1. Ashley Young “Harshly Booked?”
Arsenal supporters will never forget the Sportsmail’s anti-diving crusade. For several months after Eduardo was rightly awarded a penalty in a Champions League qualifier against Celtic the Mail Online dedicated pretty much their entire sports section to commentary on what a cheat Eduardo is and how he should be strung up or at the least banned from the Champions League for life. Even worse was that for several months their “anti-diving” campaign focused almost exclusively on foreign players, making it more of an “anti-foreigner” campaign in the eyes of many.
They have since climbed down from that impossible position, thanks to the work of many who have pointed out time and again that Wayne Rooney is a diver and that he’s not alone in the pantheon of English players who try to con the referee. The link above rightly says:
Young’s offence comes hot on the heels of Wayne Rooney’s simulation against Villa at Old Trafford. The fact that both players are English again shows that the presumption that diving is a foreign disease is wrong.
There are some, like former Villa player and now Sportsmail columnist Andy Townsend, who seem to insist that English players don’t dive and that when they do they, as Ashley Young did on Sunday, have been “harshly booked.”
The problem is diving is very tricky. Because so many people have so many different opinions about what constitutes a dive the definitions range wildly. This in turn gives the anti-diving evangelicals the room to expand their definitions and thereby get into the heads of every player who tumbles under any contact and decide that he was “simulating” in order to get a call without ever defining what diving really is.
Diving is simulation. Sometimes simulation is very clear, as in the case of when Richard Garcia fell down as if he was shot after Samir Nasri gave him the slightest of kicks to the foot. Everyone who has played the game has gotten that same kick and none of us spent 5 minutes on the ground rolling around waiting for the medics to be called. Most of us would probably have said “hey, what the fuck??!?” and gotten in Samir’s face and told him that he would be getting his later. So, we know that’s a dive because we know from experience how a normal person reacts.
In the case of Ashley Young, it’s a bit tougher, but if you watch the replays he was going to ground, the way Wayne Rooney always goes to ground to con the referee into giving him a penalty, before any contact and the referee decided that the only reason he would do that is to try to get a free kick. It’s a fine line, but I think the referee is the best person to make this decision. Sure, we can all play Monday morning quarterback and second guess the referee, but he’s the man who in the heat of the game has to make the decision and I say we need to leave it up to him.
Even if sometimes Arsenal get the harsh calls. Which is why the Sportsmail’s anti-diving campaign isn’t so much about diving but rather an anti-official campaign. They want to take the power away from the match officials and put it in the hands of some post-match tribunal. Whereas I feel like we should empower the match officials, give them the technology, respect, and rules changes (if needed) to handle this. After all, diving is hardly the worst thing that happens on a football pitch.
2. The case for video replay steams on
Most folks who don’t like match officials using video replay are, ironically, the first to howl when they see a replay of their favorite player treated harshly by the match officials. Their main argument is almost exclusively that instituting video replay would slow the game down.
The problem is that in almost every match there are moments where the match official stops the match and consults with one or more of his sideline officials. One such event happened this weekend at Anfield when Andre Mariner gave a yellow card to the wrong player, after consulting with the side line official, then consulted with the fourth official and booked the correct player which resulted in Stephen Ward being sent off for his second bookable offense. It was a stoppage in play, the official took time to sort it out, got the call right, and play resumed.
Pretty much exactly how everyone I know wants the officials to use video technology. And don’t give me this crap about the sanctity of the game, this is a game that until 1992 allowed back passes. Times change, get with them.
3. Upcoming fixtures
Arsenal next play Pompey at Fratton park on Wednesday, if Portsmouth are able to make payroll, and then West Ham at Upton Park in the FA Cup on Sunday the 3rd. After that we’ve got two home games against Bolton on the 6th (our game in hand) and Everton on the 9th before Arsenal get a whole week off for the first time in ages.
Unlike the dreadful November, January could be very good to us. We’ve got 2 breaks of a week each and there are no less than 3 players who are slated to return from injury in January: Clichy, Bendtner, and Rosicky.So, while the loss of Song is going to be a blow, there’s a lot of reason the think January will be the month that Arsenal take first place from Chelsea.
Now, start touching wood that Denilson and Fabregas are only short term knocks.
4. Lorik Cana, hard man or hard head?
Lorik Cana already has 8 yellows and 1 red card, and yet he vows to continue playing the same way. I personally touted this man in the off season and bemoaned the day he signed for Sunderland but I’m starting to see why Wenger didn’t pick him.
In the matches that I have seen him play his work rate is usually poor, his passes are almost always off, and his tackling is typically over the top. I understand that he’s a destroyer and that Steve Bruce encourages this and that Wenger would not, but frankly I don’t think he has the talent to be on this Arsenal side and would stick out like a Jermaine Pennant.
5. Wenger says… nothing will be easy until March
Arsene expressed surprise yesterday at the speed which Arsenal recovered points on the league leaders in December. Arsenal were 11 points adrift after November and written off by pretty much everyone when Wenger made his now famous statement that Chelsea would drop points.
