Platini yesterday confirmed that UEFA would be reviewing the Eduardo ‘incident’ from Wednesday’s Arsenal v. Celtic game, which could in theory result in a ban for the Croatian. But Platini’s quotes were confusing on many levels – on the one hand he advocates progress, while on the other he rejects it. Through all the confusion, it’s also massively puzzling why UEFA are responding to this one case anyway.
In general, I think retrospective punishments are a good thing. Clearly referees can’t get everything right, and looking back on incidents after matches gives the game a further means of stamping out its worst elements. Too many times bad tackles have gone unpunished, yellow cards that should have been red haven’t been upgraded or wrongful sendings off haven’t been rescinded. Net result – fans don’t get to watch the games they’ve paid to see, and nothing is done about it.
In addition however, football’s governing bodies need to be accountable for errors made by their referees, and retrospective punishments are a very easy way of doing that. Where possible, significant individual oversights (referees can’t see everything) should be ‘corrected’ after the event and refereeing errors should be publically acknowledged, but not vilified. This kind of transparency – so entirely lacking after the Ovrebo disaster back in May – would go some way to healing fans’ metaphorical wounds and improving their faith in the institutions that govern our game. As an aside, it UEFA or the FA want referees to get more respect, making them untouchable rather than answerable is just a rich source of frustration and agitation.
So normally I would be impressed with Platini/ UEFA saying they were prepared to take retrospective action. But the precedent that it sets in this instance, and the implied aim to start applying retrospective punishments for diving across the board, could well be problematic. Yes, if applied properly it would probably help stamp diving out, or at least minimise it, which would be a great thing for the sport. But diving is so common in the modern game that in the short term there would – or should – be huge amounts of bans handed out left, right and centre. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to apply fairly as I suspect that in a vast number of cases it would be hugely difficult to prove definite intent to deceive the referee. The grey areas around diving are more often defined by subjectivity than any other event on the pitch – I’d be interested to see what UEFA’s approach would be.
But there was another reason why Platini’s announcement was unimpressive. Having spoken positively about UEFA reviewing the incident, he then revealed that he had in fact sold us all a dummy. Backing the idea of having two additional assistant referees, one behind each goal-line (which will be trialled in the UEFA Cup), he said: “One day players will give up simulating because referees will see them. For years players have cheated because the referees were not of a good enough quality. I am convinced that if you have referees close by, that will prevent players from simulating and players will take the right decision. I have always said it is better to have more referees than a multiplication of disciplinary procedures”.
Why not more disciplinary procedures? Does it create too much work for a what is a lazy and overly-conservative organisation? I suspect it’s a bit of that, but also because it would be too open an admission that individual referees – as opposed to an off the cuff comment about them collectively - are fallible human beings (for some reason this is something UEFA generally find far too difficult to admit). Even if having more referees is a good idea, having the power to retrospectively give punishments or change decisions would still be a very useful tool in the armoury to make sure the game is played fairly. Why isn’t it a good idea to give yourself more options (or chances) to get the difficult decisions right rather than less?
Fundamentally, this all boils down to the best way to adjudicate the game and, incidentally, having more referees doesn’t necessarily mean all dives (or any other infringements) will be identified anyway. Referees make mistakes now: multiplying the numbers doesn’t rule out the possibility of them making them again. Furthermore, linesmen too often don’t take enough responsibility – does having two more mean they’re more likely to put their flag up? For me, it’s a negative and unimaginative move that avoids tackling the problems that come with the real answer. Combined with other tools – like retrospective rulings - finding a better way to use technology and video replays for fourth officials is the forward thinking option that UEFA really should be investing time and money in. I’ll sure I’ll post on that another time.
Of course, perhaps the strangest thing about all this however is why UEFA have reacted to the last night’s incident at all. What was it about Eduardo’s dive that makes it so much worse than the plethora of dives that we’ve witnessed over the years? What about, for example, the dives by the technique’s finest exponent and European Footballer of the Year, Cristiano Ronaldo, football’s very own Tom Daley? It seems strange that his dives (or those of any other footballer) weren’t deserving of special attention, but Eduardo’s own brand of Platoon mimicry was.
Perhaps it’s because it resulted in a penalty. But then dives have resulted in penalties before. Perhaps it’s because it’s an English club involved. But then that’s happened before. When it comes down to it, UEFA – and it’s esteemed President in particular – are just being as unpredictable and bewildering as ever.
It's clear that the foreigners at UEFA are bashing the English game...we have the most succesful league and we have the biggest investors and they don't like it!!
UEFA needs an overhaul...get rid of the lazy self indulgent likes of Platini and his mob and replace them with proper footballing geezers...my vote goes to Ron Harris for top gun...now let's get some real people running the gaff!!! Carefree Ha ha
Posted by: TheBrigadier | 29 August 2009 at 05:11
Having 2 linesmen is pointless. What if one flags and the other doesn't? Whose view holds sway and why? It will breed confusion, not certainty. It will fail.
Retrospective punishments are also pointless. If the late decision is accurate it has no way of affecting the game at the time and only fuels discontent and injustice. If a better decision can be made it must be enacted at the time, else why cry over spilt milk?
The concept of a video ref who can affect the game at the time is the only solution. People obsess over the word 'video' when they should concentrate on the word 'ref'. Instead of 2 extra linesmen, there is just one extra ref who can advise the on-pitch ref or the on-pitch ref can call upon. In both cases the on-pitch ref is the final arbiter of relevance, thereby keeping him in control and avoiding the issue of undermining him, which any post-match reversal will do.
The solution is so obvious only Fifa\Uefa\FA could fail to see it.
Posted by: Squiddy | 30 August 2009 at 12:08