Why This Blog?

Swiss Cup Semi-Final

FC Winterthur v FC Basel

5 April 2017

The ball was clearly played - that was never in this world a penalty!

- Reto Held, Swiss TV Commentator (SRF)

He's right of course, there's no way that was a penalty but the reason given, that the ball was clearly played is incorrect and irrelevant.  Read "The Laws of the Game", specifically law 12 and you will see that there is not even a mention of the ball in any description of foul play.  And yet an experienced commentator states the fact that a ball was played as the reason a penalty should not have been awarded.  He's also not alone.  Patrick Schuler, the guy who made that excellent tackle, also used the same reason for  believing it was no penalty in his post match interview.  To be honest, until I read the rules, I saw nothing wrong with the statement.  How many times have we heard and accepted this argument.  We hear it from commentators, pundits, players, coaches all of whom should know the rules, shouldn't they?

Another thing you will notice from the clip is Marc Janko's face, contorted in agony as Schuler's foot brushes against his ankle.  His back flip and double roll on the floor followed by around a minute laying rubbing his ankle.  And then his miraculous recovery.  Up on his feet with no hint of a limp.

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:

• attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simmulation)

Law 12 - IFAB Laws of the Game 2016-17.

There it is.  The first example of unsporting behaviour - feigning injury.  So why was Janko not carded?  Because he didn't attempt to deceive the referee, he did deceive the referee! 

What a stupid law! Without any viewing of footage with retrospective sanctions, the best actors get rewarded.  All footballers have to do is practice their "in agony" faces; get really good at timing that dive and they are free home and dry!  Should they occasionally get one wrong they look a bit stupid and get a yellow card.  Big deal!

From the post-match interviews, we learned more.  It turns out Sascha Amhof wasn't sure if there had been a foul.  Both players gave similar accounts.  Schuler said that Amhof asked him if he had fouled his opponent.  He replied that he hadn't suggesting Amhof ask Janko.  Janko stated that he had felt the defender make contact with his ankle so effectively awarded himself a penalty.  

If Amhof saw the incident, why question the players?  If he did not see the incident why did he blow his whistle and immediately indicate a spot kick.  The problem here is that the rules have no provision for a referee who has second thoughts after blowing for a foul.  Again justification for review by video replay.

In his post-match interview, Amhof claimed to have seen the replay of the foul and he said that he had made a correct decision.  He explained that Schuler went into the tackle with an out-stretched leg and although he did first play the ball away from Janko, his other leg made contact with Janko's achilles heal, causing him to fall.  In Amhof's opinion the challenge was careless and so a penalty was the only correct decision.  

So why did he discuss it for so long with the players?  He said that having seen Schuler's look of astonishment he questioned his decision.  Therefore he thought it correct to put some of the responsibility on the players by getting their version of events.  From this discussion he was able to confirm that it was a foul as he had originally suspected.

First of all well done Mr. Amhof.  It appears that the referee did know the rules.  A contact between players plus carelessness are the two elements required to give a foul.  However careless?  The foot that played the ball moved away from Janko ensuring it did not make contact.  The other leg had been tucked in by Schuler in an attempt to avoid contact as far as possible.  I would argue Schuler made every reasonable effort to avoid injuring his opponent.  The only thing more that he could have done was to not make the tackle at all.  I would argue Schuler was careful rather than careless.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.

Law 12, IFAB Laws of the Game 2016-17

So what do you think?  Under Amhof's interpretation, the slide-tackle, one of the most skillful elements of the game is virtually outlawed.  Under my interpretation the referee has to be satisfied that the tackler has made reasonable efforts to prevent injuring his opponent.  I do not want to see a return to the horror-challenges of the 70s and 80s where players were wiped-out by dangerous lunges but I would like to see players allowed to make tackles anywhere on the pitch.  The line needs redrawing if Amhof is correct.

As for discussing the incident with the players, there is no way this can work and nor is it fair.  Amhof was asking Janko and Schuler to share responsibility for a match-deciding decision.  Was either of them really going to put their hand up?  Of course not, so Amhof would have to appear to side with one or the other.

So one incident where we see refereeing ineptitude, cheating and confusion over the laws of the game.  And sadly incidents like this occur every week.  Its time to clean things up, and that is what I, and I hope you are going to try to do.

Under the floodlights go:

• Refereeing
• The Rules
• Cheating

and finally, because this is the beautiful game and so far, this is too negative for words.

• Sportsmanship

Enjoy the read and let me know what you think!

Cheers

Pete.