The British public have a habit of creating institutions; the constitutional Royal family, Coronation Street and even the Cup of Tea, these are nurtured, loved and kept as part of ye Olde Britain. Sky got half of this right, they created an institution.
Andy Gray was seen as the face of Sky's football coverage for 18 years, Richard Keys likewise. On Sky's 20th year anniversary advertisements Gray featured heavily amongst footballing greats such as Arsene Wenger, Thierry Henry and Sir Alex Ferguson. It only takes one look at Gray's playing career to realise that his playing record alone is not enough to earn his place amongst these footballing "Legends". His place comes from his subsequent broadcasting career, a role given to him by Sky, with a freedom to lift his profile. Items such as "Monday Night Football" ( a big re-release this season) or "Super Sunday the last word" were as much about the outspoken views of Gray as they were about the football on show. In other words Sky Sports made Gray and Gray made Sky Sports.
This only adds to the confusion around his dismissal. Firstly, I am not looking to defend the words of Keys and Gray what they said was wrong and shouldn't have been said. If, as Key's said, "dark forces were at work" then they shouldn't have been naive enough to have a conversation of such a sexist nature while multiple microphones were attached to their person. They knew better. Also, From a refereeing point of view Sian Massey should not suffer because of this. It is possible that she is only where she is because of her gender, but not likely. Mike Riley and the rest of the PGMOL board would not promote her to such heights if she was not capable of performing and she has not done anything to make them doubt her abilities. For instance many including Gray and Keys would not have known that she ran the line at Blackpool V Sunderland. Can you recall a controversy from this game ? No, neither can I, from a refereeing point of view that's job well done.
Anyway, to many feminists, Liberals or non-sports fans Gray's dismissal is a no brainer. Had to be done. Good riddance. However, it is not them who will now watch Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith or another ex professional try and fill the void which has been left. Would an official apology have been enough ? Probably. Firstly, I cant imagine Sian Massey was too bothered, if it's not from the commentary or press box it's from the stands, where several thousands fans express a much more vociferous sexism. Secondly, Andy Gray's crime was much less than that of Jonathan Ross in "Sachsgate". Ross dipped his head under the parapet and survived the axe in the state run, left leaning BBC. If these are compared, then the outcome is unjust.
It is also worth analysing the "dark forces" that Keys' states is behind Grays dismissal and the leak of the sexist remarks. It is quite possible that someone within the Sky organisation had in it for the pair and wanted them out from producer to sound engineer this is possible. However, the most effective conspiracy theory comes on the subject of the ownership of Sky Sports itself. Sky Sports is run by BSkyB Plc, which is majority owned by News Corp. News Corp is the organisation run by Rupert Murdoch which owns The Sun, The Times and News of the World (of phone hacking fame). One "celebrity" with a lawsuit against News of The World is Andy Gray. Now the suspicion occurs; does the phone hacking scandal run deeper than News of the World suggest ? Perhaps all the way to Murdoch himself and therefore the order to dismiss Gray came from Murdoch himself as little more than "get your own back"? It's an interesting theory.
We will probably never know the full reason behind the dismissal, Sky will want to keep it that way. However, if Sian Massey returns to our TV screens in the near future, which i sincerely hope she does, her reputation will have been tainted by the whole saga, slightly by Gray and Keys but mostly by the way the press and Sky have handled it. It will also be different for millions of viewers with the notable absences of Gray and Keys. Jeff Stelling and David Jones will be Politically correct and will stick to the Sky Tv etiquette. However, Sky Sports will have lost something they have worked hard to create, an institution.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Wiley lends support to Clattenburg
Alan Wiley yesterday lent his support to his "mentee" Mark Clattenburg over his decision during the Manchester Utd V Tottenham encouter on Saturday.
"What we have to remember is that the goal is within the laws of the game," Wiley told BBC Radio 5 live.
"The game hadn't stopped and so, in essence, Mark was right in law. You're taught right from the very start that you don't stop until the whistle blows or the ball goes out of play, so in law, the goal is a correct goal."
Wiley, who retired from refereeing in July, also rubbished the theory that Clattenburg should have disallowed the goal on the basis that Tottenham had not received an advantage after Nani's handball that preceded the incident.
"I'm sure that Mark must have thought at that stage, at 1-0 to Manchester United and Spurs wanting to keep the game going and Gomes had the ball in his hands, that he wanted to keep the game moving," Wiley continued.
"The situation is that if you're going to think about bringing it back, for instance if a player is fouled but then he loses his footing and he still can't keep control of the ball, then you can bring it back.
