Together Everybody Achieves More

There has been a change of this blog's header somewhen in 2012 or 2013, when the quite exaggerated title "World of Football Refereeing" became "The Third Team". It should demonstrate that we are considering referees, (additional) assistant referees and the fourth official as the third team on the field of play besides both football teams. While outstanding players such as Zlatan Ibrahimović or Cristiano Ronaldo have often enough proven that they alone can make all the difference, refereeing is no ring for lone fighters and no stage for soloists. 
A perfect example of that happened in the German Bundesliga match between Frankfurt and Stuttgart, two clubs threatened with relegation, last week.

As you can see in the video, there was a duel in the white team's penalty area - both players involved fell to the ground. Referee Deniz Aytekin showed a small moment of hesitation but then pointed to the spot to award a penalty kick in favour of the red-dressed team. The replays are clearly showing that this had been an error of perception - it was the attacker who caused the contact and who thus fouled his opponent and not vice versa. For the referee, this situation was difficult to judge as he did not have the optimum viewing angle and insight into the contact. But obviously, the first assistant referee, 1989 born Benjamin Brand, had a good look at it and saw who was the real offender. Laudably this young assistant referee, who had already been in focus once in this blog, showed immense courage to take quite an unpopular - given the late stage of the match and importance of its outcome - and also an extremely brave decision: With some quick communication, he overruled Aytekin by advising him to award a direct free-kick in favour of the defensive team instead of a penalty kick. The assistant referee's courage is one positive facet of this match situation. But what you should take along, having watched this incident, is something else:

1. Work as a team.

2. Trust each other. Encourage your assistants to assume responsibility if they are sure. However, be careful: avoid the diffusion of responsibility à la "Now we see more"...

3. Develop a flat hierarchy in your team - the ease old times when "linesmen" had nothing to say are over! In a functioning team, even a 24 year-old assistant referee can correct a UEFA Elite referee-to-be.

4. Have the guts to overrule your teammate if you are sure, the match benefits from it! Be brave!

5. Have the guts to respect and trust your teammate, who has just told you that you had made a mistake or even overruled you visible for all players and fans! 

6. Have the guts to correct your decision!

7. Sell it in a natural and sincere way. Only if this is done, players and fans will accept you are a human who has just made a mistake. Honesty wins and makes you stronger in the end.

Or, in a nutshell:  

Together  
Everybody  
Achieves  
More

The IFAB has made clear: The Triple Punishment will persist

The best piece of news of last week’s 128th annual conference of the IFAB, the body that is responsible for defining and changing the Laws of the Game and their application, has certainly been that – for now – there will not be any form of technology in football exceeding Goalline Technology (GLT) that is to be deployed at FIFA World Cup 2014 and that was first tested last year. The usage of video replays was discussed in Zurich but luckily rejected. This counts for another vitally important issue on the agenda, too: the triple punishment. 

Nicola Rizzoli correctly sending off Szczesny for DOGSO

Following the proposal of Europe’s football governing body UEFA and its president, Michel Platini, the lawmakers discussed about the opportunity to avert the triple punishment as a consequence for players who have denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the penalty area. The three components subject to debate are the penalty kick awarded, the red card given and the match suspension that usually followed after the matchday. According to Mr Platini, “everybody fel[t] that as an injustice”. Since the Frenchman has often proven his extremely well-marked sense of justice – the surely universally, i.e. for every European club, effective Financial Fairplay Program is the best example of that … - this concern is definitely a noble and honest one. Though he has not defined yet who is “everybody”. In my humble opinion, the triple punishment is per sé no injustice and most referees actually feel so as well. The argument most frequently put forward is that, by awarding the penalty kick, the obvious goal-scoring opportunity was re-established. While this argument sounds logical and justified, it leaves open whether a red card is really shown to sanction the circumstance that an obvious goal-scoring opportunity was denied or to sanction the will and intent of a defender to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. In addition, the Laws of the Game clearly emphasize that it does not matter where the infringement occurred, whether it was outside the penalty area or inside. For this reason, having two different disciplinary sanctions for the same offense, depending on where exactly it occurred, is not adequate. As a compromise, the IFAB has now stated that referees should be more careful with issuing red card for DOGSO in the penalty area and that a council would attempt to specify Law 12 in terms of that. UEFA's attempt to create an own version of the Laws of the Game by instructing their referees to deal differently with dogso than their colleagues in the rest of the world do hence appears ridiculously with the benefit of hindsight.

