goalfest, and shortly afterwards I blew for time on a 9-4 win for LawSoc.
Altogether, a most satisfactory evening for me. The game wasn't particularly challenging, and I tried to keep play flowing by playing lots of advantages, and this was pretty successful. I ignored a few of the more minor offences at times, but it didn't matter and I got the major fouls right. That handball claim is perhaps an error - I went with my instinct at the time. The penalty at the end and one late tackle by Lee Battu were about the only significantly poor challenges, although I kept my cards in my pocket as always! The linesmen I had varied in their reliability, which didn't always help, and I was left without one at the crucial moment for the one LawSoc goal. I don't really think it matters though - the game was a bit of fun and I'm sure both teams enjoyed it. It certainly didn't lack goals or action!
My season is coming to an end now, although I'm hoping that there will still be a couple of matches left for me to referee after exams. My time at university is coming to an end too, and with it my refereeing. I'm really enjoying all the matches at the moment, so its good to be finishing on a high!
The start was frenetic, with everyone chasing the ball wherever it went! Both teams seemed to lack a formation as such! Now, I rarely manage to describe every goal in the games I referee, and this will be so much more true in this game - there were thirteen! I've just had a quick check back through my records as to the games with the most goals which I have previously refereed. I have twice refereed a game with 10 goals - Wednesday's game was one of them, as well as a game two years ago between Nightingale and Rutland in gale force winds! Today's thirteen beats that record comfortably. I did, however, run the line to Doug two years ago on a BUSA game between Nottingham seconds and De Montford seconds, which Nottingham won 10-5!
Anyway, to return to the record-breaking game. Baker took the lead 5 minutes in, largely thanks to their powerful but skilled forward who was clearly their best player. He reminded me of Dider Drogba, except without the diving and swearing at the TV camera. They held the lead for a good part of the half; we had a stoppage midway through the half as a Baker played was badly injured in a challenge, so both teams had a chance to regroup. Immediately afterwards, LawSoc equalised; two minutes later they took the lead, and in the 40th minute they made it 3-1 (which came from a throw-in which I had reversed due to a foul throw). And so it remained at half-time.
The start of the second half was most bizarre, as within seven minutes of the restart it had become 6-1. I must make mention of LawSoc sports sec Chris's effort, which caught everyone by surprise, beating the keeper and nestling in the net from a ridiculously narrow angle (I think it was the 4th goal). I had to think for a minute to make sure what I had seen had actually happened, but it was definitely a goal - fluke or otherwise! Baker made it 6-2 in the 58th minute, before the goals dried up for 14 minutes! They pulled another back to 6-3, before another quickfire set of three goals in six minutes brought LawSoc's lead to 9-3. One of the goals came when a LawSoc forward was almost certainly offside, but I had no linesman at that point and so had to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and allow the goal - it didn't exactly affect the result in any case!
Baker had a series of penalty claims in the second half. The first two came in quick succession - first the forward I mention earlier went down but I wasn't sure as to the contact among the tangle of legs so let play continue. Then another player went down rather dramatically, and I wasn't convinced either - it almost looked like a dive. I was more sure of waving this one away. The next was the most convincing - a handball claim. I am probably too soft on handballs, and doubtless other referees would have pointed to the spot. I wonder if I should have too. The defender's arm was out and it clearly struck him - I couldn't have been better positioned, but my instincts at the time suggested the ball was just hit at him. I was immediately likened to Tom Henning Ovrebo! In any case, Baker got their penalty in the 89th minute when Caesari comprehensively bundled over the Baker striker and this time I had no hesitation in pointing to the spot. I was finally convinced, and unlike Ovrebo I had given one of the four decisions! The penalty was scored by the same striker to complete the goalfest, and shortly afterwards I blew for time on a 9-4 win for LawSoc.
Altogether, a most satisfactory evening for me. The game wasn't particularly challenging, and I tried to keep play flowing by playing lots of advantages, and this was pretty successful. I ignored a few of the more minor offences at times, but it didn't matter and I got the major fouls right. That handball claim is perhaps an error - I went with my instinct at the time. The penalty at the end and one late tackle by Lee Battu were about the only significantly poor challenges, although I kept my cards in my pocket as always! The linesmen I had varied in their reliability, which didn't always help, and I was left without one at the crucial moment for the one LawSoc goal. I don't really think it matters though - the game was a bit of fun and I'm sure both teams enjoyed it. It certainly didn't lack goals or action!
