Time to map out a plan for Villa's future
- Says blogger Matthew Turvey
Alan Wiley: Don’t see red with referees
Thursday 12th January 2012, 6:27PM GMT.
The recent red-card controversy over Nenad Milijas and Vincent Kompany has ignited debate. But former Midlands Premier League official ALAN WILEY explains why the referee does know what he’s doing
When a referee sees a foul tackle, he has to judge the foul from where he/she is and has to decide in which category it falls – these are careless, reckless or a tackle made with excessive force.
Old law states that if a player “tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the ball before touching the opponent, no foul.”
But the law changed in 2009 and now states that if a referee considers a player’s tackles to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, that is a foul.
In other words, the referee has to consider the whole of the action of the tackling player, even if the tackling player plays the ball first.
A careless tackle is when a player attempting to challenge for the ball, in close proximity to an opponent, puts a great deal of honest effort into the challenge but mistimes it and in doing so catches the opponent. That’s a run-of-the-mill foul.
A reckless challenge is one in which there is a clear risk of endangering an opponent and pays no regard to the possible consequences and the safety and/or welfare of an opponent. This is punished by a direct free-kick and a yellow card.
The third category is the most contentious area. Here a player who makes a challenge which may be malicious or violent and may be designed to hurt or maim an opponent is punished by a direct free-kick and a red card.
In reaching the decision, the referee has to consider SEVEN criteria.
They are: 1) Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?
2) Does the player show clear malice when making the challenge?
3) What degree of speed/or intensity is the player using when making the challenge? Distance travelled?
4) What was the direction of the tackler’s feet?
5) Did the player use his studs when making a tackle?
6) Does the challenge clearly endanger the safety of the opponent?
7) Was it an act of violent conduct or serious foul play?
All of this would have been explained to all Premier League clubs pre or early season at a meeting involving players and managers, a Premier League referee and a member of the referees’ management team. Video examples would have been used to illustrate what is careless, reckless or excessive force, including the issue of players leaving the ground with one foot, two feet and lunging in.
Players were told that, by making this type of challenge, they ran the risk of a red card, depending on the view, angle and interpretation of the referee.
There have been 203 red cards in the Premier League and Football League so far this season. Some 24 appeals have been lodged, seven of which have been upheld by the FA.
England is currently in a privileged position of being only one of a handful of countries where FIFA allow that red cards can be appealed.
The criteria laid down is that for a red card to be overturned, the FA-appointed panel has to be satisfied that the referee made a serious and obvious error when issuing a red card.
The three-strong appeals panel includes either an ex-player or ex-manager, together with a chairman and FA Council member.
And I repeat, it has to be a serious and obvious error by the referee for the card to be rescinded.
An example where it would be successful is if the panel ultimately considered the offence to be either no foul at all or just a foul not warranting any type of card.
Of course, it is entirely possible the referee can misinterpret an incident because of his angle and view.
Unfortunately, as we all know, referees are simply not allowed to ever make mistakes!
Sponsored Links
UK Sport
Latest Blog — Microsoft Comes to the University of Wolverhampton
Last week Microsoft visited the University of Wolverhampton to give students the chance to develop their own phone apps that could be published on the Windows Phone Marketplace.
Technology blog
Business Awards
Read the full story here
Full coverage of awards celebrating the region's best businesses.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Express & Star and Shropshire Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
LIVE traffic updates
Road, rail and airport - latest
Our new, live traffic and travel updates service - check before you set out.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new E&S app
Download the Express & Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
expressandstar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Why is it that wolves are ALWAYS on the rough end of these “mistakes”. Prem refs are a really in funny joke
Report abuse
So mr wiley can you explain how on earth lampards horrendous challenge on Adam Hammil did not meet the above 7 criteria? I shall tell you exactly why, it’s lampard and it’s chelski if that challenge was made by a Wolves player he would have gone and that is a FACT, one rule for them and one for us……DISGRACE!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
I don’t think this has anything to do with the Referees not able to make mistakes.
It has more to do with the fact that the Premier League and FIFA could do a lot more to help referees make the correct decision.
Fans see referees making wrong decisions (lots this season) so shout their abuse at the people they see making the mistakes (The referee).
Referees are given a thankless task and are let down by their employees and the bodies that govern them.
Don’t try to make us feel guilty by making out that we should not get on referees backs, if we did not then the powers above would think everything was ok, which it is obviously not.
Report abuse
Alan, Alan, Alan…..
If the ball pitches outside leg stump, the batsman cannot be given out leg before wicket, if the ball does not strike him in line with the stumps when playing a shot, he is not out. If the batsman hits the ball with his bat or gloves before striking him, he cannot be out leg before wicket.