In the end, the solution would have been quite easy, in my opinion. Most of those people loving football and having a sense of justice – at least I dare to say so – can accept that denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is sanctioned with a red card regardless where it occurred. I would even say most of the supporters, players and specially managers would refuse to accept yellow cards for fouls that have denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the last minute of additional time – please imagine what would happen when a player misses a penalty kick, maybe because of a wet ground which makes him slip, and the offender has got away with a yellow card and saved his team the win…

Therefore, the real area for debate neither is the circumstance of the match sanction (the penalty kick), nor is the disciplinary sanction (the red card). What national associations could do themselves (UEFA would not have to interfere with FIFA and the IFAB), as it is their area of responsibility and jurisdiction, is to eliminate the third component of the triple punishment, i.e. the match suspension. Normally, at least in Germany, for example, players are banned for one match if they have committed a dogso in the penalty area, as long as the penalty kick was converted into a goal. If the forward failed to convert the penalty kick, the offender is usually banned for two matches (or more, depending on the severity of the offense, too). What they could do is not to ban the offender as soon as the penalty kick resulted in a goal. The team of the offender would have faced a double punishment in this case – the red card in the match and the penalty kick resulting in a goal. But there would not be a match suspension. If the attacking team however failed to convert the penalty kick into a goal, the offender could be banned for one or two matches. This would, from my point of view, meet the desires of the clubs but still maintain a certain level of justice and fairness in its true meaning – and not in Mr Platini’s one. That’s why I consider the debate on the triple punishment in its current form as much ado about nothing and not recognizing a possible area where things could be changed without necessarily changing the Laws of the Game.

Idem Ius Omnibus, UEFA...

The first four referee appointments of this season's Champions League knockout-stage have been unveiled and undoubtfully, the circumstance that four top-class referees have been chosen to oversee these matches underlines the high power density of the clubs fighting for the eight quarterfinal tickets. There is not any unimportant or decided match and this fact makes this year's Round of 16 more exciting than in previous years. However, there is another subtle but equally striking finding when reflecting one appointment and bringing it in line with what we have seen and experienced in the last one or two seasons.

Andrea Stefani will attend Arsenal FC - Bayern München © The Third Team

Andrea Stefani has been appointed as assistant referee no.1 in Nicola Rizzoli's team that will take charge of Arsenal FC and Bayern München, the duel of Premier League's no.2 and Bundesliga's no.1 and very probable champions of 2013/14. And this is remarkable considering his performances in this Champions League season. In Paris, Mr Stefani wrongly allowed an offside goal. Crucial mistakes can happen and are no big problem for assistant referees, if they do not happen too often. But you all surely remember what happened in Gelsenkirchen last December. In the match between Schalke 04 and FC Basel, the Italian assistant referee missed that four Schalke attackers were in a clear offside position when a free-kick was taken. All the players were very close to the penalty area line that should have helped the assistant referee as an orientation. Despite his adequate positioning, he wrongly let the flag down and allowed the subsequent goal. Practically that was more than a mere crucial mistake but a disappointing error.

Spotlighting one special match official in a critical way prior to an important match is not my basic intention. Therefore I would like to make clear that I am accepting and aware that referees and assistant referees make human mistakes in the dynamic of a football match. I have often enough stressed that simply and immediately replacing assistant referees after one mistake is psychologically the worst possible scenario. There is a but though.

Before expressing my main thoughts on this matter, it is important to emphasize that, starting in the 2013/14 campaign, it is UEFA and their referee committee that have the duty to appoint assistant referees for matches. In former years, they only chose the referee and had the opportunity to influence the selection of the assistant referees who were supposed to accompany the referees. This competence was however pre-dominantly belonging to the national associations' repertoire. Therefore, it is at least good to know whom to address in this analysis: nobody else than some responsible men in UEFA's referee committee.

