Football is a war of attrition, and penalising physicality will damage the game. Over the course of the fourth round of matches in the Premier League, there have been some contentious decisions made by the officials, sparking debate amongst pundits and fans alike. Six red cards were dished out across the ten fixtures played, with some being more debatable than others. The question is, should refereeing standards become more streamlined adhering to the FA’s rulebook, or should they take into consideration the need for common sense and leniency in certain cases?
As long as there are ten different men officiating ten different matches, there is going to be refereeing disparity as many officials may have differing views, take Dermot Gallagher as an example; a former Premier League referee who often criticises or commends decisions made on Sky Sports. However the absence of leniency across the board is particularly telling, which is worrying in fixtures of such magnitude as the Premier League.
It is a hot topic for debate, that there should be changes to the refereeing handbook, as old-fashioned purists who love to see a full-blooded, hearty game of football with both sides tearing at each other’s throats, are met by the argument of the need to protect players in the modern game, especially considering the speed the game is played at nowadays. One decision that will undoubtedly divide opinion is the challenge of Aleksandar Mitrovic on Arsenal’s Francis Coquelin which resulted in the former being given his marching orders from the field. Replays and analysis show the Serbian to lunge at the Arsenal midfielder, with his leg seemingly stamping on the ankle of the Frenchman. According to the FA rulebook, it is a red card offence, however, this is where the debate comes in. Had Mitrovic maliciously launched his boot aiming for Coquelin’s ankle in an attempt to injure his opponent, it is without a doubt a sending off, but in this case, replays show Mitrovic’s eyes on the ball as his momentum carries him onto the leg of the Arsenal player, which even Arsenal fans can concede, isn’t malicious or dangerous play. The St James’ Park faithful were incensed at referee Andre Marriner’s decision to produce the red which effectively killed the game, but the most frustrating aspect of the sending off was the lack of leniency shown by the referee, which is where the aspect of debate is most poignant. If referees were not instructed to follow the rulebook to the letter, would Mitrovic have received just a yellow card for the offence that was not dissimilar to another non-malicious challenge by Moussa Sissoko just minutes earlier, which only warranted a booking?
In essence, bookings are meant to be implemented for fouls and general rule-breaking in order to warn the offender that their actions are breaching the laws of the game, yet in today’s footballing climate, bookings are sometimes dished out indiscriminately and inconsistently for minor offences. It is understandable that for such offences as dissent, simulation and blatant dangerous play, should warrant a yellow card but general physicality and rough challenges where both players have an equal chance of winning possession, and both players have eyes for the ball, should not be penalised. It is a controversial view, against the ideals of the FA, but added leniency should be up for debate in the modern game as matches are sometimes ruined or damaged in terms of their quality when there is excessive exercise of the caution. This is because players are prevented from tackling fiercely, or challenging a ’50/50′ in fear of receiving a second booking.
Challenges that seriously endanger a player’s welfare should be correctly penalised along with tackles of a seriously malicious nature but leniency and discretion in refereeing must be considered by the FA. Excessive use of the cards damages football matches, forcing the penalised team to play backs to wall and it no longer becomes an enjoyable, hotly contested spectacle. At St James’ Park, 50,000 fans will have paid good money to see a 15th minute red card, resulting in a truly one-sided affair, where refereeing discretion could have been used to make a more sensible decision, which would have vastly improved the quality of the game for both sides.
Stoke City fans can attest to the frustrations of the Geordie support, as the Potters were even more hard done by, going down just 1-0 to West Bromwich Albion, despite being reduced to nine men. Messrs Ibrahim Afellay and Charlie Adam were both given straight red cards for their altercations with opponents which can hardly be described as Vinnie Jones style reducers. Having previously been roughed up by The Baggies players on a number of occasions, Stoke’s flair player Afellay reacted to a poor challenge and flick to the face by Craig Gardner, by lightly slapping the face of his opponent. Once again, according to the FA’s rulebook, raising a hand to an opponent is a red card offence, which is what Afellay received, much to the dismay of Mark Hughes and the travelling support. Yet again, debate whether the contact Afellay made with his hand warranted a red card is divided, with vehement followers of the referees’ handbook supporting the ‘correct’ decision of the officials, against the argument that in actual fact both players should have received a caution for what was really handbags, and very tame.
The decision to remove Charlie Adam from the field of play wasn’t as controversial at the time, until the following day when a challenge made by Luke Shaw against Swansea, almost identical to Adam’s alleged stamp on Craig Dawson, went unpunished, which raises the debate for how to correct refereeing disparity. As Shaw’s boot makes full contact with Andre Ayew’s thigh, according to the decisions made by Andre Marriner and Michael Oliver on the previous day, the Manchester United man should also have received a red, but that wasn’t the case. This is mostly attributed to the fact that the officials at the Liberty Stadium displayed rightful leniency and discretion to a non-malicious challenge. Of course, Shaw could have caused damage to Ayew, just like Adam could have done to Dawson, however in both cases, the players on the receiving end of the ‘stamps’ were able to continue and finish the 90 minutes. Aleksandar Mitrovic’s red card was slightly different to the aforementioned duo of incidents due to the ball falling to the ground and different positioning of the players involved but the principle remains the same; if a malicious or cynical challenge is carried out and causes harm to the opposition, correct exercising of the red card should be in full effect. On the other hand, if a players’ intentions are purely for the ball and not to harm, should officials be so itchy reaching for their back pockets?
The debate of ‘soft’ refereeing isn’t unique to the Premier League either as another incident that hit the headlines last season was the decision to give Liverpool midfielder Lazar Markovic a straight red card for a fingertip touch on an opposing player’s face in a UEFA Champions League tie. In Markovic’s case, his opponent Behrang Safari, fell to the floor theatrically as if an armed marksman had expertly picked him out from the crowd, which played a part in the referee’s decision making. The same can be said for Andre Marriner’s decision to send off Aleksandar Mitrovic, as Francis Coquelin’s reaction to the alleged stamp was exaggerated, as any pain felt was temporary proven by his ability to dictate play and receive the man of the match award, voted for by Arsenal fans.
This is where refereeing leniency and general common sense should be adhered to, as players’ overreactions are often a factor in referee’s decision-making. For example, Florian Thauvin’s challenge on Coquelin later on in the match was a foul, but not a yellow card offence. Thauvin made contact with Coquelin but did not go through the Frenchman, levelling him in the process, as the Arsenal midfielder’s reaction suggested.
Officiating of this nature must be at least consistent, or modified to take into consideration other factors at play. The ‘Respect The Ref’ campaign is still an important feature in the modern game, but it is not helped by tunnel-vision officiating by following the rulebook to the letter, which at times doesn’t quite translate accurately to the situation on the field of play, such as accounting for the downward momentum of a player attempting to bring the ball under control and unintentionally landing on the opposition, or in Charlie Adam’s case, attempting to get a firm footing on the field, only to be obstructed by the moving leg of the opposition.
Football is a war of attrition, and the FA and UEFA must realise this, or risk damaging the game we all know and love; therefore bringing the issue up for debate is important to retain the integrity of the sport that is after all, a physical affair.
Main image:
