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.

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.