"In that situation there, Gomes has actually got the ball in his hands and has actually still got possession of the ball.
"What he then does after that is nothing to do with the referee. If he chose to throw the ball on the ground, that was his choice. He didn't throw it there because he lost control of it, so therefore in those circumstances you're probably giving the goalkeeper two bites of the cherry."
This is an interesting interpretation of the situation. It is no doubt on the defensive as Wiley looks to salvage some credibility for Clattenburg and his employers at PGMOL. However, it is technically correct.I can only presume that Wiley believes that Gomes thought it was a freekick, but this does not discredit his argument of play to the whistle.
However, Wiley did concede some ground on the incident ...
And while Wiley conceded that Clattenburg should have also sent Ferdinand away, he did not believe the England skipper's presence had any impact on the decision.
"If you watch it again, although Rio Ferdinand is having a say, if you watch the actual conversations between the referee and the assistant, they almost blanked Rio Ferdinand out," Wiley added.
"I suppose in hindsight if Mark looks at that again he would have probably moved Ferdinand away as well."
Conceding this, is not a major defeat and the PGMOL have stood by Clattenburg appointing him to next Tuesday's premier league encounter between Stoke and Birmingham.
"What we have to remember is that the goal is within the laws of the game," Wiley told BBC Radio 5 live.
"The game hadn't stopped and so, in essence, Mark was right in law. You're taught right from the very start that you don't stop until the whistle blows or the ball goes out of play, so in law, the goal is a correct goal."
Wiley, who retired from refereeing in July, also rubbished the theory that Clattenburg should have disallowed the goal on the basis that Tottenham had not received an advantage after Nani's handball that preceded the incident.
"I'm sure that Mark must have thought at that stage, at 1-0 to Manchester United and Spurs wanting to keep the game going and Gomes had the ball in his hands, that he wanted to keep the game moving," Wiley continued.
"The situation is that if you're going to think about bringing it back, for instance if a player is fouled but then he loses his footing and he still can't keep control of the ball, then you can bring it back.
"In that situation there, Gomes has actually got the ball in his hands and has actually still got possession of the ball.
"What he then does after that is nothing to do with the referee. If he chose to throw the ball on the ground, that was his choice. He didn't throw it there because he lost control of it, so therefore in those circumstances you're probably giving the goalkeeper two bites of the cherry."
This is an interesting interpretation of the situation. It is no doubt on the defensive as Wiley looks to salvage some credibility for Clattenburg and his employers at PGMOL. However, it is technically correct.I can only presume that Wiley believes that Gomes thought it was a freekick, but this does not discredit his argument of play to the whistle.
However, Wiley did concede some ground on the incident ...
And while Wiley conceded that Clattenburg should have also sent Ferdinand away, he did not believe the England skipper's presence had any impact on the decision.
"If you watch it again, although Rio Ferdinand is having a say, if you watch the actual conversations between the referee and the assistant, they almost blanked Rio Ferdinand out," Wiley added.
"I suppose in hindsight if Mark looks at that again he would have probably moved Ferdinand away as well."
Conceding this, is not a major defeat and the PGMOL have stood by Clattenburg appointing him to next Tuesday's premier league encounter between Stoke and Birmingham.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Case for the defence: Mark Clattenburg.
Incident - Nanis goal - Manchester Utd v Tottenham Hotspur
If this were a case within the backrooms of Wembley stadium you would hope that Clatts would plead guilty and take the mandatory punishment of a week at Aldershot or Burton, or worse 4th official to Stuart Attwell.
There is almost no doubt this will happen, however serious questions must be asked. Clattenburg is one of the new generation of Referees, pampered professionals with fitness coaches, psychiatrist's and team bonding weekends. The whole idea of professional referees when they were introduced in 2001 was to reduce the pressure levels on the referees, taking away the 9-5 job and giving them sufficient time to prepare to potentially change the course of a clubs history with the single blow of a whistle. Referees such as Clattenburg,Webb, Atkinson, Oliver, Attwell should have to prove it works to stop any potential critics such as Sir Alex Ferguson claiming that a day job helps take the referees mind off big decisions made the previous week.
The incident itself was farcical : Nani fell under a timid challenge from Kaboul. Having fallen he then placed his hand on the ball. Gomes presuming it was a Tottenham freekick rolled the ball out to take the freekick, Nani then came from behind Gomes, pounced on the ball and slotted it home. Cue mayhem ...