My season is coming to an end now, although I'm hoping that there will still be a couple of matches left for me to referee after exams. My time at university is coming to an end too, and with it my refereeing. I'm really enjoying all the matches at the moment, so its good to be finishing on a high!
Friday 8 May 2009
The Ovrebo Saga - Part 2
Unsurprisingly, the fallout from Wednesday night's encounter at Stamford Bridge has been considerable. I want to put pen to paper now, giving my honest view on some of the reaction to it all.
There seem to be various theories being banded about regarding Wednesday night's game. The first is that Ovrebo was the wrong choice to referee this game, or that he was too inexperienced. Wrong on both counts for me. The 42-year old psychologist from Oslo has been a FIFA referee for 15 years. England's most experienced International referee, Mike Riley, has been on the list for only 10 years. Ovrebo has racked up more experience than any of our English officials. He has been voted Norweigan referee of the year five times. He was refereed their Cup final twice. He has taken charge of over 20 Champions League encounters. Could he have been better prepared for Wednesday night? Not much. It was the first game he has refereed at such a late stage in the Champions League, but if he is ruled out because he hasn't done such a game before, then eventually we would run out of possible officials! Everyone has to be refereeing such a game for the first time at some point. From what I have seen, Ovrebo is a calm referee who doesn't make a fuss of things and gets on with the job. He has the imposing physical presence which should command respect. Altogether, a good choice for a match like this, as far as I'm concerned.
The next theory is that UEFA didn't want an all-English final again. That may be true, but did it translate to events on the pitch on Wednesday night? Of course not. If UEFA had told Ovrebo to make Barcelona win, then why would he have sent off Abidal when, even if he thought it was a foul, it could be argued that a yellow card would have sufficed? Frankly, whenever there is a suggestion that a referee has acted with any partiality during a game, I would be the first to dismiss it. As someone who referees, the idea that you should go out to referee with the aim of influencing the outcome of the match is just odd. There are probably officials who do that (as corruption cases in Italy and other places show) but for such officials to get to this level is inconceivable. There may be subconcious things which influence your decisions (such as a manager's comments pre-match) but they are exactly that - subconcious.
So, for me, Ovrebo was the right choice for this match, and his decisions are not the result of some UEFA instruction to ensure Barcelona made the final. Ovrebo simply had a bad game at a bad time. And with a bad team too - that team being Chelsea. The reaction of Chelsea players to things going against them has, time and again, been ridiculous.
And I think the blame lies with one man - a man who is currently celebrating winning Serie A. Until Jose Mourinho arrived at Chelsea, they as a team were no worse than any other in terms of their attitude to referees. Every team will have arguments, quarrels and give out criticisms - it happens at times - and Chelsea were no different. The likes of John Terry just got on with the game. Mourinho introduced a different culture - he made it acceptable for the Chelsea players to berate referees. He stirred things up in the press, before and after matches. He physically went mad during games. And the players at the time saw this, and followed the example of their coach. The likes of Terry, Drogba and Ballack changed their way of thinking. After Mourinho left, none of his successors (Grant, Scolari or Hiddink) have had such a mentality. But the culture change has stayed with the players, who still think Mourinho's behaviour to be acceptable. Now it is Hiddink's comments which are fairly moderate, while his players are ranting and raving to the press. If action had been taken while Mourinho was at Chelsea, action which made it quite evident that such behaviour is unacceptable, then maybe, just maybe, the events of Wednesday night would not have unfolded in the same way.
The Chelsea press machine has swung into action now, as they furiously attempt to restrain the criticism and turn their backs on some of the shameful events of Wednesday. UEFA are looking into what has happened - Drogba and Ballack will undoubtedly and deservedly receive some personal sanction (even if Drogba has since apologised), while comments by Bosingwa that Ovrebo was a 'thief' will demand some investigation too. John Terry's outspoken comments have apparently provoked investigations too.
And of course, with the players harranging the referee, certain other individuals (so called 'fans') take it upon themselves to do the same. That Ovrebo had to be smuggled out of the UK and is currently receiving police protection following death threats is a shameful indictment on our society. It has all happened before of course - remember Anders Frisk and Urs Meier, both driven to retirement. Perhaps the British aren't so polite and well-mannered after all. At the end of the day, what happened on Wednesday was a game of football. It was a hugely high-profile and important game, but it was still a game. Sadly, Bill Shankly's saying seems to ring true for some people - football is more important than life and death. Of course it isn't. Both the players involved and those fans who take things too far need to realise this. Ovrebo doesn't deserve any of what has happened to him so far. If UEFA choose to punish him with demotion, then maybe that is justified, but the personal attacks? No-one deserves that at all.