The difference between the above and the guff you just spilled out in defence of your incompetent ilk is that cricket umpires are there to ensure that the clearly defined, objective laws of cricket are upheld on the field of play….. not a wishy-washy, inconsistent interpretation of unnecessarily complicated rules based upon who did what to whom, the badge on their shirt, their weekly wages, whether they play for England or not and whether you are worried about your head being kicked in by the home support afterwards like you and your fellow whistle-happy pillocks practice.
Why do you think you always had a legion of Manchester United players surrounding you when you were a referee? Because they could intimidate you into changing your mind about the next decision you might have given against them.
Your description of the punishment for different criteria of tackles has direct inconsistencies with that issued to Nenad Milijas recently. So who is the incompetent party in the wrong; Stuart Atwell and the Football Association, or you?
Report abuse
I for one didnt have the slightest problem with the referee and his milijas decision. Obviously it was wrong and nobody likes to see incorrect decisions go against their team, but I know how difficult a job refs have and they will make mkistakes and continue to do so. what i do have a problem with is, the current rules, and the clear bias towards bigger clubs especially by the FA themselves.
Take the milijas tackle for example, lets just answer those points above in regards to the challenge:
1: Yes, in fact he did win the ball in a fair manner.
2: No, It was a good challenge.
3: He is having to move quickly as the ball is running away from him, but then again, who has ever heard of a slow sliding challenge? silly question FA.
4: studs were up, as is many other players when making challenges, as studs down runs the risk of severe injury by catching the turf.
5: Yes, but it was a one footed challenge without leaving the ground.
6: No, but having said that, i suppose every challenge in fotball could endanger a players safety, as im sure weve all seen perfectly harmless challenges turn into leg breaks.
7: No, it was an act of getting the ball, which he did, fairly.
Now I can understand the ref seeing the challeneg and making the wrong decision, but how on earth can the FA uphold that decision? Lets use those same points when reviewing the rooney incident for England, which the FA actually fought for.
1: no, the ball was gone.
2: Yes, it was clearly an act of agression.
3: To be honest, hes moving slowly, but then again, its not even a challenge, hes just lashing out.
4: pointing towards the opposition players backside.
5: he kicked him, does it matter?
6: It wasnt a strong kick, but i suppose, who knows what the opposition players pain threshold was.
7: Of course.
How can the FA seriously review th Rooney footage and fight in his corner, and then reject legitimate appeals like ours. Its an absolute joke. I really do feel sorry for the refs, as even if they didnt get any decisions wrong, they would still be screwed with the silly rules and regulations that the FA have in place.
Report abuse
Poppycock. One rule for top club players and another for the rest of them. Decide on the tackle not who the player is!!!!
Report abuse
Mr Wiley
Given your explanations above please give us your interpretation of Hutton’s tackle on Long,which resulted in a chipped bone and Lampard’s against the Dingles?
Adéu
Report abuse
Utter rubbish.
Does the identity of the offender get taken into account? Ie lampards not that sort of player? Well guess what, neither is milijas. Gerrard gets away with some truly shocking tackles too.
We are all aware that refs make mistakes, but it compounds the issue when the fa panel uphold these mistakes.
Refs are ruining the game with their inconsistency.
Report abuse
One criteria missing from Mr Wiley’s list is who does the offending player play for and is he high profile. This appears to me to be the main deciding factor on the result of which colour card is brandished.
Report abuse
Never read such tripe in my life.
The third category is the most contentious area. Here a player who makes a challenge which may be malicious or violent and may be designed to hurt or maim an opponent is punished by a direct free-kick and a red card.
So how was Milijas put into this catergory and Lampard doesnt? He went to win the ball, Lampard had no chance of winning the ball cause Hammill left him so he took the player which is clearly the catergory above.
Report abuse
7. Kev: The ref didn’t send lamps off because ‘he is not that sort of player’ Milijas was sent off and he is nowhere near ‘that sort of player’
Hutton, however, is exactly ‘that sort of player’ but didn’t get sent off. I would luv for riley to explain!
Report abuse
Chris.
But as we know, they never do.
Adéu
Report abuse
Im sorry but these big wigs at the fa are making football a complicated and irritating to watch.. 1st.. All Seater grounds
2nd.. The Offside Rule
3rd.. A Player must leave the field after an injury
and now Tackling is not allowed in any manner! Football is no longer the same game and when did all this come along??? When the Premier League and all its money came into play! The big clubs get away with murder and its the smaller clubs who suffer!
Report abuse
No. 2 – Lampard did not show any malice at all and in fact tried to pull out at the last moment – so definately NOT a red card.
And by the way Wolves are well known as one of those teams who in most games, particularly away games, whose prime motivation is to stop the other team playing, (rather than playing positively themselves), by fair means or foul.
An ugly side.
Report abuse