Bitesize Rants #1: The Respect Campaign and Football Hooliganism

In my day job (I know, can you believe that being a keyboard warrior on inconsequential topics isn't a full-time role?!), I was recently given the task of being more succinct. As some of you may have noticed, I have a tendency to use 10 words when one will do. So, I thought I'd challenge myself in a new segment I've called 'Bitesize Rants'. The premise is simple - the same level of anger and outrage, neatly fit into just 400 words.

The attack made on Manchester United’s team bus before their crucial must win game against West Ham highlights something that we’ve known for some time – football hooliganism is far from dead.

This is not my forum for attacking West Ham fans, as I want to focus on the clearly dramatic impact that the much discussed Respect campaign has had.

As a child watching football, I was all too familiar with the sight of players surrounding and berating the referee, with Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira sticking in my memory as the worst examples. As a teenager, I experienced this first-hand from parents of under-11s games, with some of the abuse received frankly shocking. To combat this, and the continual threat of off-field violence, the FA introduced the Respect campaign, an umbrella for anti-racism and pro-fairness in football. This was also designed to paint football to kids as a friendly and respectful sport, and give them role models they can look up to.

Has it made a difference? Clearly not as much as they’d hope, if Tuesday’s events are anything to go by. It’s certainly true that referees are not as bombarded by people after every decision, but the abuse from both the players and the fans continues to be prevalent at every level. Just read Wayne Rooney’s lips when the camera pans to him, and you’ll learn some new vocabulary you didn’t want! It also sets a worrying double standard, as some offences are punished and others simply aren’t!

It certainly doesn’t help that footballers don’t paint themselves in a good and respectful light as role models for kids. For every Vincent Kompany there is a Joey Barton, and every Claudio Ranieri has a Neil Warnock. The very fact that proven racists Jamie Vardy, Luis Suarez and John Terry are so revered among sections of football fans is alarming, and highlights the scale of the problem remaining.

So while West Ham have reacted quickly to the whole bus incident, the events should act as a warning shot across the bows of the FA. The Respect campaign is not hard-hitting enough, and for the sake of thousands of Sunday League referees across the country, football’s governing body needs to have a rethink. Try coming down hard on every type of disrespect, and not set a loophole for poor role models by letting some players get away with it.

Chelsea: How The Mighty Have Fallen

The worst title defence in the history of the Premier League. After yesterday's defeat at home to Liverpool, Chelsea have registered an embarrassing return of just 11 points after eleven first team matches, with just three wins, six defeats and 22 goals conceded. To put it in perspective, this is almost identical to the disastrous defence of Blackburn Rovers following their one and only title in 1995, and is six points worse than the ill-fated attempt by David Moyes after the Sir Alex Ferguson era at Manchester United.

What makes this current title defence most surprising is that this has not come after a shock title win or change in management. In fact, next to nothing has changed. The side that claimed the league just a few short months ago is now floundering just above the relegation zone, and it's not like they can blame injuries either. Though they have missed Thibaut Courtois for the majority of the season so far, the eleven that were so successful in the last season remain largely ever-present.

What it simply comes down to is the fact that many of the top players from last year have struggled to hit the heights that they achieved in that title winning side. If we take the lynchpins of that side, namely John Terry, Eden Hazard, Cesc Fabregas and Diego Costa, we can clearly see in each case, the statistics are no longer in their favour when compared to many of their rivals.

Take the stoic centre half. A Chelsea legend that has taken his side through tough times seemingly single-handedly in the past, and has been a consistent performer and rock for Jose Mourinho in both his spells at the club. Last year was widely considered the Englishman's best season for some time, with the centre back's organisation enabling the team to keep 17 clean sheets, at a ratio of almost one every two games. He also scored five goals from 18 shots - the second best return of his career. In comparison, in the first 11 games of this season, Chelsea have kept just one clean sheet, with Terry yet to open his personal account. He has also come under considerable criticism, being sent off at West Brom and dropped to the bench for the crunch game with Manchester City.

Similarly, Eden Hazard has struggled to make the impact he had last season. Having comprehensively won the Barclays Premier League Player of the Year Award last year, he has been almost anonymous this season. Though his chances created statistics and assists are not bad when compared to last season (29 chances created in 11 games this season/ 99 created in total last year), he does not seem to quote have the same aura around him that saw him glide past players like they weren't even there. His substitution against Liverpool yesterday came as no surprise, as up until that point I don't think I had heard his name uttered by the commentary team.