The buck is now in UEFA's court. We have seen this sort of thing happen before after high-profile errors by referees. And UEFA didn't do enough, so it has happened again. They now need to make it clear through the action they take that what has happened in the past two days, both during and after the match, is totally unacceptable. If they do that, and can set a precedent, then that will be at least one positive thing to emerge from this mess. If, however, they deal weakly with those involved, then the implication is simple - this sort of thing is acceptable, and can happen again. And it will.
Should Ovrebo referee again? I hope he will. I hope he won't retire, and I hope he will still referee international matches, as I still believe he is a good referee. You don't become a bad referee after one game. Would I blame him if he gave it up? Of course not - not after what he has been through. If he does, then that is three top officials who have been lost because of an over-reaction to their honest decisions. How many more will follow? If we keep losing officials like this, the end result will only be that the quality of officials at the top level will go down, as more junior officials are sought to replace those who quit.
I await UEFA's actions with interest. As the story continues to develop next week, lets see if they are strong and take the action they should. I'm not holding my breath.
There seem to be various theories being banded about regarding Wednesday night's game. The first is that Ovrebo was the wrong choice to referee this game, or that he was too inexperienced. Wrong on both counts for me. The 42-year old psychologist from Oslo has been a FIFA referee for 15 years. England's most experienced International referee, Mike Riley, has been on the list for only 10 years. Ovrebo has racked up more experience than any of our English officials. He has been voted Norweigan referee of the year five times. He was refereed their Cup final twice. He has taken charge of over 20 Champions League encounters. Could he have been better prepared for Wednesday night? Not much. It was the first game he has refereed at such a late stage in the Champions League, but if he is ruled out because he hasn't done such a game before, then eventually we would run out of possible officials! Everyone has to be refereeing such a game for the first time at some point. From what I have seen, Ovrebo is a calm referee who doesn't make a fuss of things and gets on with the job. He has the imposing physical presence which should command respect. Altogether, a good choice for a match like this, as far as I'm concerned.
The next theory is that UEFA didn't want an all-English final again. That may be true, but did it translate to events on the pitch on Wednesday night? Of course not. If UEFA had told Ovrebo to make Barcelona win, then why would he have sent off Abidal when, even if he thought it was a foul, it could be argued that a yellow card would have sufficed? Frankly, whenever there is a suggestion that a referee has acted with any partiality during a game, I would be the first to dismiss it. As someone who referees, the idea that you should go out to referee with the aim of influencing the outcome of the match is just odd. There are probably officials who do that (as corruption cases in Italy and other places show) but for such officials to get to this level is inconceivable. There may be subconcious things which influence your decisions (such as a manager's comments pre-match) but they are exactly that - subconcious.
So, for me, Ovrebo was the right choice for this match, and his decisions are not the result of some UEFA instruction to ensure Barcelona made the final. Ovrebo simply had a bad game at a bad time. And with a bad team too - that team being Chelsea. The reaction of Chelsea players to things going against them has, time and again, been ridiculous.
And I think the blame lies with one man - a man who is currently celebrating winning Serie A. Until Jose Mourinho arrived at Chelsea, they as a team were no worse than any other in terms of their attitude to referees. Every team will have arguments, quarrels and give out criticisms - it happens at times - and Chelsea were no different. The likes of John Terry just got on with the game. Mourinho introduced a different culture - he made it acceptable for the Chelsea players to berate referees. He stirred things up in the press, before and after matches. He physically went mad during games. And the players at the time saw this, and followed the example of their coach. The likes of Terry, Drogba and Ballack changed their way of thinking. After Mourinho left, none of his successors (Grant, Scolari or Hiddink) have had such a mentality. But the culture change has stayed with the players, who still think Mourinho's behaviour to be acceptable. Now it is Hiddink's comments which are fairly moderate, while his players are ranting and raving to the press. If action had been taken while Mourinho was at Chelsea, action which made it quite evident that such behaviour is unacceptable, then maybe, just maybe, the events of Wednesday night would not have unfolded in the same way.