1. The penalty decision was correct
The immediate concern was the penalty call, which Clattenburg got correct. Nani has previous for soft penalty appeals and this was no different, Kaboul brushed past him at best. Nani looked for it and got nothing.
2. The Assitant should have seen it.
Simon Beck, the assitant in question played a bemusing role in this. Firstly, the handball was in his "area of credibility" and therefore if seen he should of flagged. To then offer no assitance until after Nani had scored is unprofessional. If, as he claimed to Heurelho Gomes, he "knew it was handball" he should have flagged long before he eventually did, to save Clattenburg's dignity if nothing else. His other mistake was not then convincing Clatts to give the freekick for handball, if he had seen it he should have made the point clear to stop the game descending into farce.
3. Was Clattenburg blind to the handball.
If you see the replays and Clattenburg's positioning this is unclear. His position is first class for dealing with the penalty appeal and his release to the drop zone from the goal kick he would be expecting to come. However, could he see the handball ? Maybe. It appears at the point of hand to ball impact that he is looking at Scholes appealing for a penalty. Even so he must have queried how the ball had stayed on the field after Nani's fall to the ground.
4. Finally, did he play Advantage ...
For a referee of Clattenburg's quality you would hope this was not the case. In a recent assessment I was criticised for "giving advantages in problematic positions for the team with possession". This is effectively what Clattenburg seems to have claimed to have done, on a much bigger stage. The only person who can tell us if this was the case is Rio Ferdinand, who inexplicably was not told to "go away" by the officials. Clattenburg is contracted not to talk, Ferdinand isn't and could provide the answer to the lack of signal or call from Clattenburg.
Verdict : Guilty - but Beck must fall with him.
If this were a case within the backrooms of Wembley stadium you would hope that Clatts would plead guilty and take the mandatory punishment of a week at Aldershot or Burton, or worse 4th official to Stuart Attwell.
There is almost no doubt this will happen, however serious questions must be asked. Clattenburg is one of the new generation of Referees, pampered professionals with fitness coaches, psychiatrist's and team bonding weekends. The whole idea of professional referees when they were introduced in 2001 was to reduce the pressure levels on the referees, taking away the 9-5 job and giving them sufficient time to prepare to potentially change the course of a clubs history with the single blow of a whistle. Referees such as Clattenburg,Webb, Atkinson, Oliver, Attwell should have to prove it works to stop any potential critics such as Sir Alex Ferguson claiming that a day job helps take the referees mind off big decisions made the previous week.
The incident itself was farcical : Nani fell under a timid challenge from Kaboul. Having fallen he then placed his hand on the ball. Gomes presuming it was a Tottenham freekick rolled the ball out to take the freekick, Nani then came from behind Gomes, pounced on the ball and slotted it home. Cue mayhem ...
1. The penalty decision was correct
The immediate concern was the penalty call, which Clattenburg got correct. Nani has previous for soft penalty appeals and this was no different, Kaboul brushed past him at best. Nani looked for it and got nothing.
2. The Assitant should have seen it.
Simon Beck, the assitant in question played a bemusing role in this. Firstly, the handball was in his "area of credibility" and therefore if seen he should of flagged. To then offer no assitance until after Nani had scored is unprofessional. If, as he claimed to Heurelho Gomes, he "knew it was handball" he should have flagged long before he eventually did, to save Clattenburg's dignity if nothing else. His other mistake was not then convincing Clatts to give the freekick for handball, if he had seen it he should have made the point clear to stop the game descending into farce.
3. Was Clattenburg blind to the handball.
If you see the replays and Clattenburg's positioning this is unclear. His position is first class for dealing with the penalty appeal and his release to the drop zone from the goal kick he would be expecting to come. However, could he see the handball ? Maybe. It appears at the point of hand to ball impact that he is looking at Scholes appealing for a penalty. Even so he must have queried how the ball had stayed on the field after Nani's fall to the ground.
4. Finally, did he play Advantage ...
For a referee of Clattenburg's quality you would hope this was not the case. In a recent assessment I was criticised for "giving advantages in problematic positions for the team with possession". This is effectively what Clattenburg seems to have claimed to have done, on a much bigger stage. The only person who can tell us if this was the case is Rio Ferdinand, who inexplicably was not told to "go away" by the officials. Clattenburg is contracted not to talk, Ferdinand isn't and could provide the answer to the lack of signal or call from Clattenburg.
Verdict : Guilty - but Beck must fall with him.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Tough tackling
Apoligies for the delay from my last post.
