Posts Tagged ‘Help Football’

The Suarez handball and the case for penalty goals

July 6th, 2010 Dean Saliba

soccerlens logo The Suarez handball and the case for penalty goals

Excerpts from today’s World Cup Podcast, with Adrian Clarke and Iain Spragg:

Adrian Clarke: Hi, I’m Adrian Clarke and cheers for joining us on pint sized Soccerlens World Cup podcast. Hopefully you didn’t take too much notice of our pre-quarter final predictions which turned out to be absolutely useless…

Iain Spragg: Who would have thought it?

A: And I’m pleased to introduce the main culprit Iain Spragg.

S: We all have off days. I haven’t got a crystal ball, I can only go on what I see. Who knew that Argentinian team was a house built on sand? But apparently it was.

A: Yeah and the Brazilian team, you know. Yeah. Who would have thought they would capitulate?

S: With shoddy foundations when push came to shove.

A: I don’t even know where to start. Let’s start with perhaps the only South American team to make it to the last 4 – Uruguay. No huge surprise they made it past Ghana perhaps.

S: I think the Ghanaians were quite surprised by the end of extra time. I think they were bloody shocked mate (laughs).

A: Shock. Hard done by the Ghanaians surely. I mean this Suarez incident left a sour taste in my mouth, don’t know how you feel about it.

S: Yeah, you could argue he is perfectly justified within the laws of the game to get himself sent off as punishment. But in the context of the game and let’s face it, it is a highly unlikely one-off situation to be in that kind of pressure cooker game and that moment in extra time for that to happen… you know it’s once in a lifetime occurrence.

A: It’s not once in a lifetime occurrence, you see it all the time, players on the goal, it’s instinctive…

S: Yeah but if he done it in 63rd minute there wouldn’t be as much controversy because Ghanaians would feel that they have 25 minutes or so to pull back against 10 men, maybe they would have scored the penalty, it’s just the convergence of highly unlikely set of circumstances.

A: Yeah, absolutely. Speaking as an ex-player who was red-carded for the same offense…

S: When? You naughty boy.

A: Yes, it was one of only 2 pathetic red cards.

S: What was the other one for?

A: Shoving someone over.

S: I can’t imagine you shoving anyone.

A: I’ve raised my hands you know, I wished I punched him let me tell you. But anyway I was sent off for handball on goal line, standing on the post…

S: Tell me, was it instinctive or calculated?

A: Absolutely instinctive. I’m by the post, someone headers the corner down, it skids off unexpectedly high, I only think that stop it from going in is an elbow, I swing out an arm, I get red-carded, I take the hit. Unfortunately, they scored the penalty and the team missed me terribly as they would, went on to lose 4 or 5 nil. But…

S: The thing with Suarez was, it wasn’t just handball, he seemed to be lurched towards it with 2 hands in a sort angry Ninja style. He really did get a bit on it, didn’t he?

A: Yeah, he did. I don’t want to berate Suarez too much for this because most footballers in that position would have done the same thing but I do think it should prompt the rule change because it is ethically wrong, it’s cheating, it’s really cheating…

S: So what would you do?

A: Penalty goal. I want this introduction… you are a rugby man Spraggy, how does this work with penalty tries?

S: The referee has to be in his own mind convinced that if the infringement hadn’t occurred, a try in all likelihood would have been scored. So it doesn’t have to be 100% and obviously it’s a bit greyer in rugby.

A: But the interpretation of the ref has given a lot of licences in rugby to interpret…

S: The Rugby Union referee has much more free will to decide if he thinks… as I say the key phrase is «in all likelihood» whether a try would have been scored. But it’s not as clean cut because in rugby you are not just about to dive over the line and someone grabs you because that’s a tackle and it is legitimate. You can be 10 meters from the line, they can collapse the scrum, but the referee thinks well they’ve been killing them in the scrum all day so they would have rolled over.

A: So really in football it is more clear cut. Because you are not saying – he was clean through on the goal and he got pulled down, let’s give a penalty goal. What we are saying here is – if his hand hadn’t gotten in the way of the ball, it would have been a goal. That surely is obvious.

