keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
The news that Mario Balotelli's appeal against his red card was rejected came as no surprise; the Manchester City player kicked an opponent in an act of retaliation and, however weak the connection, the intent was sufficiently sustained that even Chris Foy would have noticed the offence.
Still, the contrasting fates of Balotelli and Tom Huddlestone give the lie to Tony Pulis's simplistic assessment of how officiating works in favour of the big clubs. Yes, Stoke have been on the receiving end of some big mistakes lately but, as has been noted elsewhere, Pulis was happy enough to brush off the vicious assault by gravity on Jermaine Pennant a few weeks ago, when it gave his team the free-kick from which they claimed victory against Aston Villa in September.
As Nick Miller notes in A Big Midweek..., Pulis's attack puts pressure on those taking charge of Stoke's games, starting with Mark Clattenburg against Birmingham. On Saturday they face Liverpool, whose Big Four credentials may have taken a beating but would no doubt be seen by many as one the teams officials cave in to; as a regular reader of Mailbox I'm sure any Liverpool fan could reel off decisions that have gone against the Reds, against opponents big and small.
Yet however self-serving Pulis's comments may be, his impassioned reaction to Martin Atkinson's moment of blind inaction on Saturday deserved to attract attention because of the novelty of his proposal, and also because he drew attention to a wrinkle in the system. How and when do referees get dropped from matches and dropped down the divisions?
Let's consider the relegation system Pulis was proposing, by accepting the principle for a moment and looking at the practicalities. The comparison Pulis makes is with what happens to the teams at the bottom of the Premier League and the top of the Championship: "Every club should have one vote and mark referees after every game. Then they have a chance of being relegated to the Championship... If the top three [referees] in the Championship got the opportunity to work at the top level, I think it would certainly clear a few referees' minds."
The analogy of clubs and referees falls at the first hurdle: clubs play 38 games, 19 at home and 19 away. Referees do not officiate in an equal number of matches - and no one would want them to. Those judged the best get more games and also the big games liable to be the most contentious; while those who get fewer matches could have their average badly skewed by a single game.
Clubs do get the chance to assess referees now, which Pulis seems to overlook, but as the Balotelli appeal and inevitable verdict shows clubs' views on the laws and decisions are fatally biased far worse way than those of the officials. Referees and linesmen struggle at the instant of making a decision to handle the pressure inflicted by players, crowds and big-club managers, and sometimes - too often - they fail. Yet Roberto Mancini was unable to reassess an open-and-shut case a day after the event, going ahead with a doomed appeal.
What you need is a system whereby referees are rated by clubs and also by independent assessors, and where contentious incidents are viewed by their peers and debated at meetings of the Professional Game Match Officials... which is exactly what we have at present.
No one can pretend that officials get everything right, though, and some more openness about how and when officials get "rested" for a weekend would seem in order. I imagine the system is similar to that under which players operate: one massive mistake in a single game or two or three sizeable ones must be the equivalent of a straight red card or one for two bookings; similarly, too many sizeable ones in too short a space of time would be the equivalent of the totting-up system.
My guess is that Atkinson has to watch out to avoid a totting-up punishment. It would be nice, though, not to have to imagine this, but to know it, and to have Pulis given a bit of reassurance.
Philip Cornwall
Still, the contrasting fates of Balotelli and Tom Huddlestone give the lie to Tony Pulis's simplistic assessment of how officiating works in favour of the big clubs. Yes, Stoke have been on the receiving end of some big mistakes lately but, as has been noted elsewhere, Pulis was happy enough to brush off the vicious assault by gravity on Jermaine Pennant a few weeks ago, when it gave his team the free-kick from which they claimed victory against Aston Villa in September.
As Nick Miller notes in A Big Midweek..., Pulis's attack puts pressure on those taking charge of Stoke's games, starting with Mark Clattenburg against Birmingham. On Saturday they face Liverpool, whose Big Four credentials may have taken a beating but would no doubt be seen by many as one the teams officials cave in to; as a regular reader of Mailbox I'm sure any Liverpool fan could reel off decisions that have gone against the Reds, against opponents big and small.
Yet however self-serving Pulis's comments may be, his impassioned reaction to Martin Atkinson's moment of blind inaction on Saturday deserved to attract attention because of the novelty of his proposal, and also because he drew attention to a wrinkle in the system. How and when do referees get dropped from matches and dropped down the divisions?
Let's consider the relegation system Pulis was proposing, by accepting the principle for a moment and looking at the practicalities. The comparison Pulis makes is with what happens to the teams at the bottom of the Premier League and the top of the Championship: "Every club should have one vote and mark referees after every game. Then they have a chance of being relegated to the Championship... If the top three [referees] in the Championship got the opportunity to work at the top level, I think it would certainly clear a few referees' minds."
The analogy of clubs and referees falls at the first hurdle: clubs play 38 games, 19 at home and 19 away. Referees do not officiate in an equal number of matches - and no one would want them to. Those judged the best get more games and also the big games liable to be the most contentious; while those who get fewer matches could have their average badly skewed by a single game.
Clubs do get the chance to assess referees now, which Pulis seems to overlook, but as the Balotelli appeal and inevitable verdict shows clubs' views on the laws and decisions are fatally biased far worse way than those of the officials. Referees and linesmen struggle at the instant of making a decision to handle the pressure inflicted by players, crowds and big-club managers, and sometimes - too often - they fail. Yet Roberto Mancini was unable to reassess an open-and-shut case a day after the event, going ahead with a doomed appeal.
What you need is a system whereby referees are rated by clubs and also by independent assessors, and where contentious incidents are viewed by their peers and debated at meetings of the Professional Game Match Officials... which is exactly what we have at present.
No one can pretend that officials get everything right, though, and some more openness about how and when officials get "rested" for a weekend would seem in order. I imagine the system is similar to that under which players operate: one massive mistake in a single game or two or three sizeable ones must be the equivalent of a straight red card or one for two bookings; similarly, too many sizeable ones in too short a space of time would be the equivalent of the totting-up system.
My guess is that Atkinson has to watch out to avoid a totting-up punishment. It would be nice, though, not to have to imagine this, but to know it, and to have Pulis given a bit of reassurance.
Philip Cornwall