The big debate on a national front has been the intensity of tackles coming from many a player in the premier league and how they are dealt with. It has always been part of the English game to have a tough, intense game. Take Leeds of the 1970's for instance, whos intimidatory tactics were just seen as "the game". Even the influx of more technical foreign stars has not curtailed this, suggesting that it is a part of the game deeply embedded in English footballing culture.
However, one part of the foreign game which has been imported is the intolerance to such tackles and behaviour. In the past fortnight we have seen tackles of "excessive force" from Karl Henry, Nigel De Jong, Jack Wilshere and Fabrice Muamba. They were dealt with by red card, nothing ( excluding an international voluntary ban), red card and a freekick respectively. Now this is seen by many, Danny Murphy for instance, as inconsistency. However, this appears unfair on the referees concerned. As is so often said, "two years ago that wasnt a red card", in Wilsheres case for definite this is true. But that doesnt mean it was incorrect. One of the biggest issues for referees, is to apply the leagues directives. The weekend of Wilsheres red, a clampdown on tough tackling was almost certainly the directive. Unfortunate, yes. Good refereeing, also.
The other big issue arising this weekend has been regarding the offside law. There is no doubt that in the case of the Old firm game and Kenny Miller and with Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo, that the officials concerned got it right. Andy Gray was in a typical "Super sunday last word" mood - to the point, but perhaps offering the common sensical view on football. He was right, how could Ronaldo come from 20 yards offside to score in a matter of seconds. This is the common sense view which most fans and referees (including myself) hold. However, this was until i heard the words of Dermot Gallagher this morning, who talked of the FIFA intitiative to allow the offside to give strikers a little more freedom and the fact that "being offside is not an offence". This must be forgotten but i appreciate if many more crucial games are settled by such controversial circumstances, it must be looked at.
On a personal front, I have been assessed twice in the space of three games. This is nervewracking and can lead to some needless mistakes. I can only await the report from assessors which have appeared genuinely happy with my performances.
The big debate on a national front has been the intensity of tackles coming from many a player in the premier league and how they are dealt with. It has always been part of the English game to have a tough, intense game. Take Leeds of the 1970's for instance, whos intimidatory tactics were just seen as "the game". Even the influx of more technical foreign stars has not curtailed this, suggesting that it is a part of the game deeply embedded in English footballing culture.
However, one part of the foreign game which has been imported is the intolerance to such tackles and behaviour. In the past fortnight we have seen tackles of "excessive force" from Karl Henry, Nigel De Jong, Jack Wilshere and Fabrice Muamba. They were dealt with by red card, nothing ( excluding an international voluntary ban), red card and a freekick respectively. Now this is seen by many, Danny Murphy for instance, as inconsistency. However, this appears unfair on the referees concerned. As is so often said, "two years ago that wasnt a red card", in Wilsheres case for definite this is true. But that doesnt mean it was incorrect. One of the biggest issues for referees, is to apply the leagues directives. The weekend of Wilsheres red, a clampdown on tough tackling was almost certainly the directive. Unfortunate, yes. Good refereeing, also.
The other big issue arising this weekend has been regarding the offside law. There is no doubt that in the case of the Old firm game and Kenny Miller and with Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo, that the officials concerned got it right. Andy Gray was in a typical "Super sunday last word" mood - to the point, but perhaps offering the common sensical view on football. He was right, how could Ronaldo come from 20 yards offside to score in a matter of seconds. This is the common sense view which most fans and referees (including myself) hold. However, this was until i heard the words of Dermot Gallagher this morning, who talked of the FIFA intitiative to allow the offside to give strikers a little more freedom and the fact that "being offside is not an offence". This must be forgotten but i appreciate if many more crucial games are settled by such controversial circumstances, it must be looked at.
On a personal front, I have been assessed twice in the space of three games. This is nervewracking and can lead to some needless mistakes. I can only await the report from assessors which have appeared genuinely happy with my performances.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Gentlemen's game played by thugs.
Porton Sports V Stockton and Codford
Venue - Porton Camp.
This is one weekend where i wish Salisbury and District players were called up for international duty, giving us referees the week off to enjoy our intense endeavours of the last 5 weeks. Unfortunately due to the skill levels of all concerned, this was not the case. This is the first game of this season where refereeing has given me the full "working over". Twenty minutes into a football/kicking match, i was greeted by a cautionable challenge from a Stockton player, i believe it should be called doing a "Karl Henry". This was proceeded by a melee of player's, im afraid i cannot talk of the details of this incident due to disciplinary measures (yes seriously!). However, i had to reduce one team to 10 men. It is here that the reaction of the players suprised me. I'm sure you've seen regularly the usual anarchy which can occur with the simplest of red cards. However, the only comment i heard was "Hang on ref, let us reorganise", needless to say out of both suprise and common niceities, I allowed this to occur. The game proceeded with the same bubbling temperature, however I looked to use the "10 minute technique" of Graham Poll, this involves 10 minute periods of intense work, blowing up for every little offense. It seemed to work, reducing the tension in the game and calming the challenges. This led to an exciting 2-2 finish.