S: You are going to need videos for this, aren’t you? And then we are back to video replays.

A: Videos are coming.

S: You would definitely need it. Because you know, let’s not talk particularly about Suarez because it was very clear cut, everybody could see it as happened. But if you got a goal math melee, ball is heading towards the light, in comes, it mysteriously bounces out, referee is not sure, of course the attacking side will claim handball. The culprit, if there is a culprit is going to claim his innocence so if referee can’t see it you are going to need video replay.

A: Yeah I just, if a certain goal has been prevented, you know in the rugby scenario that the same result and outcome should be made and there should be a penalty goal. I’ll be honest, before this World Cup I haven’t really thought of that but I genuinely think it would be beneficial to the game.

S: But there is a punishment you know, penalty results, the team is down to 10 men. And he should have scored the penalty.

A: Of course he should. But…

S: I kind of feel sorry for him, it’s going to haunt Gyan for the rest of his life.

A: Absolutely. Will Africa ever have semi finalists in the World Cup after that? I don’t think, they are never going to have a better chance, aren’t they?

You can listen to this episode below:
Download link (mp3, 17mb, 18 mins)

Make sure you send in your feedback and questions through podcast@soccerlens.com and Clarke and Spragg will feature the best on the next episode.

Subscribe to the Soccerlens World Cup Podcast

You can subscribe via iTunes or directly to the podcast feed.

“The Suarez handball and the case for penalty goals” was originally published at Soccerlens.com – Football News.



Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , , , No Comments »

Sex trade at the World Cup

June 4th, 2010 Dean Saliba

soccerlens logo Sex trade at the World Cup

The World Cup kicks off in exactly 7 days, and hundreds of thousands of football fans will descend on South Africa to celebrate a once-in-a-lifetime event.

However, where there are tourists looking to have a good time, there are also underlying problems. We had some experience of this in Germany 2006 but South Africa 2010 is a different beast, with far less regulation and more health risks as a result.

Two years ago we spoke here on Soccerlens about legalising prostitution in South Africa (just for the World Cup) to help the authorities regulate the trade and work to eliminate the risks involved. It engendered serious debate, and still proves to be a hot topic.

Today, with the world having caught up on the fact that the World Cup is finally happening, many activists are worried unregulated trafficked prostitution rings will be a problem and could spread HIV.

Here’s an excerpt from a story in The Daily Beast:

Lack of economic alternatives led many women in underdeveloped South Africa to enter prostitution, said Skinner. And in recent weeks, there have been numerous reports of women flocking from the poor countryside, and from neighboring Zimbabwe, to South African cities to make money as prostitutes during the World Cup, which begins on June 11 and lasts a month. An estimated 350,000 foreigners will visit South Africa for the cup.

“Stop 2010 Human Trafficking,” a project organized by a non-profit Christian alliance in South Africa, warned this week that as many as 100,000 women could fall victim to traffickers during the World Cup. Activists also worry that the cup might contribute to the existing—serious—problem of trafficking of under-age girls for prostitution in the country. Already, many women and girls have been lured into prostitution for the cup by false promises of employment as tour guides or waitresses, or have been kidnapped by trafficking rings, anti-trafficking activists say.

For under-aged girls trafficked into prostitution during the World Cup, AIDS and tuberculosis is “the end-game for those children,” said Skinner, adding that an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 of the prostitutes for the games will be girls under 18.

Read the full story here.

“Sex trade at the World Cup” was originally published at Soccerlens.com – Football News.



Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , No Comments »

FA Respect – Are You Losing It?

March 4th, 2010 Dean Saliba


The Football Association (FA) has recently launched a new campaign in its Respect program on March 3rd when England took on Egypt at Wembley. It is time that we all lend our support to what is a great campaign designed to reduce levels of anti-social behavior, both on and off the pitch.

Whoever has played football probably knows someone who completely ruined the atmosphere of a great game because of their abusive behavior. Some of you might also know a potentially great player who has been lost to the game because of an overbearing adult shouting and screaming on the touchline.