De facto, they frequently applied a strategy or policy that can be flowery circumscribed as "conquer or die - stand or fall". Either you fulfill the expectations on the pitch, or you are out. We were able to observe many paramount examples where this was the case. After Gábor Erös had made way too many crucial mistakes in the past two seasons, there was a point when UEFA obviously lost the faith in this official and changed Viktor Kassai's team - it is remarkable that he was not invited to last year's course for assistant referees preceding the current season, did not get any match (instead a young assistant referee, Vencel Tóth, took his place), but was still in Kassai's team on the prospective list of referees for the FIFA World Cup. It's probably more than speculation when presuming that the decision to drop Erös was taken by a higher authority inside UEFA and that Kassai still wanted to have this experienced official in his team at Brazil though, where he won't go - as we know today. This AR change was maybe hard but in a way legitimate, because it clearly followed the performance principle and gave the assistant referee concerned more than one chance to correct some mistakes by performing well, which he did not manage.

Another example is the situation in Slovenia: Damir Skomina's first assistant referee Matej Žunič had his nightmare in the most important match of the referee team's career: in the World Cup play-off between France and Ukraine in Paris. He wrongly disallowed one goal for an alleged offside position and, only three minutes later, missed a clear offside position prior to a goal. Well, even though it has turned out that Skomina would not have attended the World Cup even if his assistant referee had performed on expected level. But at any rate, Matej Žunič did not appear in Skomina's team at the last Champions League group stage matchday and did not run his line in a Cup final match in Saudi-Arabia. Instead, Bojan Ul and Jure Praprotnik went there. So it seems as if Skomina himself agreed on the absence of Žunič and has thrown him out his team, or he had to accept this as a decision of higher authority which is equally possible. At any rate, it seems as if the youngest assistant referee ever participating in a European Championship and a good teammember in most of Skomina's matches has been dropped due to one match. The question what will happen in Champions League is very interesting as well - Praprotnik is very young (1985) and only international since last year. He would celebrate his CL debut in the K.O. stage, which is difficult to imagine but surely possible. Or Skomina will be assisted by Ul and Kokolj, with whom he did not work often in his career. Or there is again a mixed team like in Matej Jug's case, who was assisted by Austrian Roland Brandner in the first half of the season. Or the Slovenian team is out of the entire K.O. stage. It is difficult to say, anyway, there seems to have been a switch-over due to two human mistakes by a young and very promising assistant referee.

Craig Thomson lost his assistant referee Alasdair Ross as a consequence of that famous offside goal scored by Borussia Dortmund against Málaga CF in last season's Champions League quarterfinal. Ross had missed two clear offsides in the same situation taking place in the last minute of the additional time. In the heat of events, the Scottish assistant was apparently not able to cope with this pressure by keeping a cool head. For sure, assistant referees must be able to stay concentrated even in extreme moments. But what UEFA did after this match, maybe even Thomson himself, was far away from a human dealing with human errors. The message was clear: perform or die. It's a common phenomenon, also in modern economy, that managers have a deep miscomprehension of what performance principle means. Yes, very good performances must be rewarded and the subject that shows these very good performances must be chosen over other subjects with worse or less good performances. The performance principle does however not exclude the existence of human mistakes. In particular in refereeing, this should count. It does not mean that you must punish a human for a mistake, it does not mean that you have to destroy what a match officials has built over months and years because of making a clear mistake within one or two seconds.

Naturally, this is easy to say. The committee has also the duty to guarantee the best refereeing possible which requires reliable match officials, the best match officials possible. For this reason, the line between treating assistant referees unfairly and in a not that human way on the one side and ensuring the best refereeing squad possible for widely commercialized Champions League football is thin. In addition, it is proven that suspensions or sanctions can be form to increase the performance of organisms. If a subject knows that it will get a certain reward or positive effect whatever he does (certainly, this does not count for very good marks in UEFA referee observers' reports...), his performance will incrementally decrease. This psychological effect is called overjustification and is common in lots of facets of the everyday life. So, as a referee, but also as a player, you must of course know that being appointed for future matches or getting into the starting line-up requires a good performance. Otherwise, you could be out. That's trivial and belongs to sports and other parts of life.

But now I come back to the beginning and reason why I decided to write this text. If Collina and co. are strict in punishing clear, human mistakes that led to a lot of medial attention, then they should spare no-one. Roughly said, I must ask the questions: Why did Alasdair Ross have to go, while Andrea Stefani is AR1 in Arsenal FC - Bayern München? Why does UEFA not guarantee the best assistant referee possible for a match of this format? Okay, here you can argue that Rizzoli is forming a World Cup trio with Stefani and Faverani, so that it would be senseless to separate them before the tournament. But then I must ask: Why is this team appointed for the very likely most important match of this K.O. stage round? Please don't misunderstand me. I am not against appointing this team for that match, as it is one of the best European teams considering the past years and their achievements. I am only asking why there are two measuring tapes for the same pool of match officials.