The Chelsea press machine has swung into action now, as they furiously attempt to restrain the criticism and turn their backs on some of the shameful events of Wednesday. UEFA are looking into what has happened - Drogba and Ballack will undoubtedly and deservedly receive some personal sanction (even if Drogba has since apologised), while comments by Bosingwa that Ovrebo was a 'thief' will demand some investigation too. John Terry's outspoken comments have apparently provoked investigations too.
And of course, with the players harranging the referee, certain other individuals (so called 'fans') take it upon themselves to do the same. That Ovrebo had to be smuggled out of the UK and is currently receiving police protection following death threats is a shameful indictment on our society. It has all happened before of course - remember Anders Frisk and Urs Meier, both driven to retirement. Perhaps the British aren't so polite and well-mannered after all. At the end of the day, what happened on Wednesday was a game of football. It was a hugely high-profile and important game, but it was still a game. Sadly, Bill Shankly's saying seems to ring true for some people - football is more important than life and death. Of course it isn't. Both the players involved and those fans who take things too far need to realise this. Ovrebo doesn't deserve any of what has happened to him so far. If UEFA choose to punish him with demotion, then maybe that is justified, but the personal attacks? No-one deserves that at all.
The buck is now in UEFA's court. We have seen this sort of thing happen before after high-profile errors by referees. And UEFA didn't do enough, so it has happened again. They now need to make it clear through the action they take that what has happened in the past two days, both during and after the match, is totally unacceptable. If they do that, and can set a precedent, then that will be at least one positive thing to emerge from this mess. If, however, they deal weakly with those involved, then the implication is simple - this sort of thing is acceptable, and can happen again. And it will.
Should Ovrebo referee again? I hope he will. I hope he won't retire, and I hope he will still referee international matches, as I still believe he is a good referee. You don't become a bad referee after one game. Would I blame him if he gave it up? Of course not - not after what he has been through. If he does, then that is three top officials who have been lost because of an over-reaction to their honest decisions. How many more will follow? If we keep losing officials like this, the end result will only be that the quality of officials at the top level will go down, as more junior officials are sought to replace those who quit.
I await UEFA's actions with interest. As the story continues to develop next week, lets see if they are strong and take the action they should. I'm not holding my breath.
Thursday 7 May 2009
The woes of Rosetti and Øvrebø
I haven't written about events in high-profile football matches for a while. Even Howard Webb's penalty shocker at Old Trafford didn't cause me to pick up my pen, but this week's Champions League semi-final second legs have.
For the record, I think the refereeing in the Champions League knockout stages has been very good so far. We have seen several big games go by with the referees barely noticed. Last week, in the first legs of the semi-finals, I thought both officials did well. At the Nou Camp, Wolfgang Stark tried (amidst the pettiness and stupidity of a Barca vs Chelsea game) to give the game some flow. Credit to him, he could have ended up racking up a load of bookings and giving countless free kicks, but he refereed with common sense. Claus Bo Larsen at Old Trafford last Wednesday had a far easier task, but blended beautifully into the background and had a superb game (not for the first time this year - he did the same in the first leg of Liverpool v Chelsea). So, all good. Until this week.
Both of the appointed referees this week are referees that I like and rate. Italian Roberto Rosetti usually performs with common sense, something for which some Italian referees are not known. He isn't usually fussy, and the Euro 2008 final is evidence that he is trusted with big games. He did the second leg semi of Chelsea vs Liverpool last year, and was excellent. I've also been a fan of Norway's Tom Henning Øvrebø for some time. He just does the job - no histronics - and was dreadfully unlucky to be sent home early from Euro 2008, with the mediocre Herbert Fandel staying on ahead of him.
To the Emirates on Tuesday then. The game itself wasn't a great spectacle - Manchester United saw to that in the first 11 minutes (credit to them - they outplayed Arsenal completely). Rosetti didn't exactly help the spectacle either though - he was unusually fussy, giving a multitude of soft decisions, most of which seemed to favour Manchester United. His foul recognition was poor all night. Thankfully, these were mostly minor decisions. For 75 minutes. Then the one big decision goes against Manchester United, and its a wrong one. Darren Fletcher's tackle was perfectly executed. To bring in the referee's viewpoint (and some referees will support the decision of a foul here, even if I don't) - the referee can only consider that a foul if he considers the challenge to be made in a 'careless' manner. Any tackle that is consider careless, reckless or dangerous is penalised, no matter if the ball is won. To add to that definition, from the Laws:
"Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
Do I think Fletcher was careless? I think he could hardly have done any more to take care. He can't really have taken any more precaution or shown any more consideration for his opponent. He won the ball fair and square, and the fact that his trailing leg brought the player down is irrelevant - the sort of contact that happens all the time in football. A poor decision from a top referee. Incidentally, the red card which follows the foul is academic - it is only the foul itself I have a problem with. The fact that the decision can't be overturned is ludicrous, and a point to which I shall return shortly. Overall, a poor night for Rosetti, both in general play and on the big decision.