The difference between statistics for both Cesc Fabregas and Diego Costa is even more stark. The power pair last year were a contributing factor to a huge percentage of Chelsea goals last year, with Fabregas hailed as a pass master for his 18 assists and Costa ranked among the top strikers in the world scoring 20 goals. How times have changed. This season, Fabregas has set up just one goal, while Costa is a tenth of the way to last year's goals total, with almost a third of the season gone.

It's certainly no secret that this has had a dramatic impact on the pressure on the shoulders of Jose Mourinho. And we have already seen how he tends to overhype. In a post last year, I looked at Jose's growing vendetta with both the English media and Premier League referees, and suggested that perhaps this was simply another of the Portuguese manager's mind-games. However, having seen the ongoing behaviour and anger of the Chelsea man, I'm not quite so sure he's as in-control as he appeared last year. He is clearly feeling the pressure, and would rather apportion blame everywhere but with himself, and referees are certainly an easy target.

One thing I still can't wrap my brain around is why. How is it that so many of not just Chelsea's top men, but the supporting cast like Matic, Ivanovic, Oscar and Azpilicueta, all of whom were outstanding in the title win, can perform so poorly all at the same time. An off game or two is to be expected, but it's getting on towards the halfway point, and I honestly cannot remember a game where Chelsea have looked like themselves.

The first explanation that I have read is from Fabio Capello. The former England and Real Madrid coach laid the accusation that Jose Mourinho's style of management burns players out, keeping them at optimal levels for a season or 18 months, but then sees performances fall off a cliff. While that would accurately explain the Portuguese's experience on this occasion, in addition to his times at Inter Milan and Real Madrid, it would not cover the initial period spent in London. Successive titles, the second more emphatic than the first, would certainly call the theory into question. Further, the individuals at the heart of that Chelsea title success remained effective for the club for years to come - look at Petr Cech, John Terry, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba.

In addition, there have been a lot of talks in the papers recently about rifts in the dressing room. Now, while I'm willing to take such accusations with a pinch of salt, there is normally no smoke without fire, and it does appear during the games like many of the players aren't on the same wavelength. How much of that is just the players trying to force the issue, and how much is a genuine discord is difficult to say, but it is certainly a theory that cannot be ruled out.

My analysis of this adds a rather ironic twist. Jose Mourinho's attitude that the world is against him, blaming referees, the media and even his own doctors for his shortcomings may well have been a mind-game, but has now fostered an environment at Chelsea that is incredibly demoralising. Believing that people are against you can have a dramatic impact on confidence and motivation, and could certainly explain the ongoing issues. Further to this, the treatment of Eva Carneiro will undoubtedly have underlined the dictatorial regime currently in operation at the London club, and will inevitably have players and staff looking nervously over their shoulders. This tends to result in people taking fewer risks, playing it safe and therefore not achieving their potential - sound familiar?

While Jose Mourinho has been given the green light by Roman Abramovic, it is slowly but surely moving to a shade of amber. Based on the last three months, he needs to grow up, accept that bad luck and bad decisions happen, and get on with motivating his players and stop attempting to control the actions of officials. Who does he think he is, Sir Alex Ferguson?

However, Chelsea have more than enough quality to get themselves out of their current predicament, and it was fitting that it was Jurgen Klopp, who experienced the exact same thing with Dortmund last year, who visited Stamford Bridge yesterday. I'm going for a sixth place finish now for Chelsea, but they need to seriously rethink their approach and pull together to achieve even that.

The B*****d in Black: Should We Do More To Protect Referees?

                      The announcement of Howard Webb as the referee of this weekend's Manchester derby caused many groups of City fans to take to social media and call fix, at times abusing the policeman from the North East. This all comes after a statement last week from former referee Mark Halsey, who has said that without further support for the officials, we will soon see a referee becoming so under pressure they may consider taking their own life. Whilst this claim may appear dramatic on the surface, there is much in the way of evidence to support it. This post will look at recent examples of top class referees being put under intense pressure, before examining the potential fixes to this problem.