As written above, it is only welcome that UEFA does not sanction every obvious and immense human mistake with the maximum penalty. And of course there is no relation to the fact that we are talking about an Italian assistant referee belonging to one of Collina's most favourite trios... In every organization that is built upon the basis of the performance principle, the following phrase must count: "Idem Ius Omnibus" - "The Same Right For Everyone". Surely this quote rather means political rights...and it is of course far away from reality. Referring to George Orwell's Animal Farm, it seems as if all match officials are equal in UEFA's committee. But some are obviously more equal than others.

Law 11 can be confusing..

At the beginning of the week I focused on further explanatory videos for the new offside rule and one special facet of it. One of them showed a situation having occurred in German Bundesliga in the match between Hertha BSC Berlin and 1. FC Nürnberg. While the pre-dominant emphasis was put on challenging an opponent for the ball and what this term means at all in this specific video, another question for debate was raised by a user's comment. Before unfolding it, please check the video again.

The - unfortunately anonymous - user canvassed the following scenario: Imagine the red-dressed defender on the goal-line would not have committed a deliberate handball in order to deny the obvious goal. Imagine that the blue #20 had not interfered with the goalkeeper in a way that made the assistant referee flag for offside. Given that scenario, the defender would have used another part of the body, most likely his head, to clear the ball and prevent the goal from being scored. Imagine the ball would have nonetheless arrived directly in front of the blue forward whose task to score a goal from that position would have been surely very easy in this case. It might claim some faculty of imagination from you.

Let's sum up the scenario:

1) The blue #20 is closer to the goal-line than the second last defender (the goalkeeper).

2) The high shot on goal obviously reaches the goal (if there is no defender).

3) The red-dressed defender clears the ball on the goal-line, let's say, with his head.

4) Blue #20 receives the ball from this clearance and scores.

Law 11 has a special facet that was already subject to debate in the blog: gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. Usually, attackers are in punishable offside as soon as they gain an advantage from being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender. However, the rule says that players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberate plays the ball, are not considered to have gained an advantage. Deliberately playing the ball means the clear intention to play the ball, mostly indicated by a clear movement towards the ball, regardless of whether the outcome exposes an advantage or disadvantage. But the rule makes one exception here: Players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately played the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. In other words: when a player receives the ball from a deliberate save, he is considered to have gained an advantage and is in a punishable offside position. A deliberate save is defined as preventing a clear goal from being scored and basically targets at protecting goalkeepers or defenders who block a dangerous shot on goal. 

So...what we have to constitute here is that - in our fictive but possible scenario - the defender on the goal-line clearly and intentionally moves his head towards the ball. He therefore deliberately plays the ball. But, he does so in order to prevent a clear goal from being scored - if he does not make the header on the goal-line, it is a goal.
Two criteria are theoretically colliding here. On the one hand, Law 11 prompts that the goal would be scored legally (deliberate play), on the other hand, the same sentence in this new rule suggests that the goal would be scored illegally, i.e. from an active offside position (deliberate save). The important thing is that the rule calls the deliberate save an exception of deliberate play. So this means, in the presence of this deliberate save, the deliberate play becomes irrelevant. The goal should not have counted in this case, as the attacker has gained an advantage from being in that position by receiving the ball from a deliberate save. Even though the law seems to be precise in this case, it can be quite confusing. The law does not define that deliberate saves can also contain clear movements towards the ball and can be one sort of deliberate play. It rather prompts that they are two distinct things. This led me to irritation and I apologize for the previously wrong analysis of this situation. Anyway, this scenario illustrates "except a deliberate save" in a good manner and shows how much empathy Law 11 is demanding from assistant referees in the current form, since the intention of defenders is emphasized in an extra-ordinary manner.

What "challenging an opponent for the ball" means

To ensure that the new version of the offside rule is understood in the appropiate way, this blog will continuously spotlight match situations that serve as paramount examples to explain the differences and partly similarities between Law 11's old and current version. Having already examined the terms deliberate save and deliberately playing the ball, this post focuses on interfering with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the ball.

