Luis Suarez, and related thoughts

Luis Suarez has been in the headlines a lot this week.  He has recently been banned by the FA for ten games, for biting an opponent in a match last week.  He was previously banned for seven games in 2010 for biting, while at his former club Ajax.

There are several point to make in reaction to this.

1.       Biting is not appropriate on any sports field.  In football, it is classed as violent conduct, warranting a red card and at least a three-match ban.

2.       Players sent off for violent conduct are often banned for more than three games by the FA.  Di Canio was banned for 11 games for pushing a referee in 1998.  Prutton was banned for 10 games for the same offence in 2005.  Thatcher got 8 games for elbowing Mendes in 2006.  In most non-sporting professions, such offences would warrant a sacking.  Why not in football?

3.       This is the longest ban a player has been given for violent conduct against another player in England.  The only longer bans are for acts against referees, fans, or for drug offences.  The exception is Joey Barton’s 12-game ban, but that was for two counts of violent conduct rather than one.  Why has this offence been given a significantly longer ban than many other counts of violent conduct?  What is inherently worse about biting than stamping, spitting or headbutting?

4.       Jermaine Defoe bit an opponent in 2006 and was given no ban because the referee saw the incident, and FIFA have a policy that means that players cannot be retrospectively punished by football associations if the referee has already ‘dealt’ with the incident.  This policy is understandable, because they want to empower the referees.  The policy is also laughable because the best way to empower referees is with a system of TV replays and challenges, a system that shows no signs of becoming available.  Referees should be able to use replays like in rugby, for incidents such as infringements in the penalty area or when players are accused of something like biting.  Team captains should be allowed, say, two challenges per half, like in tennis, to challenge decisions like dives and offsides.  I have made this argument so many times, I am getting sick of it.

5.       There are two issues here – that of retrospective punishment, and that of the length of Suarez’s ban.  Much of the discussion over the ban has been to do with consistency.  Why ten games, where similar incidents have warranted fewer?  Is biting an opponent worse than racist language but not as bad as pushing a referee?  Is this a longer ban because it is the second time he has bitten an opponent?  If so, why has this not been clarified?

6.       The bottom line is that Suarez should be banned, but he should be banned in a way consistent with other similar incidents.  On a related note, the way games are refereed needs to change, and has needed to change for a while now.

The flaw in football

It has been suggested that a significant reason why football is such a popular sport, both in the UK and worldwide, is to do with the fact that it is a very low-scoring sport.  0-0 draws are common.  Anything more than about 4 or 5 goals in a 90-minute match is unusual.  The result of this is that every goal matters very much. A single goal usually changes the feel of the whole match.  Therefore goals give players, spectators or fans very big emotional highs and lows during a match.  In short, football is popular because it is exciting.

This is a good thing, though has the disadvantage that scoreless (and often relatively boring) games are common.  However, I see a more significant problem.

Although football brings the big highs and lows when goals are scored, the fact that it is such a low scoring game (and therefore most goals are very important) means that any mistakes made by officials are more significant than in other sports.  An incorrect penalty or offside decision, or a goal wrongly allowed or disallowed, have a very large impact on the outcome of a match and, in a sport where winning the title, getting into Europe or playoffs, or being relegated often come down to a single point, a single refereeing mistake in a single match is enough to change the fortunes of a team for the entire season.  People say that such things even themselves out over the course of a season.  They do not.  Most leagues have a maximum of about 46 games.  To be relatively sure that such mistakes were evened out, more like 460 games would be needed.

This is not the time to rant about refereeing mistakes, but it should be noted that such mistakes probably have a larger effect on a football match than a match in another sport.  Hence, there is arguably more pressure on football referees and linesmen than on officials in other sports.  Add this that football seems a particularly difficult game to officiate, due to vague rules that are very open to interpretation, and football referees need all the help they can get.

Such help is of two forms.  Firstly, and famously, 'technology' i.e. TV replays, Hawkeye etc.  Football must be the only major sport left not using such things.  If a referee is unsure of a decision such as a penalty appeal or an offside, he or she should be able to check a TV replay.  Arguments that this would slow down the pace of the game are flawed, because the pace is already slowed down by all the arguments and protests that result from decisions that players disagree with.