To Stamford Bridge. Rosetti had a poor night on Tuesday. Øvrebø, of whom I am also a fan, was worse on Wednesday. He was nothing short of utterly dreadful. Now, this wasn't an easy game to referee, and the players didn't help him one iota, but he was hopeless. Lets go through this extraordinary encounter blow by blow.
The four Chelsea penalty appeals first of all. The first - on Malouda - I believe he has given the foul for the challenge which was actually made in the area. He could clearly see this, so why he hasn't pointed to the spot I don't know. The foul outside the area was minor. He was perfectly positioned. Dreadful decision. Abidal on Drogba - thats also a penalty for me, and probably a red card to follow. The Pique handball - I'll offer a little leeway on this, as the ball was hit straight at him, although the position of his arm makes it hard to ignore. The one at the end which Ballack was so furious about - never in a million years. So of the four - two definites, one maybe, one never. In my opinion of course.
The red card. Once again, the sending off is correct but the foul which leads to it is not. Its not a foul, and was symptomatic of Øvrebø's poor foul detection all night. He never got to grips with what was and wasn't a genuine offence, with players dropping to the turf likes flies. Anelka clipped his own heels. Like I said, I do think the position rightly leads to a sending off, but the foul decision is a poor one.
So a dreadful game all round from Øvrebø, by far the worst showing I have ever seen from him, and the worst showing in a Champions League match in some time. But unfortunately the teams come out of it with little credit either. I thought Barcelona were whingers. They surrounded the referee frequently, whenever a decision went against them. They played their part in turning the game into the petty squabble that it was. Poor from them. But Chelsea come out of it with less credit. Ballack should have been sent off for chasing and man-handling the referee after that last penalty appeal. Øvrebø should have stopped play and sent him down the tunnel - what he did was totally unacceptable. As for Drogba, the man was out of control. The yellow card at the end was a kind of token gesture. UEFA will deal with his actions, and rightly so, because no matter how bad Øvrebø was, that is no way to behave, especially in the public eye. The example that it sets is terrible. Players can get frustrated, but to that extent it is quite simply ridiculous. Chelsea, yet again, have major issues with controlling their players and respecting officials. It can't go on.
The one man who I can find some time for in all this is Guus Hiddink. He comes across to me as a very decent person. He will struggle not to criticise the referee, but the way in which he does so will I'm sure be done in his calm, assured manner. Imagine the chaos if Mourinho had been Chelsea manager during this game! Unthinkable. Hiddink kept his calm at the end when everything else was going off around him, and he strikes me as someone who just gets on with his own game and doesn't indulge in petty squabbles or personal criticism, towards both referees and opponents. The Premier League needs more managers like him, and its a shame he isn't staying on at Chelsea next year.
I referred earlier to the injustice of the lack of appeal on decisions. We have seen this amply demonstrated in the cases of both Fletcher and Abidal, both of whom will now miss the final. It is frankly ludicrous that they will do so on the basis of such obvious errors, and I feel sorry for both of them. I don't believe the appeals system in this country does its job properly, but at least it has a chance of overturning some wrong decisions. UEFA need to look at this, as players should not be missing these big occasions on account of wrong decisions.
There are so many emotions mixed in with all of this. The media will have their circus, and the two referees will be villified in the papers. The pressure is on whoever does the final now, given what has gone before. To this point, we have had strong performances throughout the knockout stages, but Rosetti and Øvrebø were dreadful. Was it wrong to appoint them? Not at all - they're both perfectly capable referees - they just had bad games. Hopefully, they'll recover, although they'll always be tarnished by the memory of these games.
But finally, to bring just the slightest note of positivity amidst all this criticism, just maybe tonight reminded me why I love football. No matter what you're expecting, football just throws something completely different at you. You think you've seen everything, and then along comes a game like tonight's. It has been an extraordinary evening - one that will live long in the memory for all the wrong reasons - and the repurcussions will last for some days. But its part of what makes the game so interesting and so fascinating, and that's just why we love it, and is why I'll be out refereeing again on Friday.