Job well done ? maybe.
Venue - Porton Camp.
This is one weekend where i wish Salisbury and District players were called up for international duty, giving us referees the week off to enjoy our intense endeavours of the last 5 weeks. Unfortunately due to the skill levels of all concerned, this was not the case. This is the first game of this season where refereeing has given me the full "working over". Twenty minutes into a football/kicking match, i was greeted by a cautionable challenge from a Stockton player, i believe it should be called doing a "Karl Henry". This was proceeded by a melee of player's, im afraid i cannot talk of the details of this incident due to disciplinary measures (yes seriously!). However, i had to reduce one team to 10 men. It is here that the reaction of the players suprised me. I'm sure you've seen regularly the usual anarchy which can occur with the simplest of red cards. However, the only comment i heard was "Hang on ref, let us reorganise", needless to say out of both suprise and common niceities, I allowed this to occur. The game proceeded with the same bubbling temperature, however I looked to use the "10 minute technique" of Graham Poll, this involves 10 minute periods of intense work, blowing up for every little offense. It seemed to work, reducing the tension in the game and calming the challenges. This led to an exciting 2-2 finish.
Job well done ? maybe.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Promotion.
Due to the absence of Stuart Attwell and the presence of my university application, the weeks incidents will have to be left to Keith Hackett (The Guardian) and Graham Poll ( The Daily Mail ).
However, i now want to explain one of the biggest things that confuses the average football fan. How does that referee in the premier league get to where he is.
There are 9 levels to refereeing actively. 1 being the top, 9 being the bottom. Every referee starts off as a level 9 having passed the original test, they then effectively must referee 6 games competently to be moved to either level 8 (under 16) or level 7 (over 16). It is at this point that the rules differ county by county. To apply for a promotion to either level 6 or level 5 you must in most counties have completed 1 full season at rank Level 7. This isnt the absolute rule set down by wembley and is therefore open to interpretation. From this point , the candidates have to pass a test on the laws of the game (test on football, how hard can that be? ), complete 20 games and pass three assessments with a mark of over 70. This applies until a referee reaches level 4 - here they will do the "middle" in the supply leagues and run the line on the contributory league. A south western example would be - referee - wessex league line - Zammareto league.
Beyond this, promotion and competition, i am reliably assured, becomes tougher. Referees are assessed with much greater regularity and stringency and must be seen to do more than just the minimum. Many factors can help to make a referees face fit ; being young, fit or holding connections, can help a referee progress from supply to contributory to the conference to the "holy grail" of the football league. Any referee who reaches the football league is seen as the "cream of the crop". However, to reach the "select group", the national list referees must hold age on their side as well as the luck of the draw and the ability to handle the big occasion.
It took Howard Webb 14 years to go from the local leagues to premier league; this is quick but shows talent can be rewarded as soon as it gains the neccessary experience.
However, i now want to explain one of the biggest things that confuses the average football fan. How does that referee in the premier league get to where he is.
There are 9 levels to refereeing actively. 1 being the top, 9 being the bottom. Every referee starts off as a level 9 having passed the original test, they then effectively must referee 6 games competently to be moved to either level 8 (under 16) or level 7 (over 16). It is at this point that the rules differ county by county. To apply for a promotion to either level 6 or level 5 you must in most counties have completed 1 full season at rank Level 7. This isnt the absolute rule set down by wembley and is therefore open to interpretation. From this point , the candidates have to pass a test on the laws of the game (test on football, how hard can that be? ), complete 20 games and pass three assessments with a mark of over 70. This applies until a referee reaches level 4 - here they will do the "middle" in the supply leagues and run the line on the contributory league. A south western example would be - referee - wessex league line - Zammareto league.
Beyond this, promotion and competition, i am reliably assured, becomes tougher. Referees are assessed with much greater regularity and stringency and must be seen to do more than just the minimum. Many factors can help to make a referees face fit ; being young, fit or holding connections, can help a referee progress from supply to contributory to the conference to the "holy grail" of the football league. Any referee who reaches the football league is seen as the "cream of the crop". However, to reach the "select group", the national list referees must hold age on their side as well as the luck of the draw and the ability to handle the big occasion.