Secondly, help is required from players, managers and fans.  Players should stop cheating.  Every game I see includes incidents of players going down too easily, cynically fouling each other, etc.  Managers should be honest.  If a manager knows his team have been given a soft penalty, or got away with an offside goal, or whatever, they should have enough integrity to admit their good fortune, rather than denying it or claiming they 'didn't see the incident'.  Without this honesty, complaints about referees mistakes cannot be taken seriously.  Fans have a part to play too.  We, like managers, should acknowledge our good fortune with decisions.  We should campaign for both the use of technology in the sport and for honesty and fairness from players and managers  .And no matter what we think of referees decisions, there is no excuse for the mob mentality of abuse that is directed at referees during games.

I've been thinking more and more recently that football, while entertaining, exciting and popular, is actually not a particularly good sport.  But I think these alterations would significantly improve it.  When I am king of the world, I'll make some changes.

Optimistic innocence

On Saturday I played in a charity mixed netball tournament no a team that began at ‘Kings Church Durham’ and ended as ‘Jose’s Magic Army’.  It was generally a good day.  I’ve always loved competing in sports tournaments, and this was the first competitive sport I’ve played since last October – partly because of graduating and being ineligible for the wonderful GCUFC and partly because of injury.

However, part way through the competition, I found myself almost speechless with anger, for reasons that I will explain in a moment.  Over the last couple of days I’ve been thinking about why I got angry, what my team mates said to me to calm me down and encourage me, and my thoughts on their responses.  I have particularly been comparing my experience of netball with my experience of Ultimate Frisbee, the sport I am most familiar with playing.

One of the rules of netball is that “No player may come into contact with an opponent in such a way that it impedes the play of that opponent.”  This includes the clarification that a player may not “push, trip, hold or lean on an opponent or use other forms of physical contact”.  This is pretty clear – netball is a non-contact sport.

Ultimate Frisbee is similar: “When the disc is in the air, all players must attempt to avoid contact with other players, and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact.  “Making a play for the disc” is not a valid excuse for initiating contact with other players…Some incidental contact, not affecting the outcome of the play or safety of players, may occur as two or more players move towards a single point simultaneously.  Incidental contact should be minimized but is not considered a foul.”

It could be argued that Frisbee is slightly more lenient, allowing for some contact that doesn’t affect the outcome of the play or the safety of players, but essentially these rules are the same – both sports are non-contact.

I have played Frisbee for about 8 years, and have learnt several things about the nature of the sport as non-contact:

• Minor contact is allowable until it interferes with play.  This is due to the second part of the rule quoted above (a caveat that, as far as I can tell, netball rules do not have).
•  Because of the self-refereed nature of the sport, if there is contact that interferes with play, players call the foul and, if necessary, play is reset and replayed.
• Inexperienced players are, to an extent, forgiven for not always following the rules due to ignorance or inexperience.  Experienced players endeavour to teach them the rules and set a good example of following the rules.

This is the perspective from which I came to Saturday’s tournament.

In most of Saturday’s games, the extent of contact allowed seemed quite like Frisbee.  This was a surprise to me, because I had expected the umpires to be stricter in enforcing the rules – from past experience of watching, playing and talking about netball, it had seemed that the non-contact nature of the sport was taken very seriously, compared to other technically non-contact sports such as Frisbee and basketball.

In a couple of games, however, I got very angry at the fact that my marker was blatantly breaking the rules by leaning into me, initiating strong contact and preventing my movement.  I attempted to hold my ground, though without pushing back, and was pushed hard enough that I had to take steps backwards to avoid falling over.  In a semi-contact sport such as football I could completely understand this way of marking, and would use my strength and weight to lean in as well.  But in netball, a sport that has a ‘no contact’ rule with no caveat such as the one in Frisbee, this was clearly cheating.

Two things frustrated me the most.  One, that the umpires rarely, if ever, blew for these fouls, even though they were basically continual for the entirety of the games.  Two, that the worst players for this were the most experienced – players who play regularly for teams rather than players like me who were beginners.

As I said, I got worked up into a speechless rage, which doesn’t often happen – I can usually rant relatively eloquently when angry!  My team-mates helped calm me down and I did enjoy most of the rest of the day.  There were a few things that they said that really got me thinking.