Offside! © The Third Team

The relevant part of Law 11 in written form:

Interfering with... (old version)
- “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movement or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Interfering with... (new version)
- “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Comparing the term challenging an opponent for the ball, it must be pointed out that this means much more than the old interpretation which settled for the quire woolly circumstance, when a player makes a movement or a gesture which deceive or distract an opponent. While it surely goes further than that, the new term stays comparably vague. What is meant by challenging an opponent? Do players have to touch him/her? And if they touch their opponent, is that enough for raising the flag? Even though the precise wording of the law does not specify this challenge, their are clear instructions and guidelines that achieve further clarification. We can quite freely understand this challenge as a fight for the ball. The attacker must show the will to reach the ball and is bount to fthe following two criteria:

1) physical interference

2) being in playing distance (UEFA defines that as maximum 1 - 1,5 metres)

As emphasized above, challenging an opponent for the ball means a real fight for the ball. So, it is already clear that physical interference with an opponent having been in an offside position at the moment when the ball was touched is not enough for the assistant referees to raise their flag. This physical interference must happen in the context of fighting for the ball, i.e. in playing distance. But physical interference is not essentially necessary to deem the player as guilty of "active" offside - we can utilize the flowery term "active offside" here. There does not have to be body contact between the forward and his opponent. Being in playing distance (< 1,5 m) is enough. This was actually similar in the old formulation of Law 11, too. 

Therefore, criteria 1) is only fulfilled for active offside by requiring criteria 2). If the physical interference happened far away from play, i.e. (the scenery around) the ball, nothing has happened in the sense of Law 11 (of course, if no foul happened with regard to the body contact). But when a forward player is challenging an opponent for the ball being very close to the ball, i.e. being in playing distance, the assistant referees have to consider this as active offside. So, criteria 1 depends on criteria 2, but criteria 2 is independent from criteria 1.

After this quite arid theoretical explanation, you can check two very current examples of the practical application of this facet of Law 11 on the pitch.

This situation happened at the start of February 2014 in Germany's Bundesliga. After a defensive clearance of the red-dressed team, blue-dressed #12 made a high shot on goal. The ball would have reached the goal, if it had not been obstructed by a deliberate handball on the goal-line of red #31. Referee Michael Weiner first awarded a penalty kick in favour of the blue team and sent off #31 with a direct red card. However, upon consultation with his first assistant referee Norbert Grudzinski, he changed his decision and accepted his assistant referee's advice, who had seen an offside position of blue #20, who was crossing the goalkeeper's path and had physical interference with him (no foul). The German association, DFB, has in the meantime made an official statement declaring this decision as wrong. Why?
As stressed in the previous theoretical part, physical interference is not enough to classify it as a sufficient criteria for an active offside position. The assistant referee should have considered whether blue #20 and the goalkeeper are in a fight for the ball - as the ball was approximately 7 or 8 metres away instead of the recommended limit of 1,5 metres, this is surely no active challenge for the ball. In addition, there was not any player who could have interfered with the offender of the handball (#31), who was the one who had to be challenged for the ball by any opponent (and not the goalkeeper). For this reason, the correct decision would have been to let the flag down, to award a penalty kick and to send off the defender. If the handball had not existed, the goal would have been legally scored. Despite the courage proven by the match officials, the decision was consequently wrong. Personally, I am quite surprised that, in the opinion of DFB, the phrase "by clearly obstructing the opponent’s [...] movement" was totally irrelevant in this situation - actually, the goalkeeper's movement was indeed obstructed. Anyway, it is surely good to have a precise and official statement of a football association on this matter. More statements of this format are needed in future - they merely lead to more comprehension and will not undermine the associations' referees and their authority.

Next example.

In this video example taken from the Italian Coppa Italia, you can see the black-dressed #6 while delivering a long and high direct free-kick into the penalty area. By coming out of his goal, the goalkeeper was able to clear the ball with his hands and collided with one of his team-mates. Assistant referee Nicola Nicoletti raised his flag and ruled black #5 offside. Was that correct?
Well, at first, it must be said that the commentators were apparently not capable of making a well-reasoned judgment on that, since they did not understand the officials' decision at all. Then, we can consider whether the two relevant criteria were fulfilled or not.
Contrary to the situation in Berlin, there was no physical interference between the forward, who was in an offside position, and an opponent. But as reinforced above, this is not essentially required. The fight for the ball is decisive. And this existed. The forward, #5, was in immediate playing distance; he was very close to the ball and challenged the goalkeeper in order to get it. Or, simply said, the goalkeeper had to clear the ball due to the presence of this attacker, whose offside position had become active by that. He feared the attacker, he was challenged by him, he had to do something for this reason. Or, in the formally more correct wording, the forward was in playing distance. In conclusion, the decision was absolutely correct - and would have been correct in the old form of the Laws of the Game as well.