For the record, I think the refereeing in the Champions League knockout stages has been very good so far. We have seen several big games go by with the referees barely noticed. Last week, in the first legs of the semi-finals, I thought both officials did well. At the Nou Camp, Wolfgang Stark tried (amidst the pettiness and stupidity of a Barca vs Chelsea game) to give the game some flow. Credit to him, he could have ended up racking up a load of bookings and giving countless free kicks, but he refereed with common sense. Claus Bo Larsen at Old Trafford last Wednesday had a far easier task, but blended beautifully into the background and had a superb game (not for the first time this year - he did the same in the first leg of Liverpool v Chelsea). So, all good. Until this week.
Both of the appointed referees this week are referees that I like and rate. Italian Roberto Rosetti usually performs with common sense, something for which some Italian referees are not known. He isn't usually fussy, and the Euro 2008 final is evidence that he is trusted with big games. He did the second leg semi of Chelsea vs Liverpool last year, and was excellent. I've also been a fan of Norway's Tom Henning Øvrebø for some time. He just does the job - no histronics - and was dreadfully unlucky to be sent home early from Euro 2008, with the mediocre Herbert Fandel staying on ahead of him.
To the Emirates on Tuesday then. The game itself wasn't a great spectacle - Manchester United saw to that in the first 11 minutes (credit to them - they outplayed Arsenal completely). Rosetti didn't exactly help the spectacle either though - he was unusually fussy, giving a multitude of soft decisions, most of which seemed to favour Manchester United. His foul recognition was poor all night. Thankfully, these were mostly minor decisions. For 75 minutes. Then the one big decision goes against Manchester United, and its a wrong one. Darren Fletcher's tackle was perfectly executed. To bring in the referee's viewpoint (and some referees will support the decision of a foul here, even if I don't) - the referee can only consider that a foul if he considers the challenge to be made in a 'careless' manner. Any tackle that is consider careless, reckless or dangerous is penalised, no matter if the ball is won. To add to that definition, from the Laws:
"Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
Do I think Fletcher was careless? I think he could hardly have done any more to take care. He can't really have taken any more precaution or shown any more consideration for his opponent. He won the ball fair and square, and the fact that his trailing leg brought the player down is irrelevant - the sort of contact that happens all the time in football. A poor decision from a top referee. Incidentally, the red card which follows the foul is academic - it is only the foul itself I have a problem with. The fact that the decision can't be overturned is ludicrous, and a point to which I shall return shortly. Overall, a poor night for Rosetti, both in general play and on the big decision.
To Stamford Bridge. Rosetti had a poor night on Tuesday. Øvrebø, of whom I am also a fan, was worse on Wednesday. He was nothing short of utterly dreadful. Now, this wasn't an easy game to referee, and the players didn't help him one iota, but he was hopeless. Lets go through this extraordinary encounter blow by blow.
The four Chelsea penalty appeals first of all. The first - on Malouda - I believe he has given the foul for the challenge which was actually made in the area. He could clearly see this, so why he hasn't pointed to the spot I don't know. The foul outside the area was minor. He was perfectly positioned. Dreadful decision. Abidal on Drogba - thats also a penalty for me, and probably a red card to follow. The Pique handball - I'll offer a little leeway on this, as the ball was hit straight at him, although the position of his arm makes it hard to ignore. The one at the end which Ballack was so furious about - never in a million years. So of the four - two definites, one maybe, one never. In my opinion of course.
The red card. Once again, the sending off is correct but the foul which leads to it is not. Its not a foul, and was symptomatic of Øvrebø's poor foul detection all night. He never got to grips with what was and wasn't a genuine offence, with players dropping to the turf likes flies. Anelka clipped his own heels. Like I said, I do think the position rightly leads to a sending off, but the foul decision is a poor one.
So a dreadful game all round from Øvrebø, by far the worst showing I have ever seen from him, and the worst showing in a Champions League match in some time. But unfortunately the teams come out of it with little credit either. I thought Barcelona were whingers. They surrounded the referee frequently, whenever a decision went against them. They played their part in turning the game into the petty squabble that it was. Poor from them. But Chelsea come out of it with less credit. Ballack should have been sent off for chasing and man-handling the referee after that last penalty appeal. Øvrebø should have stopped play and sent him down the tunnel - what he did was totally unacceptable. As for Drogba, the man was out of control. The yellow card at the end was a kind of token gesture. UEFA will deal with his actions, and rightly so, because no matter how bad Øvrebø was, that is no way to behave, especially in the public eye. The example that it sets is terrible. Players can get frustrated, but to that extent it is quite simply ridiculous. Chelsea, yet again, have major issues with controlling their players and respecting officials. It can't go on.