                        In terms of examples, I can recall three in recent years of referees receiving threats against his person, or even his life. The one I will start with is Tom Henning Ovrebo, whose name will be all too familiar with Chelsea fans. In the 2009 UEFA Champions League semi final, the Norwegian had a shocking evening, refusing to grant Chelsea two stonewall penalties, and potentially even a third, and debatably dismissing Eric Abidal. However, the final two penalty claims, which came after Andres Iniesta's dramatic late equaliser, sent many of the Chelsea players into a rage, surrounding the referee in complaint. The Norwegian left the field to a chorus of boos. Had that been the end of the story, it would have been acceptable, as the crowd has every right to voice their displeasure. What they do not have the right to do is send the referee threatening messages, both through the post and over social networking sites. This is what happened to Ovrebo, with threats against his life common in the following fortnight.

                          Example number two is the referee of the EURO 2004 quarter final between Portugal and England: Urs Meier. The Swiss official generally had a good game, however his performance will be best remembered for a shocking error which cost England their place in the competition. At 2-2, and deep into stoppage time, a Beckham corner was met powerfully by Sol Campbell, thumping the ball into the net. Unbelievably, the referee had blown his whistle for a foul, despite Campbell failing to come into contact with anyone until after he had headed the ball. This effectively denied England a place in the semi-finals, and ultimately eliminated them, as penalties resulted in the inevitable elimination. Meier, like Ovrebo, suffered an influx of death threats, leading to him being given personal security for some time afterwards.

                            The final example is the one referred to by Mark Halsey last week. Mark Clattenburg was relieved of his refereeing duties mid-way through last season, after it emerged that accusations had been made that the official had racially abused Chelsea's John Obi Mikel. In fact, these accusations had been completely fabricated by the Chelsea players, and passed onto Mikel as if fact. This led, understandably, to a very angry Nigerian. However, less acceptable was his reaction. After the game had concluded the midfielder, by all accounts, barged into the referee's dressing room and threatened to break his legs. It has to be said that these rumours were not started by Mikel himself, so it is slightly different to other examples. However, it does indicate just how high passions run on the football field.

                             So what can be done to help referees? Having experienced abuse from the sidelines as a referee first-hand, I can certainly vouch for the argument that the Respect campaign has done next to nothing for the game. People can still lip read what Wayne Rooney says to referees, players continue to get in the faces of referees when a decision goes against them, and I am certain that there are many incidents that go completely unpunished. Any referee that feels threatened is unacceptable, and must be stamped out. What crowds don't understand when they abuse referees is that without one, the game could not begin. It is therefore pointless abusing them, and even more pointless complaining about decisions that have already been made. We will not change our minds!

                              Having said that, recieving abuse from fans during the game is something that a referee has to accept as being part and parcel of the game. When passions run high, sometimes fans will use offensive language towards officials that have made poor decisions. That is not to excuse racist or any other type of discriminatory abuse, as that is certainly the exception to the rule. However, general abuse from the fans is to be expected, and referees have put themselves in the frame for that. The area that football needs to stamp out of the game is the abuse of referees by footballers on the pitch, and the subsequent abuse that referees recieve after the game.

                              In terms of the off-field abuse, which has often resulted in death threats being sent to referees, there is little more the world of football can do other than to appeal to the common sense of the football fans involved. The police must be trusted to act swiftly and harshly against offenders, and football as a sport must punish any person found guilty with lifetime bans. I think the best way to combat the ever declining treatment of officials on the pitch is to go right back to the very grass roots of the game and make more sending-off worthy offences. Attempting the top-down approach, like the Respect, has been proven to be ineffective, so perhaps it is best to concentrate on the next generation of football players. By giving harsher sanctions for dissent and abuse from a very early age, to both the players and the crowd, referees can wrestle back the control from the sidelines, and gain the sort of status that rugby officials enjoy. Whilst not available at the grass roots, video and audio technology could also be used to retrospectively ban players who have been caught abusing referees on camera or microphone. However, one way in which referees can help themselves is by explaining their decisions, and admitting when they have made mistakes. I am a big supporter of referee press conferences, as it gives the officials the chance to explain their actions, and give the situation from their perspective. This would help to clear up much of the debate of the did they/didn't they see it.

