25 March 2009

Let them speak out!


Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

The FA ruled that Brad Friedel's red card should be rescinded. The Villa keeper now gets to play in a match that is critical for both Villa and Manchester United. Considering that referee Martin Atkinson got the play right, this could be a very momentous and expensive ruling.
Frustratingly, there is no explanation from the FA for its decision but there damned well should be.
The play, in a nutshell: through-ball into the penalty area, Torres latches onto it at the last second and pushes it to his left. Friedel, thinking that Torres would never get to the ball, has gone down on a knee to scoop the ball into his arms. But the touch that pushes the ball to the right means that Friedel is now exposed to an on-rushing Torres, so Brad turns into Torres and trips up the Liverpool striker.
There are no defenders between Torres and the goal, since he has blazed past the second-last defender, who was to his left. Well within the penalty area, about 12 yards from goal, it is only Torres that will be able to get to the ball, which is within one step of his stride.
This is a clear-cut, textbook-perfect example of Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), which requires a sending off.
It is irrelevant what Friedel claimed, that he was only turning to protect himself against Torres, who jumped to hurdle the keeper. The fact is that his action, inadvertent though it might have been, caused Torres to unfairly lose his advantage. The contact itself was not worthy of a red card, it was so because it was DOGSO.
Atkinson did the right thing in sending off Friedel. The referee correctly applied the Laws of the Game, which stipulate that the referee not care the time of the foul (1st minute or 90th, a foul is a foul), the score of the game (like this one, which wound up 5-nil), or even the stakes at hand. A foul is a foul is a foul.
What is particularly annoying about this is that the commentator got this call all wrong. No surprise there - I highly doubt that there is a commentator anywhere that has ever taken an officiating course. The cry was "oh no, not a red card, the referee's got this all wrong". This is the only thing that 99% of people watching the match will hear about this call - especially now that the FA has decided not to explain itself - and so ultimately, the only impression that remains is that the referee has screwed up again.
There is an easy solution: allow the referees to have a post-game conference to explain a seemingly controversial call (I say that because this one was textbook simple). How much better for everyone if Atkinson could say publicly: "the reason Friedel was sent off was because he fouled Torres, and thus denied him a chance to score a goal. Since there were no other defenders between the spot of the foul and the goal, and since Torres could have easily reached the ball, this was a clear red card offense."
Short, simple, straightforward. Perhaps a press conference is not needed or required but certainly media should be able to send in a couple of questions about critical decisions. The referee can have the opportunity to address them through an official spokesperson. I mean, all sorts of ways can be devised to shed a little light on what transpired without mucking things up.
Transparency is rarely a bad thing, especially in those cases where referees have made the correct call in the first place. And surprisingly to most people, that's an overwhelming percentage of those cases. If the FA thought the call was too harsh, then they should say so.
After all, the FA should be heard on record why Manchester have to face one of the best keepers in the league instead of Brad Guzan.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home