As you see, the same passage in Law 11 can be pretty much taken for granted for years and hence goes without saying, but - at the same time - creates confusion and a visible difference to the old version of the rule, too. Assistant referees are still struggling with putting the theory into praxis on the field of play and are not less confused than common football fans. It once again shows that world federation FIFA has rather managed to make things more complicated by failing to explain the changes in an adequate manner to referees, players and fans, than simplifying it. The responsible men have contributed to further confusion about this perpetual issue of dispute in football. Certainly, this does not mean that the new rule is bad in its principle - but its communication and internalization have been close to poor for now.

Player Management and Reaction to Dissent

Referees must be aware that in tough matches the teams' fight for the aspired outcome of the match is so important that anger or tension, that have piled up throughout the game, tend to easily erupt in one single situation that is actually of minor relevance. Mostly the referees’ calls provide players with the needed target to vent their spleen and to set a sign for team-mates or even opponents. So dissent as one form of conflict is inevitable and natural. Football probably would suffer if those emotive sallies did not exist. Thus dissent claims targeted and pro-active conflict management from the referee, who must act like a psychologist in such occasions. Typically, these psychological management skills are not only required in the case of dissent, but also as a tool that has, in my opinion, the same relevance like and maybe even a bigger relevance than disciplinary sanctions: Player management is specially needed as soon as it comes to verbal warnings. 

In the following days, some posts will highlight special match situations gathered by our match reporters during the past months which I am going to analyze from a rather psychological point of view. After this post, there will be a further one coming during the next days concentrating on free-kick management. Those analyses are not aimed at denouncing the referees concerned - their examples only serve as models how some things should not be like, expressing my humility keeping in mind that, in the heat of emotions, humans make human or emotive mistakes.
In those posts, video clips will be placed that deal with the situations. As uploading those videos would undermine UEFA's copyright (Terms and Conditions 3.3), they unfortunately cannot be uploaded in a direct way. Thus, I will create links to several external videos and give you the respective intervalls in the videos which interest us (match minutes are posted, not the video minutes!). I regret that this is the only opportunity and hope for your understanding. UEFA unfortunately makes no difference between commercial (= profit-) and educational (non-profit-) and therefore fair use though.


Incident 1: Reaction to Dissent

Match: Manchester Utd. vs Bayer Leverkusen (UCL) – Referee: Damir Skomina (SVN)

Match Minute Intervall: 37:45 - 38:10 (VIDEO)

Decisions and Observations:

The referee awarded a direct free-kick in favour of the defending team close to the goalline. The offender reacted in a furious way and criticized the decision. There was a face-to-face confrontation between the player and the referee, who, as a consequence, cautioned the attacker for dissent by word and action.

Considerations:

1) Could this confrontation have been avoided?

2) Did the referee react properly to the dissent?

3) Did the referee manage to bolster his authority and to stem the dissent?

Coaching Answer:

First of all, it should be mentioned that the free-kick given by the match official was correct. Even though the last foul was none, the red-dressed forward player held his opponent’s shirt for a while so that a delayed whistle was justified. Then, one must surely point out the dissent having begun with the player who sought confrontation with the referee by questioning his decision verbally and with sweeping gestures.

If the referee and a player confront each other face-to-face, if their foreheads almost touch, something went wrong for sure. Instead of finding the adequate means to calm down the player, e.g. by asking the player to come to him for a serious word, referee Skomina accepted the confrontation with an exaggerated body language and gestures that revealed the referee’s fretted and totally annoyed mood. Both yelled at each other – the forward did so, the referee did so. Both actors did not control their testosterone in this moment; this duel seemed to need a “winner”. Player management should not follow this pattern. The referee’s furious reaction provoked another reaction from the player. One overreaction caused the next overreaction leading to no sporting solution.

As a result, Skomina sorted out the yellow card and raised it in an overhasty manner. This style of showing the YC did not testify much self-confidence and determination. That became even clearer when he made a further annoyed gesture and – having the card still in his hand – waved the player away. At the end, it was the referee who fled from the centre of attention in place of staying firm. That’s not the kind of player management that should be apparent on the highest level. The entire occasion sent a bad message to the rest of the players – and also to the crowd.