FA’s two ‘Are You Losing It?‘ films address both issues and holds up a mirror to those most in the need of a wakeup call for their bad behavior.

Player

Parent

There has been good progress made under the Respect program so far and here are some of the stats about the campaign:

  • There has been a 9% increase in the number of qualified referees this season and there are 5197 trainee referees at Level Nine – a 45% increase on 2008/2009.
  • Dissent cautions are down in 12 out of 16 of the senior professional leagues and divisions. In the Premier League alone dissent cautions are down by 37% whilst in the Championship the numbers are down by 53%, with League One showing an 8% decrease and League Two dropping by 10%.
  • Respect has become a compulsory module in the FA’s training courses for all new referees and coaches (over 25,000) coming into the game each season.
  • Referee assaults down 25% on previous season.

But there is still a lot of work to be done. There were 800 grassroot games abandoned in 2008/2009 season due to player or spectator misconduct and 1 in 4 parents would not consider confronting an offensive spectator for fear of physical retaliation.

In England, out of the current 1,169 leagues in England, 707 have signed up for the Respect program whilst over 80,000 education packs have been distributed to leagues, clubs and referees.

For more information, visit: Respect – ‘Are You Losing It?’

“FA Respect – Are You Losing It?” was originally published at Soccerlens.com – Football News.



Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , No Comments »

Wolves Punished by Hypocrisy For Squad Rotation Against Manchester United

February 19th, 2010 Dean Saliba


It has been announced that Wolves have been handed a symbolic £25,000 suspended fine for breaching Premier League rule E20 against Manchester United at Old Trafford on the 15th of December.

The punishment relates to Wolves manager Mick McCarthy’s decision to name a team of entirely different outfield personnel from the club’s previous fixture.

Premier League Rule E20 states:

“In every League Match each participating Club shall field a full strength team”

On face value this seems a simple, logical rule to ensure fair play and equality in the league, reducing the risk of bias or more sinister temptations such as match fixing.

However the action taken against Wolves highlights the inadequacies of the rule, questioning how such a subjective factor such as team strength can be effectively measured to allow fair and effective enforcement?

There is no doubt that Mick McCarthy did not give any consideration when naming his side to the implications to any other club than his own, or allow himself to be swayed by any deliberate or subconscious bias towards the current league champions.

A more plausible rationale is that after using his vast experience and knowledge he determined that the chances of securing an away result against the league champions was remote and that it made practical sense to rest players in preparation for another day.

This hypothesis is supported by the aggregated bookmaker odds for the fixture before the teams were announced, a draw was quoted at 6/1 with a shock away win considered 3 times less likely at a whopping 18/1.

Despite the dismay of some fans and the league ruling, at what point does such interference become justified and whose responsibility is it to decide what constitutes a weakened side?

Analysis of the team sheet masks the real issue to come to light from the leagues actions. If the manager of a club deems that the team from a previous game is not appropriate for the next fixture and their selection is in the best interests of their team, why should they fear the wrath of the league?

Clubs across the league regularly rotate players throughout the season, what if one or two players are rotated? Rotation is for the most part a byword for the strategic weakening of a side based on the requirements of the forthcoming fixture. Pundits often surmise that effective rotation is essential for success during a demanding Premier League campaign.

Yet by the letter of the law the next time Wayne Rooney or Didier Drogba are strategically rested and replaced by an inferior international striker the FA will be forced to act.

This is without considering the debacle at the end of last season also involving Manchester United. In May 2009 in breach of rule E20 Alex Ferguson named a significantly weaker team for his club’s the last league game of the season receiving the full backing of the Premier Leagues Chief Executive Richard Scudamore in the process.

Despite the fixture having the potential to affect which team was relegated that day Manchester United were not charged for a breach of rule E20. Potentially because at the end of the day and to the relief of all parties Manchester United won the game. However had a wounded party such as Newcastle or Middlesbrough been relegated due to a Manchester United defeat would they have been entitled to seek recompense from Manchester United or the Premier League?

