Get tough on diving

Somewhere lost in another pulsating Premier League weekend where we had Jose Mourinho dismissed from the touch line after his player Ramires' awful tackle at Villa Park, Vincent Kompany kicking a wall at Hull after letting Nikita Jelavic give him the slip and where the top four teams - Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal - remain four points apart meaning an end that will not be matched for several years.

Lost amongst all this were two examples of diving that further showed that it is near impossible for referees to get it right all the time and how the Football Association are failing to combat the persistent problem of simulation and diving in football.

The conduct do both Daniel Sturridge and George Boyd created flash points in the games that they were involved in and should lead to disciplinary proceedings.

This writer is calling on an independent panel to be employed by the Premier League and in unison with the FA to sit on Monday mornings and dish out retrospective suspensions on players that warrant such attention.

Daniel Sturridge's simulation occurred in the penalty area and led to the award of
Liverpool's 3rd penalty of the match at Old Trafford versus Manchester United. The sheer pace of Sturridge led to Nemanja Vidic diving in. At full speed there appears to be contact and looks a stonewall penalty, however, replays showed Sturridge has gone to ground without contact being made. It's an amazing dive yet it led to the dismissal of Vidic for a second bookable offence. Justice was somewhat served in that Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard missed the penalty keeping the score 2-0, yet Liverpool did eventually win 3-0.

However, I am sure the referee Mark Clattenburg will feel he has been duped by Sturridge, yet because he has only booked Vidic and not dismissed him for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity the chances of the referee rescinding the card is slim.

This is where said tribunal can come to the fore and rule that Vidic's second yellow be rescinded and not serve a suspension. As for Sturridge they can rule that his conduct is unsporting behaviour and he should serve a one-match suspension. If that is the case, Liverpool lose a vital player for the title run-in and if that is the case such a suspension should act as a deterrent to players like Sturridge.
The tribunal can also act in retrospect for players who are booked for simulation, and rule that upon reflection maybe the booking was harsh.

Referees require help, goal-line technology is helping but such procedures of reviews of decisions will help the elite referees get better and obviously will work as a merit table. If some referees' decisions are always getting attention then maybe they are not cut out for the big games.

As for Boyd, it was symptomatic of an odd refereeing performance by Lee Mason. He sent off Kompany correctly, missed a red card tackle by Elmohamady on David Silva and also missed the simulation by George Boyd. Because Mr. Mason missed Boyd going to ground easily, a clearly infuriated Joe Hart berated Boyd and even put his head into Boyd's. On another day, another referee would have dismissed England's goalkeeper - yet the lack of action upon Boyd meant Hart felt compelled to have his say. Joe Hart got booked for adopting an aggressive attitude and his yellow cannot be elevated to a red as it maybe should; yet if Hart was suspended should not Boyd for such a blatant act of simulation. Boyd is not a regular and he missing a game would hurt his chances of remaining in the club.

Another thing to note is that the media so enamoured with goals and the spectacular were more reflective upon the domination of Liverpool over the current English champions (and rightly so), should really address the issue of diving with the club's managers. Whilst praise for Brendan Rodgers is correct, why not one question about the conduct of his striker? Too often an excuse is 'he is not that sort of player' and yet his actions clearly state the contrary; managers need to apologise and say their star players should play honestly as this trickles down to all levels of grass roots football.

Men in Black in the dark

Over the past weekend, the Premier League saw two of the least desirable refereeing performances of this season in the accumulated time of four hours.

On Wearside, Chris Foy and company had three hand-ball decisions to give at the same end of the football pitch in Sunderland and only got two of them right.  The first one was the most clear cut one with Norwich goalkeeper Mark Bunn racing out of his area to stop Danny Graham from giving the Mackems the lead.

Although the ball hit Bunn's midriff before hitting his underarm and tricep; the decision to dismiss him from the field of play for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity whilst on the face of things may seem harsh was by the letter of the law correct.

Norwich had to play for nearly an hour without a full quota of men, not helped 10 minutes later by the award of a penalty against Sebastian Bassong for handball.  This was one of those that you have seen given and not given, a skidding ball hit the turf hit Bassong's chest then brushed his left bicep.  The decision to give the penalty fell onto the assistant referee, who did not hesitate.

Sunderland converted the penalty to level it up at 1-1.  However, more drama was to follow when in the second half, Norwich City were denied a penalty of their own when a clear handball was awarded but as a free-kick on the edge of the box and not a penalty.  The fallacy continues in replays when defender Danny Rose is shown to be inside the box when airborne and still inside the box when he lands.

The refusal to award a penalty makes it a bizarre double bill of wrong when you recall Marouanne Fellani's handball versus Manchester City at Goodison Park, when the Belgian blocked a Carlos Tevez shot a full three yards inside the box only for referee Lee Probert to award a free-kick.

The discussions between the referee and assistant referee's would be interesting and this is where I feel the need for transparency and the broadcasting of the dialogue needs to be a healthy step forward for officiating.

At my level, I am told by my match official whom I am assisting to help with matters regarding if it is or is not inside the box; on both of these occasions the referee can give the penalty and then look across to the assistant for clarification.  We are always told we also have more time than we think.

Ten days ago, Mark Clattenburg took the time to ask his assistant referee for clarification about a last minute penalty award.  Clattenburg blew for the foul, looked across conversed with his assistant and then pointed to the spot.  This upset the Southampton players (who have since been charged by the FA for failing to control themselves) because the penalty award was not instantaneous - the fact that the end result was correct was by the by.