The one man who I can find some time for in all this is Guus Hiddink. He comes across to me as a very decent person. He will struggle not to criticise the referee, but the way in which he does so will I'm sure be done in his calm, assured manner. Imagine the chaos if Mourinho had been Chelsea manager during this game! Unthinkable. Hiddink kept his calm at the end when everything else was going off around him, and he strikes me as someone who just gets on with his own game and doesn't indulge in petty squabbles or personal criticism, towards both referees and opponents. The Premier League needs more managers like him, and its a shame he isn't staying on at Chelsea next year.
I referred earlier to the injustice of the lack of appeal on decisions. We have seen this amply demonstrated in the cases of both Fletcher and Abidal, both of whom will now miss the final. It is frankly ludicrous that they will do so on the basis of such obvious errors, and I feel sorry for both of them. I don't believe the appeals system in this country does its job properly, but at least it has a chance of overturning some wrong decisions. UEFA need to look at this, as players should not be missing these big occasions on account of wrong decisions.
There are so many emotions mixed in with all of this. The media will have their circus, and the two referees will be villified in the papers. The pressure is on whoever does the final now, given what has gone before. To this point, we have had strong performances throughout the knockout stages, but Rosetti and Øvrebø were dreadful. Was it wrong to appoint them? Not at all - they're both perfectly capable referees - they just had bad games. Hopefully, they'll recover, although they'll always be tarnished by the memory of these games.
But finally, to bring just the slightest note of positivity amidst all this criticism, just maybe tonight reminded me why I love football. No matter what you're expecting, football just throws something completely different at you. You think you've seen everything, and then along comes a game like tonight's. It has been an extraordinary evening - one that will live long in the memory for all the wrong reasons - and the repurcussions will last for some days. But its part of what makes the game so interesting and so fascinating, and that's just why we love it, and is why I'll be out refereeing again on Friday.
Wednesday 6 May 2009
Match 13 - Notts Uni XI vs IMS All-stars
For the second year running I was invited to take charge of this encounter, which pits a selection of players from the university teams against a selection of players from the intra-mural leagues. Last year, the game was a very relaxed affair, with the university team running out 7-1 winners.
This year's game seemed far more serious. Mike Round, the IMS football officer, had amassed a large squad of players from many of the IMS teams. I recognised several players from the Cripps, Newark, Nightingale and Broadgate Park freshers teams. They had something like 20-25 players, so finding people to run the line from them would prove no problem! I've no idea how many of the Uni team players were first-teamers, although I did recognise Mike Morenas, an ex-Nightingaler.
The IMS All-Stars started well. They competed for everything, and it was immediately obvious that it wouldn't be the walkover it was last year. In fact, it was IMS who took the lead in the 20th minute, and doubled it two minutes later as a free kick was cleared out to a player on the far side, who finished it very nicely. By the half-hour, it was 3-0! This was a real surprise, as I too had expected the Uni team to run out comfortable winners again. The IMS players had gelled really well and were working hard, even if some of the defending from the Uni team left a lot to be desired. However, by half-time the lead had been reduced to 3-2, with goals in the 35th and 41st minutes, the second shortly after we had had a break following a clash of heads - I don't think the IMS players had woken up after the stoppage! I didn't have a lot to do - perhaps I called a couple of things wrongly, but no major issues in the first half.
Mike decided that the only way to give everyone a game for IMS was to send out a completely different eleven for the second half. Whether they didn't perform quite as well or whether the Uni team improved dramatically I don't know, but it was 3-3 within 5 minutes. The Uni team had found their rhythm, and I have to admit it was a joy to watch. They weren't hoofing it up in the air - they were passing it along the ground, looking for space, constructing some nice moves, perhaps the 'beautiful game' at its best. Thats not to say the IMS players didn't contribute - they also gave a good account of themselves in a half of football which flowed from end-to-end virtually without stoppages. In terms of quality, it was one of the best I have refereed. I gave about half a dozen free kicks, but also tried to make my contribution to allowing a flowing game, and I could sit back and let the players do the talking. It was a great half of football to referee. The Uni team took the lead for the first time in the 63rd minute, and added their fifth in the 80th minute. There were hopes of an IMS comeback as they pulled one back to make it 5-4 with two minutes to go, but the two-goal advantage was restored shortly afterwards, and thats how things finished. The only incident of note as far as I was concerned was when a Uni player hit a shot, which the keeper tipped onto the crossbar and which then bounced down. The linesman wasn't in line to make any judgement, and I had no idea whether it had crossed the line, so I could only wave play on. We had had virtually no stoppages in the whole half, so I played just a minute of added time and then brought a most entertaining game of football to an end.