Also a Manchester United victory does not excuse Richard Scudamore or the league; they have displayed blatant hypocrisy in dealing with this matter. If it is ok for teams to prioritise different competitions and subsequently rest players, why are Wolves worthy of sanctions in this instance? Before Manchester United’s controversial fixture Scudamore went to great lengths to justify the selections of Alex Ferguson. His comments could have been construed as describing the rule as antiquated and out of touch with the changing face of English football. He described the rule to BBC’s Radio 5 Live as something which “predates the ’squad system” that “exists in every competition”. 

He reinforces the argument by stating ”I’m not saying that rule cannot be broken, I’m sure it can: I’m sure it can if the team doesn’t try, if the team was just people you’d never heard of and it was all people drafted in on the day then there is a place for that rule to be applied.”

However the final nail in the coffin for the validity of the sanctions imposed on Wolves in the Premier League however is the admission in the same interview describing why it was acceptable for Manchester United not to field their strongest side; “You have to be realistic: they’ve got a squad – everyone says the strength of that squad is what won them the league – and therefore you can’t argue that they deploy the benefit of that squad in a game on Sunday”

The above ill-judged comments seem to exonerate Mick McCarthy, in December he did not field an inexperienced reserve side against Manchester United. The team he selected have so far made on average 10 Premier League appearances each this season, hardly supporting the notion of a team of acne afflicted teenage no-hopers implied by the leagues investigation.

The comments of the Chief Executive and the suspended sanctions agains Wolves are damaging to the league and allow further accusations of bias by the games highest authorities towards the bigger clubs. Many fans and clubs will be sceptical and speculate that if the shoe was on the other foot on December 15th then no charges would have been brought against Alex Ferguson or Manchester United. 

However it is the opinion of this writer that when manager’s take on the mantle and responsibilities of Premier League management they earn the right to pick the team that they and not the Premier League board deems the most suitable for the task at hand.

If this argument fails and logic dictates that clubs must field their strongest available team for every league fixture can someone from the FA please explain who and how this decision is made? I think that Michael Mancienne and Matthew Hill would argue that they are both worthy of a place in the strongest central defensive partnership available to Wolves and only Mick McCarthy has the authority to disagree with them.

This begs the question, can anyone outside of a club truly be impartial and qualified enough to decide definitively what constitutes a sides strongest starting XI for any given fixture?

Even if the FA hired a panel of FA experts to decide a consensus will be difficult to reach and just as fallible as any managers choice. Let’s not forget the expert managerial nous that led to the selection of Ali Dia for Southampton or justified the signing of Francis Jeffers by Arsenal, Everton or any of his 5 other clubs. 

There is however a fair but drastic solution to ensure that the rules, equality and integrity of the Premier League are upheld, managers clearly cannot be trusted to do what is best for their clubs now is the time to take back our game and take it out of the hands of our managers. 

Originally I was going to suggest that teams will now be forced to seek pre-match approval of their starting line ups from the league, however on reflection I think that this does not go far enough.

To negate any risk managers should simply submit a list of available players and a preferred formation to the league an hour before kick off so that league officials can select the strongest team available.

This is the only logical conclusion to this predicament as there is no other way of determining whether two, five or eleven changes represent a weakened side, or whether every selection decision should be scrutinised.

In a time when clubs are beginning to feel the financial pinch a responsible ruling authority really cannot risk being forced to levy blatantly unnecessary financial sanctions on clubs that should know better, clubs must be controlled for their own protection.

An extreme and pedantic suggestion, but whilst the integrity of the game is paramount it is preposterous clubs should be punished for acting in good faith and the league should not interfere with team selection.

Whilst normally inconsistent actions and sanctions are lambasted in this instance further investigations should be discouraged and the Wolves example should not be the start of a trend. Whilst this opinion will attract many detractors clubs and managers must have their right to manage their affairs as they see fit protected. Whilst teams should not gift teams perceived as superior teams points, only in suspicious circumstances where foul play is suspected should investigation be warranted.

