The Daily Telegraph is reporting today, that the initial view taken by Rob Styles’ bosses in the sending Habib Beye off, is that the decision may have been wrong.
Rob Styles – second thoughts about penalty incident?
The evidence is that he is only in a fourth official role for the game between Chelsea and Liverpool on Sunday, and that has raised Newcastle’s hopes of actually prevailing with their appeal over Habib Beye’s sending off.
Styles will return to referee the Championship game between Bristol City and Sheffield United next Tuesday – and has had a sympathetic response from Keith Hackett, the manager of Professional Game Match Officials.
But we believe that is just a good move to withdraw Styles from the spotlight, in the aftermath of the penalty decision and sending off on Monday evening.
However, replays of the incident have seemed to support the Newcastle manager Joe Kinnear’s contention that Beye played the ball first and won it with a faint touch. That is definitely true, and fans need to know what these rules actually are.
It was always thought that if you got the ball first before the man – it wasn’t a foul. But then some referees have come out and said that’s not necessarily true. So what exactly are the rules? That’s now a very good question.
Certainly the offside rule is now so stupid as to be absolutely ridiculous. And it was seen to be stupid on Monday night when a long ball was played forward – Oba Martins was obviously in an offside position when the ball was played – he then moved over to take the ball from the defender, and only then was he blown for offside.
You have players who are obviosuly offside, then walk away from the play, so they are not involved and are therefore not offside, but then they get involved again in the subsequent play – and obviously have gained an advantage.
It’s just ridiculous, and like a spider’s web of confusion.
Yesterday, when Rob was on his way to a meeting with his bosses at the referees’ Staverton training base, Styles seemed very straight and poinyed out:
“I thought it was a penalty. Any reflections will begin when I see it again, and that’s what I told Joe Kinnear.”
To be fair to Styles, people are still arguing about this now, and it’s always difficult to give a split second decision when it’s such a close call, as in this case.
That’s why we think the FA will uphold the decision, but they should take the opportunity of this incident as a precedent, and say why it was a foul. If it isn’t true that if a player plays the ball and then brings down the man with his momentum they, should say that too.
They can build up cases like legal precedents – but something is needed to better understand today’s football rules, that’s for sure. So at least the fans and the players, and not least of all the referees, can get a better handle on the rules in these specific situations.
It’s starting to look like good hard tackling has become a forbidden skill these days.
Especially with footballers going flying at the slightest of physical contacts.
Comments welcome.
52 comments so far
Alan
Oct 22, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Comment #41Strongly disagree with any of the above. Video review has ruined the dynamic nature of any game into which it’s been introduced. The only place for video evidence is IMHO in disciplinary reviews. It’s introduction there to review Italian swim team tactics would eliminate “simulation” overnight.
More whistles would introduce more confusion (and does; I work two-man systems on occasion and it sucks when the other guy blows his whistle for a phantom call). Just take a look at pointy-ball football in the US. More referees than players and huge conferences at every stoppage in play.
IFAB/FIFA have been tweaking with offside to try to eliminate the call in all but the most obvious cases; FIFA want more goals…
Hip-checks should be kept on ice rinks but shoulder to shoulder’s still OK.
It’s never obstruction if you’re within playing distance of the ball but if you have your arms out and use them to physically restrain the opponent then you can be called for holding. A direct free kick is more harmful than indirect in any circumstance and in bad cases you can even buy a card.
toooooonfan
Oct 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Comment #42Alan
what the hell are you banging on about mate
Punk Skunk
Oct 22, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Comment #43Alan,
if there were 2 refs, 1 in each half, why the F*** would a ref in the other half blow his/her whistle?..The only confusion is borne out of dumb refs screwin’ up!..
…& in grid iron, very little gets past the refs man…More eyes on the game would defo cut down on ‘stupid’, ill-informed decisions…
…As for vid evidence, it can add to the excitement & not leave people fumin’ over wrong decisions…Drag ya’ ass into the 21st century bro’!..
Bill F
Oct 22, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Comment #44Fact is they can and do use video evidence for stuff after a game and do use sanctions. It’s been mainly for off the ball incidents, but a criteria has been established.
Punk Skunk
Oct 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Comment #45Aye,
& i can’t see anyone bein’ pissed that they are ‘stuck’ at the match for a few more minutes!..
…& even if it goes against your team, at least it will be fair…I’m sick of seein’ injustice on the pitch…It even bugs me when it’s not us on the recievin’ end!..
tripp
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Comment #46The problems in this case stem from the Red card ban rule. Beye’s challenge was not malicious or dangerous. Even if Styles had no choice but to flash red, it shouldn’t be a 3 (or 1) game ban. He get’s sent off but can play the next match. Putting that challenge on par with what Guthrie did against Hull, for example, is ridiculous.
tripp
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Comment #47Indeed Punk skunk. I completely agree with your view on video review/more eyes. The idea that 3 blokes can cover thousands of square metres in a fast paced game that requires split second decisions is absolutely crocked.
IrishMan
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Comment #48tripp,
Your point about comparing Beye ban with Guthrie ban is spot on – there should be no automatic three match ban for every red card, but each individual ban decided afterwards by disciplinary committee based on video evidence.
Punk Skunk
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Comment #49Aye tripp,
when are the f.a., u.e.f.a, f.i.f.a gonna get with it & change something that’ll actually help matters, rather than piss about with things like the offside rule etc?..
…Maybe ‘cos their darlings would lose out & we might get an level playin’ field & that would upset the status quo, wouldn’t it?..
AndyT
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Comment #50I’ve got no gripes over the award of the penalty. It wasn’t, it was a fantastic tackle, but from the refs position and the linesman’s position, they couldn’t see it. Neither do I have a problem with the red card. If the ref believed that it was a foul, then Beye was clearly the last defender and prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity. So if he gives the penalty he has to send him off. It changed the complexion of the game, but that’s football.
What I will object to is not rescinding the card tomorrow. It was a brilliant recovering tackle, timed to absolute perfection after a superb run by one of the best attacking players on the planet. To punish Beye and consequently Newcastle even more is unacceptable.
Tom_Toon
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Comment #51..
Lawman
Oct 23, 2008 at 4:34 AM
Comment #52The difficulty of having to make a split second decision is always used as an excuse to dilute any wrong decisions by refs…..
I’m sorry but either you bring in video evidence like rugby or start improving the standards of referees.
I’m getting sick and tired of campaigns designed to make players respect referees more and more but I’ve always been brought up to believe that respect has to be earn and can’t just be taken for granted.
It’s complete and utter cheek asking for more and more respect when referees’ performances are getting poorer and poorer.