The game was one of the most straightforward I have refereed in my time at Nottingham. The players must take some credit for just getting on with the game - there were no arguments, no backchat and no confrontations. I would also like my share of the credit too(!) - for giving the game every opportunity to flow. The football was excellent, in particular in the second half, where I thought I got everything just about spot on. I whistled the clear fouls, and let everything else go. The assistants also contributed and helped me, with their interventions being just when necessary. While I suppose some might consider the game boring to referee because there is virtually nothing to do, I personally think that the referee should enjoy these kinds of games - I love football, and to see a good quality, flowing game is great. It balances out all the more difficult games anyhow! I'll be back in action again on Friday, and will return with another report then.
This year's game seemed far more serious. Mike Round, the IMS football officer, had amassed a large squad of players from many of the IMS teams. I recognised several players from the Cripps, Newark, Nightingale and Broadgate Park freshers teams. They had something like 20-25 players, so finding people to run the line from them would prove no problem! I've no idea how many of the Uni team players were first-teamers, although I did recognise Mike Morenas, an ex-Nightingaler.
The IMS All-Stars started well. They competed for everything, and it was immediately obvious that it wouldn't be the walkover it was last year. In fact, it was IMS who took the lead in the 20th minute, and doubled it two minutes later as a free kick was cleared out to a player on the far side, who finished it very nicely. By the half-hour, it was 3-0! This was a real surprise, as I too had expected the Uni team to run out comfortable winners again. The IMS players had gelled really well and were working hard, even if some of the defending from the Uni team left a lot to be desired. However, by half-time the lead had been reduced to 3-2, with goals in the 35th and 41st minutes, the second shortly after we had had a break following a clash of heads - I don't think the IMS players had woken up after the stoppage! I didn't have a lot to do - perhaps I called a couple of things wrongly, but no major issues in the first half.
Mike decided that the only way to give everyone a game for IMS was to send out a completely different eleven for the second half. Whether they didn't perform quite as well or whether the Uni team improved dramatically I don't know, but it was 3-3 within 5 minutes. The Uni team had found their rhythm, and I have to admit it was a joy to watch. They weren't hoofing it up in the air - they were passing it along the ground, looking for space, constructing some nice moves, perhaps the 'beautiful game' at its best. Thats not to say the IMS players didn't contribute - they also gave a good account of themselves in a half of football which flowed from end-to-end virtually without stoppages. In terms of quality, it was one of the best I have refereed. I gave about half a dozen free kicks, but also tried to make my contribution to allowing a flowing game, and I could sit back and let the players do the talking. It was a great half of football to referee. The Uni team took the lead for the first time in the 63rd minute, and added their fifth in the 80th minute. There were hopes of an IMS comeback as they pulled one back to make it 5-4 with two minutes to go, but the two-goal advantage was restored shortly afterwards, and thats how things finished. The only incident of note as far as I was concerned was when a Uni player hit a shot, which the keeper tipped onto the crossbar and which then bounced down. The linesman wasn't in line to make any judgement, and I had no idea whether it had crossed the line, so I could only wave play on. We had had virtually no stoppages in the whole half, so I played just a minute of added time and then brought a most entertaining game of football to an end.
The game was one of the most straightforward I have refereed in my time at Nottingham. The players must take some credit for just getting on with the game - there were no arguments, no backchat and no confrontations. I would also like my share of the credit too(!) - for giving the game every opportunity to flow. The football was excellent, in particular in the second half, where I thought I got everything just about spot on. I whistled the clear fouls, and let everything else go. The assistants also contributed and helped me, with their interventions being just when necessary. While I suppose some might consider the game boring to referee because there is virtually nothing to do, I personally think that the referee should enjoy these kinds of games - I love football, and to see a good quality, flowing game is great. It balances out all the more difficult games anyhow! I'll be back in action again on Friday, and will return with another report then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