It cannot be determined whether Mick McCarthy was right to make so many changes against Manchester United. However if Wolves field a supposedly stronger team against Chelsea due to the timing of this suspended sanction, it will leave both sides open to accusations of meddling with the balance and equality of the league. 

Follow Kristian Downer on Twitter.

“Wolves Punished by Hypocrisy For Squad Rotation Against Manchester United” was originally published at Soccerlens.com – Football News.



Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , No Comments »

Basey Leg Injury Leaves Charlton Doubly Disjointed

February 18th, 2010 Dean Saliba


As the game of football continues to receive criticism from certain quarters for failing to embrace modern technology- particularly the introduction of video referees- the encounter last night between Charlton and Bristol Rovers in League One served to highlight a prevailing injustice in the game.

Dominic Blizzard, of Rovers, was booked 12 seconds into this match, whilst Grant Basey of Charlton was substituted off, taken to hospital and diagnosed with a suspected broken ankle before the 7,600 strong audience had finished their first chant. A clearer red-card offense would be difficult to point out, but such was the speed with which Blizzard had injured his opponent that the referee may have felt that the game was at too embryonic a stage to reduce the number of men on the field.

Phil Parkinson, the Charlton manager, had no doubts about the offence: “Instantly, as soon as it happened, I thought the lad had to be sent off, and the referee has got to deal with it. From my memory, he wasn’t far away from the incident. If he deals with it straight away, then it’s a different game.”

Whether or not the referee should have been so swayed- or, indeed, whether a fourth official acting as video referee would have intervened and strengthened the punishment- is a side issue. The point is that the victims here were Charlton, and not just because Basey has been in sparkling form and is an integral part of the London clubs aspirations of a play off and eventual promotion. He now faces a long lay-off. Nor is it the fact that Bristol Rovers went on to win this game. Nor even that Blizzard remained on the field.

Shortly after Baseys removal Bristol Rovers scored their first goal as Charlton struggled to regroup following the removal of Basey at left-back. Incidentally, Basey normally defends the short ball to the near post, the area which Bristol Rovers attacked and were able to head on for Steve Elliott to finish smartly with a volleyed effort that opened the scoring for Rovers.

If Charlton had been facing 10 men, as they should have been, the result could, and probably would, have been different. Although Charlton did not impress until the final fifteen minutes of this encounter, this incident was an important one. And admittedly Kuffour was badly injured as the result of a challenge from Charlton, too, and was forced to leave the field.

However, Charlton were doubly punished because they were forced to use one of their three permitted substitutions as the direct result of a horrendous challenge from an opposing player. With only two changes available to the manager Phil Parkinson, Charlton finished the game with ten men themselves as he had been forced to use all his substitutes.

When Mooney had to come off with a head injury, Parkinson had no substitutions left from which to replace him. Charlton scored a late goal and if the numbers had been stacked in their favour, Parkinson believes that could have made all the difference: “As it happened, scoring our late goal could have been important. Bristol Rovers are a team low on confidence and with one more change you never know what might have happened in an extra two or three minutes.”

Forget video refereeing, extra officials on the goallines and even the question of replays in the FA cup if you like, because there is an easy redressing of justice that the football league can fix at once.

If a player has injured another to the extent he has to leave the field, and the referee has deemed intent (i.e. booked the player in question), then the victim’s team should be allowed a free substitution. Heck, even dock the offending players team one of their allocated changes if needs be.

Rugby Union have recognised this with rolling subsitutions and sin bin periods for yellow cards. If a player has committed a serious infringement, numerical advantage is given to the team that has been offended against, even if it is not a red-card offence.

Football should recognise, in an era where physicality and aggression lead to serious injuries because of the speed of the modern game, those that target opponents should be punished adequately, both individually and as a team.

Phil Parkinson, Grant Basey and Charlton football club would have had a slightly less bitter pill to swallow this morning if they had not been the victims of a prevailing injustice in our game. Just ask Ashley Cole and Chelsea if they agree after their trip to Goodison Park last week.

“Basey Leg Injury Leaves Charlton Doubly Disjointed” was originally published at Soccerlens.com – Football News.



Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , , , No Comments »
« Older Entries
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More