Take Home Messages:

1) Don’t over-react. Keep calm.

2) Don’t heat up conflicts with players, solve them with your personality and soft skills.

3) Show yellow cards in a calmer and more determined way.

Incident 2: (Conflict) Management

Match: Borussia Dortmund vs SSC Napoli (UCL) – Referee: Carlos Velasco Carballo (ESP)

Match Minute Intervall: 35:45 - 37:10 (VIDEO)

Decisions and Observations:

The referee cautioned a blue-dressed defender for a reckless and late challenge from behind. Due to the intensity of the foul, some players reacted in a furious way, while one further blue-dressed player made some protests concerning a previous decision when the referee had allowed play to flow. Besides the yellow card for the offender, one yellow-dressed player and the already mentioned blue-dressed midfielder were both booked for unsporting behaviour.

Considerations:

1) Were the personal disciplinary sanctions adequate?

2) Did the referee solve the heated conflict in a good manner?

3) Did he adequately sell his decisions?

Coaching Answer:

Yes, No and No. Given his line visible in the entire match, the yellow card for the original offender was acceptable. A red card would have been absolutely justifiable as well. The other two cautions were very likely a so-called type-3 decision (E.E. Snyder, 1987) – decisions, where it is irrelevant whether two players (one of each team) are guilty of an infringement during a confrontation, as cautioning both is tactically the sensible decision. What should already be mentioned at this point is the too large temporal contiguity between the riot (including the offenses) and the yellow cards shown against both players. It took the referee exactly one minute to caution both players (and in the meantime, some players believed that play could already continue). This automatically led to astonishment and disapproval and should have been avoided.

In general, the referee did not choose a clever way to deal with these confrontations. He hysterically pointed his finger and arm into the air – first to the right top, then to the left top and then again to the right top and later on to the middle top. Why? What was up there? The stadium’s roof maybe, but nothing else. Gestures must have a goal and should not be an end unto themselves. These gestures rather heated the conflicts and protests up instead of calming them down. The referee should become aware that he must deploy other tools to control such situations (Velasco had similar problems in the opener match of EURO 2012). Verbal communication and a more sensible non-verbal communication would have been helpful here, specially to ensure that the referee’s outward appearance stands for control and not for incertainty or hysteria. The circumscribed incertainty is underlined by the referee desperately looking for the blue-dressed player he was about to caution and who was positioned directly in front of him. This example again shows how important the “How” (and not only the “What”) is when you do something as a referee – and this counts for every kind of manager.

Take Home Messages:

1) Deploy target-oriented gestures instead of hysterical ones.

2) Pay attention to the time passing between offenses and your disciplinary sanction. In the concrete case, the astonishment among players and audience would have been reduced if the referee had immediately picked the players and cautioned them at the same time (one immediately after the other). 

Incident 3: Reaction to Dissent

Match: FC Basel vs Chelsea (UCL) – Referee: Stéphane Lannoy (FRA)

Match Minute Intervall: 61:55 - 62:35 (VIDEO)

Decisions and Observations:

The referee awarded a direct free-kick in favour of the white-dressed team. It remains unclear whether there was a contact though. Anyway, the referee decided to caution the offender. Having recognized this, the offender turned his back towards the referee and walked away into the direction of the penalty area. He made five disparaging movements of his hand to show dissent by action.

Considerations:

1) Was the decision to caution the offender correct?

2) Did the referee deal with the shown dissent in an adequate manner?

3) What could be negative consequences of the referee’s reaction to the dissent?

Coaching Answer:

The defender was guilty of stopping a promising attack, as the white-dressed attacker would have been able to dangerously enter the penalty area or make a pass into it. Therefore, the referee took the decision to caution the defender with a yellow card.

The referee’s gestures showed determination, well done. However, there was no need to wave his forefinger close to the offender’s face. The referee well separated the offender from the defender and asked him to come to him while reaching for the yellow card in his pocket. The defender reacted in an exaggerated fashion and showed dissent – not only once, but several times.

Stéphane Lannoy  requested the player to come to him three times (with a whistle and the common gesture “come to me!”) – but it was always the referee, who became soft instead of standing firm over the player walking away: You can see him standing firm, asking the player to come, but then always making a step towards the player having recognized that the player had not been interested in his order.

