14.12.11 McLeish & Redknapp

Two football managers have contributed to the world of sport, with input of variable quality.  The tittle-tattle and stupid comments that prevail on the sports pages mean that we are always learning of what teams have to do (from one or other member of the same team!) and learning of whinges that are affecting overpaid twats.  Managers' comments out to be more considered, but this is not the case.

Take Alex McLeish, who has remarked on Gabby Agbonlahor's accumulation of yellow cards - five so far this season.  The club rule means a fine is levied for such actions on the pitch, on top of the mandatory ban imposed by the FA in such circumstances.  It's a longstanding arrangement for players to have to miss a game after 5 yellow cards, so it makes sense for players to avoid collecting them, as managers will clearly be annoyed and the team selection options compromised.  Last Saturday's challenge on the goalkeeper which earned the fifth card (and which Alex McLeish thinks was a bit harsh) means that GA will miss the next match against Liverpool.  The manager, however, is considering not implementing the club rule (a fine) even though he will not be able to field his strongest side in the Liverpool match.  What's behind this soft approach?  I will quote:

"Gabby scored a great goal at Everton and had a booking for taking his shirt off, so we have to try to eradicate these bookings.  It sounds extremely unfair to do that to a player who's just scored, especially to the ladies in the crowd who like to see a footballer's bare torso!"

1. What a twattish fucking statement
2. Who is the "we" meant to refer to in "we have to try to eradicate these bookings"?  The best person to sort this out is the player himself.  Every player knows that taking his shirt off means a yellow card.
3. You are not going to deter other players, nor stop GA repeating the offence, if you let them off.
4. The stupid celebrations indulged in by goal scorers and their team mates are mad and out of all proportion to their efforts (mostly) when they have in fact done their job.  GA, for example, is paid loads of money to kick a ball into a goal measuring 24 feet by 8 feet.  If he does this, it should not really be an excuse for a fucking carnival.
5. It is not "unfair" (not sure where the "it sounds" part of Alex's comment fits in, or is appropriate) to book a player who's just scored if he takes off his shirt.  If the referee runs at 25mph, and reaches the box just in time to see a defender make contact and trip a striker in the box, does he award a penalty with glee and remove his shirt while waving to the crowd?  No; it was his job.
6. Ladies do not (I suggest) go to football matches in the hope of seeing a player's bare torso.  There are better venues for this, and they will probably give a slightly higher percentage chance of some flesh being shown.  Relying on an idiot to score and take his shirt off (and not have a vest on) at a match is not likely to be a good option, nor a prime requirement, for female spectators.

Harry Redknapp is actually a much more sensible manager, and has come out with something far less stupid than the comments above.  Nevertheless, I include him in this post because he cannot really be serious about us having two referees per match.  There are serious flaws in the argument for this massive step, which he suspects will reduce errors by 50%, on the basis that there are two sets of eyes rather than one set trying to keep track of things.  My reasons for challenging this misguided view are:

1. Having a referee in each half of the pitch simply means that the one ref we have at the moment has to do far less running.  It would still leave us with a decision being made by a human judging a fast-moving exchange between players, and either blowing a whistle or not.  If one referee looks at a challenge and decides not to give a penalty, it has nothing to do with whether he is alone on the pitch of has a fellow ref at the other end of the pitch.
2. We usually have three, four, or even six referees already!  Each linesman is in fact a referee.  Although I was less than impressed when some twat a few years ago thought it better to refer to them as assistant referees, it rather helps make the point.  The linesman is a qualified referee and so we have three already.  The fourth official is usually also a referee, though I concede that he doesn't have involvement in the decisions on the pitch.  At big games, there are two more officials - the two men stationed at each goal are referees.  Anyway, the point is, if we have three already, why would a fourth make any difference.
3. The Newcastle keeper caught a ball last Saturday, but was judged to have carried it over the line by a linesman.  A corner was awarded, from which a goal was scored.  The ball was most definitely NOT caught and then carried over the line.  The official got it wrong, and a goal resulted.  An extra ref at one end would do nothing at all in this situation.  So, do we need four linesmen?  Of course not.
4. Handball offences are always hard to judge, and subjectivity reigns.  These days, if you kick a ball at an opponent and it hits a hand, a shout goes up for a "stonewall" (sorry, couldn't resist mentioning this shit, inappropriate football cliche) penalty (or 'pen' to use a shitty term - the most irritating abbreviation in sport).  There has  to be intent for a free kick or penalty kick to be awarded.  Just because Harry missed out on a penalty at the weekend, he thinks it is down to there not being two refs; no logic there, for me.  Similarly, the disallowed goal by Adebayor would not have been allowed unless an extra ref had been in line with the play, doubling up with the linesman who got it wrong.  So, what gives?
5. The logic is completely flawed.  The only way in which things could get better would involve a complete review of how decisions are made 'manually' rather than with reference to technology.  The argument is so much simpler, Harry.  Use TV evidence or rely on match officials.  We all know that loads of mistakes are made, when we sit back and watch the screen and five replays from all angles.  If we want to get it right 99% of the time, then there needs to be a further official OFF the pitch, watching TV, and relaying details on the headset to the ref.  However, all that would massively confuse things and interrupt the flow of the game.
6. The final comment is a simple one.  If players had any integrity at all, and did not try to cheat like fuck and get away with all sorts, then we would not be in this mess.  They all deserve to come a cropper, based on the ethics (well, lack of them) in the game.  If we have TV evidence, we'll be seeing holds and tugs and giving penalties every two minutes.  Fine by me, because the cheating and foul play would stop, but with TV it would have to be all or nothing.  You cannot look at a screen and say "His boot made contact" but then say "I'll let that one go, because it was only a small handful of shirt, for two seconds".
7. I lied - this is the final comment/observation.  A direct free kick is to be awarded if a player kicks or tries to kick another player.  So, just because a player is "unsuccessful" in making contact, it may still be wholly appropriate to give a free kick if the ref can see that the intention was to try and make contact or have no regard for the likelihood that his swinging foot might hit the player.  This is a point not often covered by the pundits who earn many thousands of pounds for being the retrospective 'fourth/TV official'.

So, two completely different contributions to the football world - one that was stupid and flawed; one that was well intentioned, but flawed.

...