The Guardian Blog:
Defrock these pernickety refs
Crazy interventions by infuriating officials spoil the flow of the game and make players nervous.
Paul DoyleJune 22, 2006 05:49 PM
Something needs to be done about incompetent referees. Seriously, a rebuke from some bureaucrat is nowhere near severe enough for an infuriating official such as Markus Merk, who today deformed a potentially beautiful Group D clash between Ghana and USA. But of course, Merk won't even be rebuked: his pernickety, at times perverse performance will in fact be praised by Fifa blazers. Which is outrageous because if the German dentist took the same approach to his first trade as he does to his refereeing, then his hometown would be teeming with gummy youths who had their teeth wrenched out during dinner for getting food on them.
Merk, who drew the ire of Australian players in his previous match at this tournament by allegedly jeering them over their defeat to Brazil, today booked Michael Essien in the first few minutes for a tackle that was about as dangerous as Bob the Builder. Moments later, he cautioned Eddie Lewis for not spontaneously amputating his hand, which was the only way he could have prevented the ball making contact with it after it was smashed straight at him. Two minutes into time added on for fussiness, Merk awarded Ghana a penalty after Oguchi Onyewu refused to step aside to allow Razak Pimpong to control the ball and score. It was an absurd decision, one that could only have been made by a referee whose vision is warped by a determination to be centre-stage.
The upshot was the players became nervous and uncertain, knowing that at any moment they could be penalised for running too fast or kicking the ball with excessive force. John Pantsil dared to try something special in the 58th minute, but instead of admiring the defender's acrobatic overhead kick, Merk punished him for raising his feet too high.
Watching a match with Merk in charge - or, for that matter, one run by equally annoying Englishman Graham Poll - is like going to the cinema and finding yourself sat behind a gigantic fool who spends the film guffawing inappropriately and farting most pungently. But at least the theatre-owners don't invite that offender back and pay for him to have the most prominent seat in the house. Fifa, on the other hand, are no doubt planning to unleash Merk and Poll several more times throughout this World Cup, possibly even in the final.
So what can be done? I was going to propose hacking into Fifa's website and scrawling a new law into the game's statutes whereby a ref has to remove an item of clothing each time he blows his whistle in a match. That might make them think twice before intervening. Then I thought twice, and suddenly wasn't so convinced that these attention-seekers would construe that as a deterrent. Anyone got any brighter ideas?
___________________________________________________
Yesterday, my colleague Paul Doyle wrote a nice piece attacking pernickety referees for ruining the World Cup. His tongue-in-cheek solution was that they needed to be humiliated. I disagree. Most just need help.
I felt for Graham Poll last night. In one respect - making the Croatia v Australia game flow - he did pretty well. But in pretty much every other he had a shocker, booking one player three times, blowing for full time just as a Tim Cahill shot was crossing the line, and missing a blatant handball to boot.
He's not the only ref to struggle in Germany 2006, of course. We've had a phonebook-sized number of erroneous yellow cards, three goals that weren't spotted, and myriad incorrect penalty decisions.
The first problem could be solved by Fifa toning down its gung-ho directives to officials, and by introducing a panel to review and rescind yellow and red cards after the match. It won't happen though: Fifa has an almost-Catholic belief in the infallibility of referees, and themselves.
The second solution is also obvious, if contentious: introduce instant video replays.
As I've argued previously, two forces are at a play in the modern game. First, football is faster and more frantic than ever before. Second, there are fewer goals than ever before, which also exacerbates the impact of poor refereeing. Decisions may even out over a season, but they rarely do so over the course of a match.
Technology would clearly help. Yesterday, Ghana were given a penalty that wasn't, while Australia were robbed of one that was. Within 10 seconds of both incidents, TV replays had made this stunningly clear.
Sure, video evidence would slow the game down slightly, but not as much as the luddites would have you believe. The ball is only in play for 60-odd minutes anyway and double-checking, say, a goal-line clearance, penalty or offside appeal would add seconds not minutes. If there were any doubts at all about the TV replays, the referee's original decision would stand.
Introducing technology would also change the risk v reward debate that zips around a player's head: there'd be no incentive to dive for a penalty when someone in the stands could alert the referee, who would soon be waving yellow in your direction. And why pretend to be punched, when in 30 seconds' time you'd be receiving red for play-acting?
Clearly there's a balance to be struck between maintaining the flow of the game and making the right decision but if other sports can do it, so can football. Ultimately, it boils down to what is preferable: a 30-second delay in play, or the Hand of God? Getting it right, or allowing cheats to get away with it? Certainty, or random chance?
Buy on AliExpress.com