One response to my anger was along the lines of ‘That’s just how it is.  Players bend the rules all the time, and not just in netball’.  This, of course, is true in many sports.  Football is the most obvious example – players diving to win free-kicks or penalties, players tussling and holding shirts at set pieces, etc.  Two points in response.  Firstly – yes, this does happen all the time and in many sports, but I think I was surprised at it in netball, given my expectations of strict adherence to the no-contact rule.  Secondly, that is no reason not to get angry at it.  The argument of ‘that’s just the way it is’, is not a strong one for me.  The rules are there to make the sport safe and fair.  They should not be broken.  I have nothing against being competitive or playing hard or playing to win…so long as it remains in the rules.

Maybe I’m being naïve.  Maybe I’m too idealistic.  Maybe it’s my sporting background.  I grew up playing footy with mates, but in terms of competitive sport, my experience was limited to athletics, cross-country, and tennis – all quite individualistic sports where players don’t really come into contact with each other.  They tend to compete ‘at a distance’.  Post-school, my main sport has been Frisbee.  If you don’t know, the genius of this sport, beyond the speed, skill, or excitement, is ‘The Spirit of the Game’.  This is so completely fundamental to the sport, it deserves full quotation.  If you can't be bothered to read it, the essence is: respect players, be truthful not cynical, call your own fouls.

1.1. Ultimate is a non-contact, self-refereed sport.  All players are responsible for administering and adhering to the rules.  Ultimate relies upon a Spirit of the Game that places the responsibility for fair play on every player.

1.2. It is trusted that no player will intentionally break the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for breaches, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no breach.

1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams.  In such situations, players must:

1.3.1. know the rules;

1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;

1.3.3. be truthful;

1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;

1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;

1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and

1.3.7. use respectful language.

1.4. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but should never sacrifice the mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed-upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play.

1.5. The following actions are examples of good spirit:

1.5.1. informing a team-mate if they have made a wrong or unnecessary call or caused a foul or violation;

1.5.2. retracting a call when you no longer believe the call was necessary;

1.5.3. complimenting an opponent for good play or spirit;

1.5.4. introducing yourself to your opponent; and

1.5.5. reacting calmly towards disagreement or provocation.

1.6. The following actions are clear violations of the spirit of the game and must be avoided

by all participants:

1.6.1. dangerous play and aggressive behaviour;

1.6.2. intentional fouling or other intentional rule violations;

1.6.3. taunting or intimidating opposing players;

1.6.4. disrespectful celebration after scoring;

1.6.5. making calls in retaliation to an opponent’s call; and

1.6.6. calling for a pass from an opposition player.

1.7. Teams are guardians of the Spirit of the Game, and must:

1.7.1. take responsibility for teaching their players the rules and good spirit;

1.7.2. discipline players who display poor spirit; and

1.7.3. provide constructive feedback to other teams about how to improve their adherence to the Spirit of the Game.

1.8. In the case where a novice player commits an infraction out of ignorance of the rules, experienced players are obliged to explain the infraction.

1.9. An experienced player, who offers advice on rules and guides on-field arbitration, may supervise games involving beginners or younger players.

1.10. Rules should be interpreted by the players directly involved in the play, or by players who had the best perspective on the play.  Non-players, apart from the captain, should refrain from getting involved.  However for calls relating to “out-of-bounds” and 3“down”, players may seek the perspective of non-players to assist them to make the appropriate call.

1.11. If players cannot agree what occurred in a play, the disc shall be returned to the last

non-disputed thrower.

I have played Frisbee for long enough that this attitude is now ingrained in me.  I’ve noticed how I often make calls against my team when playing other sports.  For example, in rounders, if I know my team mate is out, I will argue for that decision.  On Saturday, after a baseline pass was given to my team, I corrected the umpire by informing them that it had clipped my finger on the way out and the decision should be reversed.  I am not trying to sound ‘holier-than-thou’, I am not trying to make Frisbee sound better than any other sport, but this is the viewpoint from which I approach sport.  I try to apply the Spirit of the Game to any sport I play.  I believe it is the only way to remove cynicism and cheating from sport.

