When Vincent Kompany was sent off during Manchester City’s 2-0 defeat of Arsenal, television pundits immediately registered their disapproval, with Match of the Day seemingly on a crusade to have the red card rescinded.
Wince-nt’s in bad Kompany | Manchester City defender Vincent Kompany scythes into Arsenal’s Jack Wilshere in a challenge that earned him a red card and sparked a new tackling debate. (Image | Daily Mail)
People may confidently claim “he got the ball”, “it wasn’t even two footed” or “that was a standard challenge in my day”, but they are fundamentally ignoring the rules of the game.
These place tackles into three categories: careless fouls, which carry no penalty, reckless challenges for which a yellow card must be issued, and a tackle that is “dangerous” or involves “excessive force” that should result in a sending off.
Interpretation
There is always interpretation, and some referees may not even have given a foul where Mike Dean issued the red card.
We must remember that only one foot is needed to win a tackle, thus a two-footed challenge is unnecessarily forceful and, by definition, worthy of a sending off.
Indeed, the argument that it is not “studs-up” or “two-footed” does not excuse such challenges from the appropriate punishment.
Moreover, there is a distinct difference between sliding and jumping into a tackle. The issue with the Kompany challenge was that he jumped in and threw his entire body weight towards both the ball and Jack Wilshire.
Whether the Belgian got the ball or not becomes irrelevant as there was excessive force in the tackle, and Kompany could have simply stepped forward and challenged with one foot, standing his ground between opponent and goal.
Had he been able to challenge from the side, Kompany could have swept the ball away, not endangered the player, and stayed on the pitch.
On first view, the challenge made me wince and I was not at all surprised at the outcome. However, while I can understand why so many deem the challenge to be valid, this view is based on a misunderstanding of the rules and is therefore wrong.
Such crunching tackles from the City captain often blur the boundaries between excellent challenges and red-card offences. Take his dismissal against Manchester United in the FA Cup last season.
Canary grounded | Combative Kompany flies away with the ball after a robust challenge on Norwich City midfielder Bradley Johnson. (Image | Pink ‘Un)
Or perhaps the skipper’s tackle against Norwich City last month, for which a foul was not even given. They are challenges that divide opinion and perhaps highlight the fact that the referee’s interpretation will always be a factor in any decision.
Consistency
In truth, we can only expect a referee to be consistent throughout the game and, to a lesser extent, their career.
Officials are likely to interpret decisions differently, even if the Football Association explains why a red card has been rescinded.
The review process could well provide some form of retrospective consistency, but does this come at a cost?
It is difficult to take a clampdown seriously when refereeing decisions are so easily undermined, for officials are human and they make mistakes.
Although decisions that are obviously incorrect ought to be overturned, the implications of doing so need to be considered.
Rules state that sendings off should only be overturned when the referee has made a “serious error”, which was hardly the case with Kompany.
Few thought he had no case for the defence but most were surprised at Kompany’s suspension being rescinded. This perhaps says something about the cynicism surrounding the FA, but where does it leave the clampdown on dangerous tackles?
Having been declared obviously in the wrong, Dean is likely to think twice before issuing a red card for the next challenge he believes to be serious, which could result in him awarding just a yellow for a more serious tackle.
Furthermore, under the current review system, no further punishment could take place, meaning that this “serious error” could not be rectified. Such potential for inconsistency remains an important issue.
Tirade
How are we supposed to respect the integrity of our officials when they are wrongly told they have made a “serious error” and lambasted by the most powerful manager in the country for innocuous errors?
Sir Alex Ferguson deserves severe sanctions for stating that Simon Beck “didn’t give us a thing all day”, and adding: “We remember him from his time at the Chelsea game when Didier Drogba was three yards offside and he gave onside.”
The latter incident occurred in April 2010, and not only does Ferguson remember this slight, despite forgetting the handball goal Federico Macheda scored for United in that match, he feels the need to actively raise it in order to question the integrity of the linesman.
On balance, it probably should have been a penalty for United, but such disdain is hardly likely to generate respect for referees.
This becomes an even greater problem once the flawed review panel steps in to diminish the authority of officials even further.
Have your say | Tweet the author | @ThomasSeear
Back to Football
Twitter | @armchairpundit2
Facebook | The Armchair Pundits
————–
Interested in writing for The Armchair Pundits?
We’re always on the lookout for aspiring journalists, click here for details on how you can start contributing.
Have to say, I thought Kompany’s tackle was a red at first sight, but on replay I would say it was a fair challenge and not necessarily in “excessive force”. Personal judgement on behalf of the referees is necessary in my view on the basis that strict rules can’t account for all situations, so some common sense (theoretically) is applied to individual situations. Given that the tackle looked like a red card on first sight I’m surprised its been rescinded, but I think that they were right to do so. Can only assume Mike Dean saw the replay himself and thought he had made a mistake.
On Fergie, I can understand why he has been charged and perhaps he shouldn’t air his views so publicly, but I don’t necessarily see that he was questioning the official’s integrity. A manager is allowed to air their opinions on individual decisions without facing charges (and rightly so in my opinion, otherwise the whole system becomes completely closed to fair criticism which it should never be) but they aren’t allowed to suggest that decisions were motivated by bias. In my view fergie’s comments state that the linesman isn’t good at his job, not that he’s biased. After all, any manager is only going to complain about (and remember vividly) decisions that go against his team and not all the decisions ever made. Had Ferguson included one more example in his tirade that referred to a decision against another team then would he have still been charged? As I say, he shouldn’t have (wrongly) criticised the linesman the way he did, but I can’t see that he can be found guilty of accusing him of bias!
Final point, I think referees could do more themselves to garner respect. If referees, for example, released publicly their views and reports of the game and were prepared to publicly explain their decisions and state, in retrospect, whether they still hold those views then their integrity would be much less likely to be questioned. The current system aims to protect referees, but ultimately leads to worse criticism in my opinion.
Interested to hear your thoughts, Tom!
As your points highlight Tim, the debate shows just how important one’s interpretation is. To me, the tackle still appears to be in ‘excessive force’, but I completely see how people may interpret it otherwise- after all, the rules can never be specific to each circumstance. Indeed, I felt that Kompany’s tackle on Bradley Johnson was a fair tackle, despite its rugged style; the interpretation is a complex thing.
What I find more troubling is that overturning the decision labelled the decision as an obvious error. Perhaps, as you suggested, Mike Dean decided he was wrong in retrospect and this verdict influenced the decision to overturn the red card. If that was the case then it does highlight the good point you made about the referee explaining their decisions- this debate would be less perplexing if Mike Dean simply came out and said why he made his decision and perhaps why in retrospect he saw it differently. But alas, that is not necessarily the fault of the referees, as they are instructed to not go public with the reasons for their decisions. You are right though, the attempt to protect the referees ultimately leads to worse criticism…
As for Ferguson, I was perhaps a little strong in my phrasing, but he certainly crept very close to questioning the integrity of the linesman… and for me, too close. But you do raise a good point, had he mentioned a poor piece of officiating involving another team it would certainly make it sound less like an accusation of bias, and may well have allowed him to escape punishment. But as it was, Ferguson didn’t add such an example, and whilst he didn’t quite directly accuse the linesman of bias, it was perhaps too strong an implication to allow him to avoid punishment.
Thanks for commenting Tim.