Since then Arsenal have taken 13 of 15 points and Chelsea have taken 6 points out of a possible 15. Similarly, Arsenal’s record is 4-1-0 and Chelsea’s is 1-3-1 with a goal differential of zero compared to Arsenal’s +9.
No one thinks the next few weeks against Bolton and the like will be easy, and we certainly don’t want to take our foot off the gas now. But like I said at the start of the year, with Chelsea losing the core of their team to the ACN January will decide this title race.
Unfortunately, what I didn’t predict was that Man U would be right there with us. I mean, how the hell does a team lose Tevez and Ronaldo with their combined 40+ goals a season, lose their starting defensive line, and still manage to stay in the title race?
I swear they made a deal with the devil.
Arsenal News 24/7
As things stand, with Chelski losing at home to Fulham, Arsenal are now a win at Portsmouth plus a win at home to Bolton way from top spot.
Sweet.
Fulham looking to score again! Huge Clint Dempsey fan!
December 28th, 2009 at 7:40 am
@Kevin, Oh wow. Games on tonight?! Cheers for the heads up. I’m off to watch this one!
Comon’ Zamora!
December 28th, 2009 at 7:50 am
@Tiki, I was as surprised as you, dreadful some of these teams playing Saturday – Monday games this week, Arsene was on to something to question the scheduling, there’s got to be a better way.
Don’t know if anyone’s noticed but this is Chelski without Essien
Enjoy it. January should be the same.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@Patrick, Chelsea will be forced to prove their worth without star players, as we are without RVP and United are without Tevez and Ronaldo, the cream shall rise to the top (and it is!)
Here’s to hoping Man U and Chelsea haven’t both made deals with the devil!!
December 28th, 2009 at 8:26 am
It should also be noted that his replacement Jon Mikel Obi is, as they say, pants.
Aw crap. Chelsea pulled it out.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
@Patrick, Silver lining? Drogba got a yellow, which means a one game ban AFTER he returns from Africa…
December 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
@Patrick, Still time to draw.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:56 am
@Tiki, Final whistle. Damn it.
I don’t understand this blasting of Cana. This is his first season and yet he’s already captain and being touted as one of Sunderland’s players of the season barring Darren Bent.
You point to his disciplinary record and his “tough tackling” and that Wenger would not promote that kind of thing, yet Wenger signed Patrick Vieira who is a legend and his disciplinary record isn’t exactly spotless. Vieira was more than capable of his share of red cards and two-footed tackles. I may be an Arsenal fan but I’m not so impartial as to look through the rose coloured glasses at our players.
Even Ray Parlour was a little dirty in his day and he was an academy product.
I’m not sure why you’re surprised about Man Utd. As I’ve said before, Fergie’s greatest asset from his experience is making mediocre players believe they are world beaters. His current team is mostly average but they’re Man Utd and they believe in their club’s history, that anyone putting on that jersey is the best in the world. Wenger could use a little bit of that influence for some of our players.
commentary from bbc:
1513: Didier Drogba is caught by a flailing John Pantsil arm, and goes down like he’s been murdered. As well as beinga magnificent footballer, he does do theatrics beautifully. He’s OK.
crappy own goals… same when diaby did it for man u game… why cant it happen just once in favor for arsenal?
December 28th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@munawwar,
December 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
@AnonymousGun,
sorry ..
I mean it already did.. to a certain Glen Johnson
Couple of things – the Saturday programme just gone was the traditional Boxing Day programme of fixtures, give or take the two televised games – us and Man U – which were moved to Sunday.
Today’s matches are the traditional Bank Holiday programme, again with the TV exceptions tomorrow plus us and Man U on Wednesday (because we played Sunday.)
So in fact, us and Man U get an extra day’s rest in between our ‘seasonal’ fixtures!
Also, as I understand it, changes to the rules are only generally introduced when they can be put in the official Laws of the Game. Thus back-passes to keepers, offside changes to favour attackers, substitutes, etc can all be reproduced at all levels of the game, from Sunday parks to the World Cup finals.
However, video replays will only be available where there are live cameras and this means introducing an inequality between the upper and lower levels of the sport. Somewhat understandably, FIFA hates this – kind of your ‘sanctity’ idea – as it means referees have different rules for different occasions, which is not in the spirit of having a set of universal Laws of the Game.
Of course, now that our beautiful game is a multi-squillion pound/dollar/euro business, those simple refereeing decisions can mean promotion/relegation which can therefore make or break clubs (read: floated stockmarket companies) which moves it into the socio-political sphere as well.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
So basically FIFA is an institutional version of OCD. They have to have all levels of the game line up neatly.
Nice wig.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@Patrick, Yes I think that sums it up nicely.
Anyway, what do you mean, ‘wig’?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@fourstar, That’s the theory, but the practice is nowhere near that.
Does every game have 4 referees?
Are all pitches to FIFA standard?
The idea that there’s a Universal Laws of the Game is more theory than reality and thus, for me, that argument is moot as well.
That said, I knew there was a second main contention and couldn’t remember what it was so I omitted it from the article. Thanks fourstar for reminding me!
December 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@Tim, did I mention theory and practice? I’d like to take the opportunity to do that now…
December 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Tim, No, but every game /could/ have four referees; there was a time when they didn’t have linesmen, presumably, but they managed to introduce them, it’s just a case of training more people. However, not every game can have 7 broadcast quality video cameras set up, it’s a logistical issue.
I’m agreeing with you, of course, but fairly sure that’s a big part of the FIFA argument.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
@fourstar, every game /could/ have 7 broadcast cameras just as easily as they could have 6 officials or however many they are planning on introducing.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@Tim, “Just as easily”? Nooooooo. Finding 4 people to hold a flag is fairly simple, even on Hackney Marshes in December. The other thing…….
December 28th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@fourstar, ok how about this angle…
There are different levels of officiating, right? So, the 4 officials (soon to be 6) at Hackney Marshes are no where near the quality that the 4 (6) officials will be at Old Trafford, right?
Thus, the argument could be made that you don’t need world class video recording equipment in order to adhere to FIFA’s theory, just 7 cameras of the quality that one might expect at Hackney Marshes.
A comparable anaolgy would be 7 people with cell phone cameras!
But seriously, lower quality HD cameras are available for $300 each, how hard would it be to introduce a couple of cameras? I suggest not nearly as hard as trying to get 6 officials for a League 4 match.
Agreed, but who is going to run them? Monitor them? It’s nonsense; there will end up a two-tier set of rules and there’s nothing FIFA can do about it, other than delay, because the game is run by money now and that money needs things to be correct.
Which is a shame – think of the 1966 WC Final. The fact that the goal may or may not have crossed the line put that match into folklore. If we’d waited 5 minutes for a video replay and found that it wasn’t over, that would have ruined it for ever.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@fourstar, aspiring pro photographers will run them, just like aspiring pro refs turn out to referee matches in BFE.
That’s not really a hurdle in my mind.
As for the 1966 WC final it’s a good point you make but let me make a counter. The current situation is that the viewing public gets to see that the ball did/didn’t cross the line and as such it actually takes away from games because we know what the rightful outcome should have been had the ref been given the benefit of the very same technology that we enjoy.
The 1966 final is a great example because everyone was blind to what happened and you have to just trust the ref. But now days, we get to see what happened and FIFA is intentionally blinding their refs to the truth, this causes a lot of ill feelings toward refs and even the players (ala Eduardo).
Thus, the 1966 non-goal is a non-issue because the real problem is that the broadcasters show replays ad nauseum, they puntitize on the replays, they agonize over them and the entire football industury uses video at every level to improve their game.
Except the referees.
Something is very wrong there and we either need to ban instant replays (no rebroadcasts, no internet feeds, nothing) for the fans and return everyone to the 1966 standard, or need to allow replays in stadiums which already have broadcasts.
I’ll take either outcome.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“puntitize”
There’s a word for the lexicon.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@Patrick, “to pundit”
December 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@fourstar, if the ICC can deal with it, so can FIFA. The fact that cricket is more on the ball about technology than football is is just wrong.
Excellent, thoughtful commentary on the diving issue. You might find yourself with one of the highly-coveted globally famous links from Gingers for Limpar at this rate.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@Julian H, I actually have been reading your blog for a few weeks. Keep up the good work yourself!
December 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@Tim, Ok, done, link added. Prepare yourself for the mass influx of traffic.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
@Julian H, back at you!
Maybe FIFA needs to implement common sense.
Have the ref ask the the team captain and the player in question if he handled it or if he dove or if he pulled the shirt or whatever.
Of course the player is going to say “I never” but at least we could say “Henry, you liar”.
You guys are all missing the point. The fact that some places may have cameras and other places not, has nothing to do with the rules being universal or nor. The rules ARE universal. What we are saying is that some venues are better equipped to enable better officiating than others. There is nothing wrong with this. I still play competitive basketball and tennis. I am not at Madison Square Garden or Wimbledon. My referees are likely to make more mistakes than referees in those venues. I still play. Same rules. I don’t think there is anything wrong with 2 tiers of competitive soccer: Video-enabled and Not-video-enabled. You want top leagues, the World cup, etc. to be REQUIRED to comply to the top tier. Then go as far down as one can afford… so likely optional for my Sunday football league game. Problem solved.
there are minimum requirements for ground standards for different divisions. if a teams ground dont make the standard they are given a grace period to put it right or they cant play in the league. i can’t see it being that tricky to add video technology to those standards, after all we are used to seeing fa cup minnows in the fa cup on tv.
@Tim: I am in complete agreement with you on the need for technological help for referees. Whatever argument we advance against such technology, if other sports can successfully use it, why can’t football?
FIFA & UEFA are just leaving avenues for referees to subtly carry out whatever they wish, whenever they wish.