I do not have the sporting experience that others do, that perhaps make them more immune to the kind of cynical breaking of the rules I experienced on Saturday.  In fact, I have to opposite experience.  Maybe this is why I get so angry, more than others, when I observe cheating in sport.

Another response from my team-mates was the advice to do the same thing back, or ‘give as good as I got’.  I think I reacted quite badly to this.  I do not believe that the fact that other players are cheating (because, when you get down to it, that’s what bending the rules is – trying to gain an advantage though unfair and illegal (no matter how minorly illegal) play) gives me the right to do the same.  Again, maybe I’m being naïve.  Maybe I sound holier-than-thou – that is not my intention.

On reflection, I think part of this reaction comes from my personality – I am quite idealistic – and part of it comes from how I approach all sport like Frisbee.  This is why I was particularly angry at the fact that the worst players were the experienced ones.  In my Frisbee background, inexperienced players might break rules my mistake, but experienced players would do so only rarely, and would not break rules deliberately.

Unlike many of my posts on here, this is not me trying to prove a point or argue an opinion.  It is more a reflection on why I reacted badly in a situation.  Unsurprisingly I guess, it was due to both my personality and my experiences.  Maybe I’ll get used to sporting cynicism someday.  Part of me hopes I will, so I can just chill out a bit.  Part of me hopes I don’t lose this optimistic innocence.

Power to the referees

So, Scottish football referees are planning to strike next weekend because of the criticism and threats aimed at them by some clubs/players/managers/fans.
People are giving them criticism for making mistakes.
They are making mistakes because (a) they are under a lot of pressure, (b) they are often deceived by players cheating - by diving, by not owning up to fouls or handballs, and (c) they do not have the technological help that is available in other sports and is required in football.

Several things must be done.
Firstly, hawkeye-style replays must be allowed.  For goalline incidents and other incidents in the penalty box.  Referees should be allowed to us TV replays.  The argument that this would stop the flow of the game is nonsense.  TV replays would be far less disruptive than the current arguments when a decision is questioned.  For decisions that the referees do not use replays for, each captain should get, say, one appeal per half, like in tennis.
Secondly, blatant diving and simulation should be a red card offence rather than yellow.  Over-the-top theatricality after a minor foul should be a yellow card offence (therefore a referee could give a freekick to the attacking team for a foul by the defending team, but also book the attacking player for making a meal of it).
Thirdly, only players involved in an incident, plus the captains, should be allowed to speak to the referee.  If any player is abusive or disrespectful to the referee, they should be booked.
Fourthly, if a player is booked or sent off for cynical cheating, diving or abuse, they should also pay a heavy fine, proportional to the league they are playing in.  So premiership players should be fined about 2 weeks wages for being sent off for diving.
Fifthly, referees should have the power to retrospectively give red and yellow cards for incidents they did not see in the game.

In short, more power to the referees and less to the players.

Why England got knocked out

This is my World Cup rant. Enjoy. Here are the reasons England had a poor world cup:

1. Terry's affair. What a donkey. Because of John Terry's lack of faithfulness and self-control he lost the captaincy, his form dropped, and the squad lost unity, probably thinking 'I wonder if he's been screwing my wife too'.
2. Squad selection. Lennon, Wright-Phillips and Walcott are identical players, and none of them are that useful I agree with Capello that Lennon is the best of the three, but SWP was a waste of a squad place. He should not have been on the plane. I'm not sure who I would have taken instead – maybe Downing or Bent.
3. Ferdinand/King injuries. With Terry off form, We really needed Rio, both as a pacey defender and a captain. His injury was bad luck. Then King's injury was even worse luck.
4. Lennon was poor. No delivery. Not good enough. Milner was better.
5. Green's mistake. One of those things you can't predict, but it made a difference. It's not an excuse though, England should have still had enough to beat USA.
6. SWP coming on as sub. He's the same as Lennon, but even worse. He has no delivery. He should not be playing.
7. The Heskey/Rooney partnership did not work. I don't know why. Possibly because teams predicted it too well.
8. Heskey coming on as sub instead of Crouch. Capello played Heskey because, while he doesn't score, he brings the best out of Rooney. Once this stopped working, he switched to Defoe. Good decision. But then, when it came to replacing a striker, he brought on Heskey, who (a) cannot score, and (b) no longer works well with Rooney. Whereas Crouch can score (and does, frequently!), and would be a much better option.
9. Lampard's free kicks. Apart from the one when he hit the bar against Germany, Lampard's free kicks were abysmal. Either way over the bar or straight into the wall. Many chances wasted.
10. We had no tempo against Algeria or USA. We allowed the other teams to dictate the pace, and thus struggled to break them down because they had time to set up their defence. Ergo, we couldn't score more goals than them.
11. Missed chances against Slovenia. Way too many of them. Simply wasteful at this level. A single extra goal would have seen us top the group and play Ghana and Uruguay rather than Germany and Argentina.
12. Disallowed goal against Germany. Shocking decision that did change the game. Had it gone in, we would have been level, we would have had the momentum, Germany would have been reeling, and we wouldn't have had to commit 9 men forward at set pieces to get an equaliser and then get caught on the break.
13. Not bringing on Joe Cole for Defoe as plan B. Capello didn't really have a plan B. SWP for Lennon was like-for-like. SWP for Milner was a step backwards. Heskey for Defoe did not work, as discussed above. He should have brought Cole on for Defoe, put Cole on the left, and shifted Gerrard to the hole. Gerrard and Rooney are our two most dangerous players, and most of the exciting things England did in the four games was due to their link-up play.

All these things were factors in England's poor world cup. But the last reason is the main one: Gerrard's position. Steven Gerrard is a central midfielder. One of the best in the world. Don't play him on the wing! Especially the left wing, he's right-footed! A waste of one of our best players, and the single player who brings the best out of Rooney. Gerrard rarely has the discipline to stay out on the left, so he drifts inside. This reduces service to the strikers, stifles the central midfielders, means we lack width, and leaves Ashley Cole exposed at the back. With the lack of service to the strikers, Rooney dropped deep to get the ball and we had very little up front. Therefore we do not attack effectively and cannot defend effectively – we were continually exposed down our left side.

Capello's decision to play Gerrard out of position was the single biggest factor in England's downfall. To do well at football, you have to score and not concede (this really isn't a difficult concept!). With Gerrard on the left, we struggled to score and conceded too easily. Simple as.

Player ratings

Green – 3. Unforgivable mistake at this level. Otherwise fine.

James – 8. Good goalkeeping. Dealt with crosses well and made some good saves. Did everything he could

Cole – 8. Our best player (as ever). Solid defensively, good going forward. Did as well as he could with no cover in front of him for a lot of the time.

Johnson – 6. Sparky going forward, ok at the back. Not good enough for a world cup winning side, but not bad either.

Terry – 4. No pace, little confidence. Generally absent. Did not dominate like he used to.

King – 5. Fine until he got injured.

Carra – 4. See Terry.

Upson – 6. Generally did well. Only mistake was in the lead up to Klose's goal, but he wasn't exactly helped by the rest of the team.

Barry – 5. Nondescript. Very little to say, either good or bad.

Gerrard – 4. Some exciting moments, but too many wasted chances and way to little positional discipline (though it's not his fault he was put out on the left).

Lampard – 4. Good against Germany (unlucky not to have 2 goals), but otherwise very poor.

Lennon – 3. Did nothing.

Milner – 6. Not his fault that he was picked while ill against USA. In the other games he did well and was our main attacking chance-provider.

Cole – 5. Didn't get much of a chance, but did ok when he came on.

SWP – 2. Did less than Lennon.

Rooney – 3. 'The first touch of an elephant seal' (Robbo's blog). True fact. Very poor indeed.

Heskey – 3. Ok against USA, but his score is always limited by the fact that he never scores. Did very little.

Defoe – 6. Good goal against Slovenia, worked hard, good link up play.

Crouch – 5. Had no chance to shine.

Diving

This is a blog about football, so if you were hoping for Tom Daley, feel free to stop reading now.

Last week, Eduardo won a penalty for Arsenal against Celtic by diving. The penalty was given, and scored, but replays showed no contact and clear simulation. UEFA have decided to charge the player with ‘deceiving the referee’, which could result in a two-game ban.