                                Nevertheless, even without these press conferences, abuse of any referee is unacceptable. And it does not bode well for the future of the game. Speaking from experience, the abuse that I recieved from parents at youth level as a referee at 14 well and truly put me off from continuing it as a career. If more make the same decision, we could find ourselves with a distinct shortage of top quality referees, which will only anger fans more, as more mistakes will be made. Referees are put under exceptional pressure, and they do an excellent job 99% of the time. And 99% of fans respect that. But we still need to act to prevent that 1% of fans in the 1% of cases ruining football in the present, and the future.

                          

Diving: A Red Card Offence?

                             Last weekend's events, most notably David Moyes's comments after Manchester United's home victory against Crystal Palace, has brought the topic of diving back into the public eye. So many players are accused of it, and there there are discussions in pubs up and down the land assessing what the appropriate penalty for divers is. The current system of a yellow card for 'simulation' is widely considered to be too lenient. However, is the answer really, as Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish has suggested, a straight red card for diving offences? This post will look at the offence as it is currently defined, before examining the possible new punishments for the crime.

                               In order to fully understand the topic in question, it is worth consulting the FA definition of diving (or 'simulation'). Diving constitutes: 'an attempt by a player to gain an unfair advantage by diving to the ground and possibly feigning an injury, to appear as if a foul has been committed'. This seems relatively clear, and you would expect to see fairly regular punishments based on this definition. However, it proceeds to state that: 'a referee should be 100% certain that a player has simulated (feigned) an unfair challenge before cautioning the offender for unsporting behaviour. The referee must be convinced that there has been no physical contact whatsoever by the player challenging for the ball.' This is the cause of the controversy, as this clause means that referees tend to be overly lenient on simulation, not wanting to call a player a cheat, and this sometimes leads to miscarriages of justice when the referee gets it wrong. We will examine this in more detail later.

                                 Looking purely at the definition as it stands, we should perhaps compare it with other offences. By examining both those considered to be worthy of yellow and red cards, we will be able to see which category this offence more resembles. If we look at the options in both categories, I would say that 'unsporting conduct' would most easily be comparable from the yellow card section. The red card section does not appear to have an easily comparable alternative, with neither serious foul play, nor violent conduct accurately describing the act. If we run with the unsporting conduct offence, there are clear parallels between the pair. This indicates that perhaps the initial classification of diving as a yellow card carries weight.

                                 However, two alternatives have been suggested by prominent men in English football. We will begin by the suggestion made by Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish, that diving should constitute a straight-red card offence. Despite my above paragraph, there is evidence to suggest that this may be a possible alternative. Diving is a scourge in world football, and needs to be stamped out. If we look at another offence that has been 'stamped down upon', we find that racism has been much more heavily punished in recent years, in an attempt to eradicate it from the game. Now, I am not for one moment saying that diving is as bad as racism, however, I am merely making the point that if you want rid of an aspect from a game, you must penalise every instance heavily. Therefore, a case could certainly be made for the introduction of a heavy-handed penalty for diving, at least until the act is not so prominent. However, there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, there will be the inevitable comparison between diving and the other red card offences, which illustrates the gap in severity. Simulation does not seem on the same page as intentionally breaking someone's leg, but, under this rule change, they would be considered equally severe. Secondly, there is a more pressing issue with the rules. As the current idea of diving is so open to interpretation, there are already many instances of referees making the wrong call. Under these new rules, a referee making the wrong call could irreparably change the outcome of the game, potentially ruining a team's season. Until we solidify what is considered a dive, I feel that a red card could not be awarded for the offence.

                                     The second alternative is one that appears far more reasonable. David Moyes, having stated that he wanted to stamp out diving from his own club, with Ashley Young coming in for further criticism, then suggested that video technology should be used to retrospectively ban players who have been proven to have dived. As much as that will be a dagger to the heart of Michel Platini, I think that this is an excellent idea. It lowers the fear of referee's getting a decision woefully wrong and costing a team a game in an instant, whilst ensuring that those guilty of diving are rightfully punished. I would introduce an initial ban of 4 games for a diving offence, meaning that there is that aspect of over the top punishment with a more accurate justice system, which I believe forms a nice middle ground. Once simulation has begun to die out of the game, a reduction in the ban could then be enacted. However, I suspect that none of these will be considered, players will be allowed to con referees and dive all over the place. This will continue to cause a horrible Catch 22 situation for referees, who will be blamed as much if they fail to penalise a dive, than if they wrongfully penalise one. And it will continue to be the topic of pub gossip for years to come.