It took Howard Webb 14 years to go from the local leagues to premier league; this is quick but shows talent can be rewarded as soon as it gains the neccessary experience.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
The pain and agony of SA
I feel i approached this blog somewhat naively. I felt that some weekends, the supposed best referees in the land would have quiet weekends, get everything right and i could talk about trivial matters. Seems not.
The major incident of the weekend came from every refereeing blogger's best friend, Stuart Attwell. This was a crucial game for Liverpool after a poor start and i think was a show of faith from the PGMOL to give MR.Attwell the game. The now "infamous" freekick taken by Sunderland, shows Mr.Attwell's relative inexperience. While im not in a position to comment on experience, Howard Webb or Peter Walton would not have made this error. By the letter of the law, it was correct, the freekick had been taken. But, as we are so often reminded, it is our application of the laws that matters, this should, in my opinion include common sense. The common sense approach would be to bring play up, and let the keeper take the freekick. However, he was right to only award a yellow card to Steven Gerrard, as much as it may have been intentional, malice is completely different and it was a half hearted attempt to either win the wall or harm the player from Gerrard. Attwell - 5/10
Mr.Clattenburg's red card at Birmingham V Wigan is as ambigious as Alec Mcleish's answer to the question of Craig Gardner's red card. " A few years ago, thats a yellow card" were the words of Mcleish, this may be true, but doesnt excuse Gardner's over the ball, studs up challenge. I believe this is where the premier league differs from the grassroots. I gave a very similar challenge at the weekend, a yellow card. The calls of "that's soft ref" were inevitable but in the case of park football, a fair case. In the premier league however, with insurance on the players health a huge business, these tackles should not be tolerated.
Good decision Clatts - 7/10
Anothe referee who needs a mention is Michael Oliver - Unlike most 25 year olds, this man doesnt seem intimidated by anything, and can control games as potentially fiery as the West Brom upset of Arsenal. He is setting a new bar for young referees, a tough one to match.
Dean - 7/10 - great control of Blackpool cauldron
Dowd - 7/10 - Well handled, Potential for upset
Atkinson 8/10 - Tough game, well controlled by a top official
Webb - 7/10 - Quiet day, welcome im sure
Jones - 7/10 - Good performance, easy penalty call
Halsey - 6/10 - Overly fussy, but controlled well
Marriner - 8/10- justified faith shown in him by board.
The major incident of the weekend came from every refereeing blogger's best friend, Stuart Attwell. This was a crucial game for Liverpool after a poor start and i think was a show of faith from the PGMOL to give MR.Attwell the game. The now "infamous" freekick taken by Sunderland, shows Mr.Attwell's relative inexperience. While im not in a position to comment on experience, Howard Webb or Peter Walton would not have made this error. By the letter of the law, it was correct, the freekick had been taken. But, as we are so often reminded, it is our application of the laws that matters, this should, in my opinion include common sense. The common sense approach would be to bring play up, and let the keeper take the freekick. However, he was right to only award a yellow card to Steven Gerrard, as much as it may have been intentional, malice is completely different and it was a half hearted attempt to either win the wall or harm the player from Gerrard. Attwell - 5/10
Mr.Clattenburg's red card at Birmingham V Wigan is as ambigious as Alec Mcleish's answer to the question of Craig Gardner's red card. " A few years ago, thats a yellow card" were the words of Mcleish, this may be true, but doesnt excuse Gardner's over the ball, studs up challenge. I believe this is where the premier league differs from the grassroots. I gave a very similar challenge at the weekend, a yellow card. The calls of "that's soft ref" were inevitable but in the case of park football, a fair case. In the premier league however, with insurance on the players health a huge business, these tackles should not be tolerated.
Good decision Clatts - 7/10
Anothe referee who needs a mention is Michael Oliver - Unlike most 25 year olds, this man doesnt seem intimidated by anything, and can control games as potentially fiery as the West Brom upset of Arsenal. He is setting a new bar for young referees, a tough one to match.
Dean - 7/10 - great control of Blackpool cauldron
Dowd - 7/10 - Well handled, Potential for upset
Atkinson 8/10 - Tough game, well controlled by a top official
Webb - 7/10 - Quiet day, welcome im sure
Jones - 7/10 - Good performance, easy penalty call
Halsey - 6/10 - Overly fussy, but controlled well
Marriner - 8/10- justified faith shown in him by board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)