At the weekend, Arsenal played Manchester United. During the game, Wayne Rooney won a penalty for United. He was brought down by the Arsenal goalkeeper Manuel Almunia. Replays showed that there was a small amount of contact between Almunia’s hands and Rooney’s feet, but also that Rooney had begun to fall before the contact.

The difference between these two penalty incidents is this thing called ‘contact’. But, as replays clearly showed, the ‘contact’ in the second incident was insignificant because Rooney had already begun to tumble. In fact, had Almunia been able to withdraw his hands in time, Rooney would have tumbled without contact, in just the same way as Eduardo did a few days before.

It seems that referees make penalty decisions based on contact. Assuming the defending player doesn’t get the ball, if there is contact a penalty is given, and if there isn’t it is not given and the attacker is sometimes booked for diving.

This is flawed, because there are all sorts of ‘contact’ in penalty areas at set pieces and in open play. Imagine if players went down whenever there is contact – based on the current decision-making, referees would have to give penalties every few minutes.

The deciding factor shouldn’t be ‘contact’ but ‘significant contact’, i.e. ‘is the contact made sufficient to bring the player down?’ In the case of Rooney, the contact made wasn’t sufficient to bring him down, so the penalty should not have been given.

Of course, to make these decisions, video replays would be needed. Just as they are needed for goal-line and offside decisions. I still cannot see the problem with introducing this technology to football. In fact, a tennis-style challenges system could work, were the captain of the team has, say, three challenges per half which they can use to challenge penalty/goal/offside decisions. Critics would say that this would disrupt the flow of the game. Rubbish. The flow of the game is already disrupted by players protests about these decisions. Why not give them an appropriate system to challenge referees decisions?

England Football Team

This is what the team should be, assuming all players are available:

------------------------James-------------------------

Richards/Neville---Ferdinand--Terry/Woodgate---A. Cole

-----------2 of Hargreaves/Barry/Carrick------------

----Gerrard----------Rooney-----------J. Cole----

------------------Owen/Crouch


The full-back should be encouraged to play high up the pitch to provide extra width. The 2 central midfielders give extra defensive cover and act as the playmakers. Gerrard, Rooney and Joe Cole should mix it up. If Crouch plays, he is a target man and should not drop off too much. Ferdinand should be captain.

Thoughts anyone?

I said I'd turn to Mexico

In an earlier rant, I said that if John Terry regained the England football captaincy I would start supporting Mexico.

Damn.

I was semi-serious, because of my disapproval of Terry, not only as a captain, but as a human being. I was pretty sure Rio Ferdinand would get the job, so wasn't too worried about making such rash promises. Now, however, Terry has been named captain by manager Fabio Capello.

Unfortunately I can't bring myself to abandon England, but I'm definitely not happy with the choice. Just wanted to reiterate that.

ManU/Chelsea hate list

I'm trying to decide who to support in the Champion's League final. It comes down to how many people I dislike from each team. Currently, my 'ManU/Chelsea hate list' is thus (most hated first): Alex Ferguson (bully, arrogant), John Terry (bully, cheat, thug), Didier Drogba (diver, whiner, cheat), Cristiano Ronaldo (diver, arrogant), Ricardo Carvalho (cheat), Michael Essien (thug), Wayne Rooney (thug, bully) Michael Ballack (cheat). There are other people I dislike, but these are the ones that really annoy me. There are more Chelsea people on the list, but the Ferguson factor is huge. I really don't know who I want to win. It'll probably be whoever doesn't win the Premier League - I don't think I could cope with either doing the double!

The problem with the Premier League

I'm watching Match Of The Day - most enjoyable. The relegation battle is still open, other than for Derby who are way down. But of Fulham, Bolton, Birmingham and Reading, it's hard to know who deserves to stay up, because in a way, they all do.
Looking at the Championship, only really West Brom show any signs of being good enough to be promoted. It seems that other than Derby, the Premier League really does have the best 20 teams in the country at the moment. The Championship is therefore weak.
Unfortunately, 3 teams swap position, not 1, so next year the Premier League will be of slightly lower quality, and I think West Brom will be the only promoted team with any chance of staying up.
This is all fairly irrelevant to life in general, but I thought I'd mention it.

Football

I have just spend an enjoyable couple of hours in the pub watching the Arsenal v Liverpool Champion's League quarter final first leg. I have a few things to say off the back of this.