Referees may not tolerate this disrespect in any way. It is definitely regrettable that the match official completely ignored this dissent and did not even warn him on top of the yellow card. But a warning would not have been enough.

The official should have cautioned the player for s.p.a. and should have sent him off with a 2^nd yellow card for dissent by word or action. By failing to do so, he hazarded the risk of immensely suffering in his authority and control. Players may not recognize that you are bearing attacks on your power of decision.

Allowing such a kind of dissent is no good message to the millions of people watching it, let alone the other players on the field of play – at this level, it is unacceptable.

Take Home Message:

1) Don’t tolerate dissent by word or action. Defend your authority and draw the adequate consequences – in the concrete case, a 2nd yellow card on top of the original yellow card would have been the appropiate decision.

Incident 4: Player Management / Reaction to Dissent

Match: Chelsea vs FC Basel (UCL) – Referee: Daniele Orsato (ITA)

Match Minute Intervall: 75:30 - 76:00 (VIDEO)

Decisions and Observations:

The ball moved towards the goalline and had been touched last by a white-dressed attacking player. It was therefore blocked off from a white-dressed player by a blue-dressed defender leading to a goal kick. The white-dressed attacker tried to reach the ball and continued to tackle the defender when the ball had already left the field of play. The referee awarded the goal kick and warned both players.

Considerations:

1) Was the decision correct not to award a direct free-kick in favour of the defending team?

2) Did the referee find adequate means to manage the players and to solve the conflict?

3) Did he adequately deal with the players’ reaction to his warning?

4) Was the referee’s behaviour efficient?

Coaching Answer:

The decision not to award a direct free-kick was at least acceptable. A free-kick would not have been a remarkably bigger advantage for the defending team. As the referee decided not to caution any player but to verbally warn them, it was not mandatory to whistle the white-dressed player’s conduct as an infringement.

The player management used during the verbal warning must be considered as poor though. If the referee decides to deploy a public warning (instead of a silent and subtle one), he must do it in a convincing and respectful way, otherwise, the target won’t be reached.

Daniele Orsato initiated his public warning with a whistle and repeated gestures reminding me personally on the “Heel!”-order you usually issue to your dog. This respectless gesture was immediately sanctioned by both players – they did not follow and were not interested in the referee’s command. The referee had to pursue both players, which physically indicates that the relation between the referee and the player(s) was not as it should be. To maintain authority, the referee should have stood still and should have let the players come to him, not vice versa. While running after the blue-dressed player, Orsato turned around to look for the white-dressed player and obviously lost him. This disorientation might appear as subtle. However, it is definitely a mirror of the poor management and imbalanced relation between the referee and the players. The blue-dressed player suddenly turned around and showed frustrated dissent by action, and probably also word. He shouted at the referee and was not sanctioned for that. A yellow card was mandatory here. The referee thus became assailable and failed to send a message to the players that they cannot treat him in this manner, that he is boss.

The player management shown here is absolutely below what you should expect from a referee acting at this level. Psychologically, Mr. Orsato did everything wrong. And the next problem cropping up is the circumstance that this warning was not even weak in its nature but also in its effect. After finally both players took a pity on the referee and listened to him, he just made one little determined gesture into the direction of both players and yelled “Finish!”. He should have sought much more conversation and a much clearer conversation with both players – he had the time. The ball was out of play. So much effort for so little outcome. The players did not even look at him while he shouted “Finish!”.

The referee seemed to be somehow startled by this incident and the knowledge that his authority had remarkably suffered: He released the goal kick but did not sprint into the standard position on the pitch during goal kicks. Hence, he was (too) many metres away from play when the goal kick reached its aim.

Take Home Messages:

1) Utilize respectful gestures when communicating with players. Respect is no one-way street.

2) Take your time for verbal warnings – don’t hurry. They are important psychological moments in a football match. Do them efficiently, calmly and sovereignly.

3) Insist on the players’ attention for your words and do not allow dissent. It is best if dissent is avoided by (1), but sometimes it is inevitable. Caution players in these moments and make clear who is boss.

4) Only release play as soon as you are ready for it – mentally as well as in terms of positioning.


You can say this is theory and maybe a bit too far away from what the praxis is and allows - but I hope that this is at least some food for thought and small but effective adjuste screws that help to improve your player management.