"I made a mistake" - Part Two
I suppose we all had a good laugh last night at Chelsea's expense? It was tapas washed down with rioja on the banks of the Mersey. We shook our maracas as Drogba went crackers. On reflection though do we not all have at least a sense of unease at the way the game played out at Stamford Bridge? After all, had it not been for Chelsea's killer third away goal at Anfield it could have been us on the receiving end of some of those refereeing decisions last night.
Chelsea claim they should have had at least 4 penalties. I can't think of many games where at least three of the incidents we saw would not have resulted in a referee pointing to the spot. Malouda being wrestled to the floor. The foul on Drogba, where replays showed his shirt being pulled off him in the box before he fell. (Drogba falling over - no real surprise there of course) Then the handball by Pique when Anelka pushed the ball around him? If any one of these is given then Chelsea are two-nil up and Barca, who have had the lion's share of possession but not caused Cech to make a single save would seem to be out. None of them are given and therefore Barcelona, only needing one goal to get through, remain in the tie. Then, in the 93rd minute Barca score and that's it. Game over.
The plastic-flag brigade bite the dust, a result greeted with much satisfaction I'm sure in many parts of the country and not just on the red half of Merseyside. To add insult to injury there were then some reports that the referee from Norway, Tom Henning Ovrebo, allegedly admitted to a UEFA official after the match that he'd "made mistakes". Shades of Howard Webb?
I am continually stunned by the fact that it's OK for referees to make decisions that have far-reaching consequences for clubs, players and fans alike but they simply say "I made a mistake" and move on. However, the darker side of last night's events are the alleged reactions of some Chelsea players who were - in the heat of the moment it must be said - of the opinion that "UEFA did not want two English teams in the final" (again).
Hiddink referred to this in his TV interview on Sky and for a manager of his experience and stature to even make reference to the players' reaction is both remarkable and a bit disturbing. We've all said it, when the English teams power through to the last eight and the "country-protection" is taken away at the draw stage, "UEFA will make sure we all get drawn together".
Whether it's just a growing urban myth or UEFA actually employ Marvo the Magician to make their draws is open to question I suppose but our reaction and the reaction from Chelsea reflects some sort of underlying feeling about the issue?
Last year, Liverpool also lost out at the semi-final stage, ironically to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge and there was a penalty decision we didn't get for a foul on Sami Hyypia. Chelsea went on to face Man United in Moscow but I cannot forget an interview on Sky the next day when a Sky reporter openly stated that a UEFA official had told him some weeks earlier that the prospect of a Man United - Liverpool final was "UEFA's worst nightmare".
When the outcomes of matches and hence major trophies are influenced so often by refereeing decisions, it's surely lunacy not to have the option of the 4th official sat in the stands with a couple of TV monitors and helping the referee on the pitch make the correct decision?
You'd win some and you'd lose some - maybe Garcia's goal against Chelsea at Anfield in 2005 would have been ruled out who knows? (Mind you that was a penalty anyway) But surely the whole point of even having a referee is to ensure that the players play by the rules and to ensure fairness.
What are the people who run football afraid of by their continued refusal to introduce video replays? Why do they seem content with the current situation of controversial decisions year after year? I don't know, but the longer they leave it without taking steps to help the referees get more decisions fully correct then the more people are going to wonder at their motives and that is not good for football.
Football has got to be seen to be - quite literally - a fair and level playing field. Leaving referees to take all the flak for debatable decisions is abdicating responsibility by the administrators of the sport. Get it sorted.
Older/Newer
« Latest LFC news from the Liverpool Daily Post | The Jury: Liverpool FC fans pay tribute to Sami Hyypia »
4 Comments
Latest Premier League video
People have to stop asking for these tv refs. That's a knee jerk reaction.
Sorry to tell you, but the only way this would work is to have the game clock stop, and that is changing the base of the game. Or we would just stop the game, clock ticking until the tv ref views that fifth replay on a penalty?
And who would be choosing these replays? There are replays that show somethings that others don't. So they either get a impartial tv editor on the scene, or the decisions would be based on showing or not that defining angle by a tv director that may or may not have a bias.
And would we only use this on some matches? Because only a few leagues in the world could afford this. Or do you think third divisions league around the world would have that kind of infrastructure and money? Or should they play without it and now we have two different kinds of football in the world.
If we have honest officials, then it's as fair as it gets. They might make the odd important and crucial mistake, but that's part of football. Because we are playing football, mate, and not american football.
You may have noticed that it's already part of the game to stop the clock? How do you think we have added time at the end of both halfs?
Why do people always trot out the same old rubbish about we can't do this at the top level because we can't do it in every league in the world?
So what? Isn't it about time the game evolved?
Isn't it the question that we have refs who regularly miss crucial decisions and that refs are also most open to being "got at". Refs all over the world have been brought to book because of scandals involving betting and corrupting the outcomes of games? If we have a 4th official verifying major decisions in major top league games then it both reduces the scope for honest error and also corruption.
Time for the game to evolve I'm afraid.
Depends whether you want a free flowing game of football or something akin to cricket. I don't agree with the article. Hell why not just go the whole hog, scrap the whole 90 mins open play and just have a penalty shoot out. It's the mistakes that makes the game so intoxicating.
I came across your website and found here many interesting posts. I am sure that i wil come back here soon !