1. The stories in the papers will focus on two goals, scored from poor defending, and on a turned-down penalty appeal from Arsenal in the 2nd half. The commentators called it 'stonewall' (a clear penalty, for anyone not in with the footy lingo). Rubbish. There was contact, and I've seen them given before, but it was not enough to send the player to the ground. Had it happened outside the box Arsenal wouldn't have even appealed. Liverpool could have claimed for a similar incident at the other end about 20 minutes later. So if you hear any Arsenal fans claiming they should have won, they're wrong. Football fans, players and referees seem to have an entirely different set of rules when the action is inside the penalty area, and it's beginning to annoy me.

2. Having said that, Arsenal easily had the majority of the possession and chances. Liverpool, again, did not keep the ball well. We tried to defend for an entire 45 minutes! One the one hand, it was a well fought European tie from the Reds, and a well-earned draw. On the other hand, it was insanely naive. Arsenal came very close to scoring a second on several occasions. And the goal. Oh my word. It came from a free header from a corner, but it wasn't just one unmarked player, but four attacking players between Liverpool's centre backs. This is the downfall of zonal marking - if the opposition flood one zone, you're in big trouble. And the opposition frequently do.

3. I thought the ref had a very good game, and both sides played in good spirits. Although players were clearly disappointed at certain decisions against them, there was no backchat or yelling in the refs face. Had it been Man Utd and Chelsea, represented by Wayne Rooney and John Terry, I expect we would have seen quite a bit more disgusting behaviour towards the officials. This has been a hot topic in recent weeks, with refs asked to clamp down on dissent. It has again been suggested that only captains should be allowed to talk to the referee, like in rugby. This idea has its merits, but the reason it works in rugby is because the officials get their decisions right, time and time again. In football, officials get decisions wrong time and time, which is why player tend to approach the referee to point out his error. The two main problems here are the relatively poor standards of refereeing, and the total lack of respect some players and managers (i.e. Alex Ferguson) have for the officials.

4. While I'm on the subject, if John Terry regains the permanent England captaincy I shall start supporting Mexico.

Dwain Chambers

Today the British squad for this years World Indoor Athletics Championships was announced, with Dwain Chambers confirmed in the 100m.
Chambers was once Britains brightest talent in Athletics as the only man to run under 10 seconds for the 100m since Linford Christie. He tested positive for the banned substance THG in 2004 and was banned from athletics for 2 years, before trying and failing in an American Football career. He has recently returned to the sport and won the British trials a few weeks ago, a feat that guarantees him a place in the team (he has now been joined by the selector's choice Simeon Williamson).

While some have accepted that Dwain has earned his place in the team, many are unhappy that a convicted cheat is representing his country. On one hand, he has served his ban and there is nothing in the rules to stop him from competing. On the other, it sends out the message that doping (drugs cheating) isn't that bad and that cheats always get another go.

It reminds me of a situation in football a couple of years ago. Liverpool, my team, finished 5th in the Premier League in 2005, not high enough to win a place in the Champion's League the following season. However, they also won the Champion's League in 2005 and it was thought that for them to not have the chance to defend it would be crazy. Although the rules at the time said they should not compete in the 05-06 season, a special case was made and they got a place in the first qualifying round (two rounds earlier than they would have otherwise entered the competition).

It's common sense versus the rulebook. The rulebook says Dwain Chambers is free to compete. Common sense says that 2 years is far too lenient a ban in such a drug-plagued sport, and that to send an athlete who claims that the only way to win nowadays is with drugs. In addition, Chambers received a lifetime Olympic ban for his offence, so is it really sensible to send someone to the World Indoors who cannot compete in Beijing in August, when there are plenty of young athletes who could use the experience ahead of the Olympics?
But he won the trials, so he is on his way to Valencia next week.

My question is, if common sense prevailed over the rulebook for Liverpool in 2005, why not this time in 2008 in athletics? I expect it may be because athletics has enough bad press already, both due to drugs and the general underperforming of recent British teams, and if the selectors overlook Chambers he is likely to appeal and win. He is also probably our best medal hope for the men, and medals are crucial for national athletics morale ahead of the last Olympics before London 2012.