Then in Wigan, we witnessed the most horrific tackle in recent memory as Calum McManaman launched himself over the ball to 'tackle' Newcastle midfielder Haidara who it is feared has sustained left knee ligament damage.  The most worrying thing about the whole incident was the award of not even a free-kick to Newcastle, let alone a booking for McManaman where a red card would have been the mandatory enforcement.

Yet the FA chose to not charge the youngster with violent conduct due to an agreed stance by the PGMO to not re-referee games in retrospect.  Ultimately, one official did see the tackle but did not bring it to referee Mark Halsey's attention.

So instead of getting the decision right at the end of the day, the FA have chosen to respect the referee's decision is final even when it is wrong.

It is fair to say that we are learning more and more that the referees in the Premier League need to be younger and fitter, both of the guilty referees are the wrong end of their 40s in the twilight of their careers and yet whilst the referees do do an excellent job.  For me at Level 4, such decisions are difficult to defend when talking to colleagues and the average fan.

The English game has been at the forefront of many things and in terms of refereeing we are regarded as the best in the world, yet the governing body is not helping matters and in some respects the referees are not helping themselves by remaining behind this veil of secrecy and pride - if you stay in the dark too long, you may become that what you want to be, invisible.

A Tale of Two Refs

On Sunday, in the world of sport, the image of impartial refereeing took quite a hit on both sides of the Atlantic.

Almost immediately, after the live coverage of the game between Chelsea and Manchester United ended on Super Sunday, the accusations started flying in the direction of referee Mark Clattenburg who was said to have used 'inappropriate language' towards two different Chelsea players.  The fact that the complaint by Chelsea was done so quickly after the game to the match delegate is quite startling.  Nevermind, the controversy already caused by Clattenburg's decision to send off a second Chelsea player - Fernando Torres - for a contentious second caution, for simulation.  Also, Manchester United's third and winning goal scored by Javier Hernandez was scored from an offside position.

Chelsea, did well to get back from a 2-0 deficit to gain parity with the Red Devils, yet Branislav Ivanovic was sent off for a professional foul on Ashley Young when denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity.  Not much complaint with that one, but then soon after the game descended into chaos following the Torres' dismissal just five minutes after the first one.

The complaint aimed at Clattenburg insinuates he called Jon Obi Mikel a monkey and he also called Spanish international, Juan Mata, a 'Spanish t**t'.  The latter complaint has since been dropped, with Chelsea focusing on the racism charge.

What makes the matter murky is the act of Chelsea bringing independent lawyers to state their case leaves them exposed to a libel suit if the evidence proves unfounded.  The only people who know what was said are the three assistants to Clattenburg - Simon Long, Michael McDonough, Mike Jones - who are all wired up to converse to each other throughout the game; yet these conversations are not recorded.

The failure to be transparent - unlike say rugby union, rugby league and American football - which has miked up officials whose comments to and with players are broadcast to main television rights holder, is a mistake by the English Premier League, which remains a global brand and highly representative sport not just for the sport but for our nation.  As a man in black myself at weekends, I would welcome the need for the conversations to be recorded, why have something like that in the first place if it cannot be a black box like equipment, but the need to broadcast to the spectators is something that is not manageable in this day and age, the pace of the game is too fast to slow it down by having the match referee explain himself.

Take a look at Lee Mason in Wednesday night's League Cup match between Chelsea and Manchester United - he had two penalties, one penalty appeal not given, and a yellow card for a foul that looked like it denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity.  Would Mr. Mason (who was brilliant by the way) have to explain only the decisions given and not the ones he does not - that is why the non-verbal signals are utilised and have been for over 100 years.

Then you look at the NFL on Sunday when the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Washington Redskins, a Redskins defender DeAngelo Hall was ejected from the game for getting into the face of a head linesman Dana McKenzie, whom Hall thought should have thrown a flag for a personal foul on Hall by Emanuel Sanders of the Steelers.

Visually what the people saw was Hall totally losing his cool screaming in the face of McKenzie, prompting the ejection.  This is a worry for the Redskins defence as the threat is that an additional suspension may be served by Hall of one game, yet Hall has come out fighting stating that McKenzie baited Hall by talking smack or jawing off himself prompting Hall's reaction.  Hall is looking for video evidence to back up his statement, and says respect is a two way street.

In this instance, much like Clattenburg, it is hard to believe an experienced proven match official would say anything derogatory or profane in the direction of the player.  The beauty of the NFL is that players play in helmets, so their body language speaks volumes on the field of play, the mistake Hall did was take the helmet off when arguing.  In this combat sport, like in hockey when players throw down their gloves, the helmet removal can be construed as 'Let's go punk!' Hall just did not have the presence of mind to realise he was facing an official, you expect more of a defensive leader and a 29 year old man.

Now a porous Redskins defence must do without one of their better defensive players.  Another question can be where were Hall's team-mates to drag him from this provocative scene, look at the fellow referees of McKenzie's crew who back him swiftly.

It may appear on face value to have been a bad week PR-wise for match officials of two different sports, but under the helmet and off the field of play.  Yet what it occurs to be is two situations when heavily paid professional athletes crying wolf the minute the boot is on the other foot.

That last sentence is not condoning the use of the word 'monkey' towards a black player by Mr.Clattenburg is found to be true, yet it appears to be the height of hyprocrisy from Hall if he takes offence from an official when professional players call the referee all manner of things and said officials must then remain tight-lipped and endure the ordeal of doing something they love.

Follow me on twitter @JamieGarwood