A Taylor Report

(April 2014)

Ever keen to go against the flow – it’s been a problem for me since I was a child so blame my Mother – I’m not at all disappointed to see the debate going on over the standard of referring displayed at last weekend’s game against Liverpool at the Boleyn. Sam Allardyce and his ilk would apparently rather see us discussing the game and not the officials, but without the debate and confusion over decisions like those we saw on Sunday, what is left? Sam says he’d rather lose a game to goals scored in open play and not penalties or free kicks, but this seems to be rather an ironic  comment from a man who has become something of  a master at stopping teams from creating anything on the normal field of play.

In the asinine world of 21^st Century Premier League football, where the top five teams are virtually decided before a ball is kicked and the only ‘interest’ – and I use the term loosely – is in what order they eventually finish, the continuing arguments about what the referee and his colleagues see or don’t see is often the only talking point.

Rather than berate Anthony Taylor for his decisions we should be lauding him for keeping us all guessing as to what is likely to happen on the pitch once the whistle blows. And before the Referee’s Union gets all huffy here and starts telling us we don’t know the rules – we know we don’t know, that’s the fun in it! – I’m not here to haul Taylor over the coals, but rather sympathise with some of the issues the modern game officials face.

I mean, intentional handball in the area resulting in a penalty, is surely the most basic of rules and one that kids in the park can be seen to scream from an early age. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen as many appeals for handball as I’ve seen these past few years though. My guess on this is the newer lightweight balls causes the flight, direction and – significantly – elevation, to confuse defenders who, even with the heightened skill and senses of the modern professional,  can barely move out of the way in time. 

It seems incredible to me that a player at the top of his game would deliberately touch the ball knowing they would face Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard from 12 yards, but the slight movement of hand to ball – the deciding issue in any penalty regardless of whether it’s awarded by a referee on the pitch or via TV – seems to occur more and more. The increase in this can be marked by the frequent sight of defenders funnelling back into the area with their arms behind their back – what is that about? – surely an indication that there has been some subtle change somewhere. 

My guess – and I’ll admit it’s based on nothing at all other than what I’ve seen or experienced – is that there’s always been an instinct to move the hand or arm, after all the limb has always been used for balance and  elevation,  but the micro-seconds it takes for a top sportsman to realise that would be a mistake and move it away, has been lost by the technological advances in the ball design.

But doesn’t that then cause issues with the definition of deliberate? Had we been able to read James Tomkins’ mind in the split second before he touched the ball, would we have seen the thought bubble that said ‘I’m beaten here, I’ll just see if I can get a touch with my hand and hope the ref doesn’t spot it’. I’m guessing not. I’d be surprised if more that 5% of handball awards were actually premeditated decisions to stop the ball going where it was intended. Of course, that does produce an argument as to the fairness of most penalties anyway, but that aside, at least the following argument - namely whether or not the player should have been sent off for giving away a spot kick as last defender -  is then a non-starter for me.  

We all recognise the ‘professional foul’ – officials best of all – and only the blatantly deliberate stopping of a goal should result in a dismissal; a mistimed tackle or a handball during an attempt to tackle or clearance shouldn’t be enough.  The irony here Is that there is no more blatantly ‘professional’ way of stopping someone than by pulling the shirt – how many penalties get given a season for that though, considering how often you see it on TV highlights? If a shirt tug resulted in a penalty every time, the poor old Sam would be on heart pills.

With regard to the foul being given by an official against a player who touches the ball but ‘follows through’ to tackle an opponent, there is an urban myth attached that seems burned into the minds of many – some of those actually playing the game. Is there ever a week when we don’t see a player making that circular motion with their hands indicating that it couldn’t have been a foul as they touched the ball first? The rules of the game say nothing about this though. When  Hammers keeper Adrian  came out to stop Liverpool’s  John Flanagan’s run, he got a first touch but he didn’t significantly alter the course of the ball, clattering into the attacker on movement alone and sending him sprawling. Under current rules regarding the ‘second phase’ Referee Taylor decided the forward movement was a foul as it stopped the attacking player from staying on his feet and getting another touch of the ball, and it seems this decision has been backed by many retired officials (If only we heard from as many currents refs as we do previous ones!) .

Inevitably this does raise other questions about the rules and their interpretation: First would be was Flanagan or another Liverpool player really able to take advantage had the ‘secondary’ movement not occurred? Secondly – and for me this is really important - if the only way Adrian could have stopped conceding a penalty was to stay on his feet, allow Flanagan to get a shot in and hope to clear it, doesn’t this then effectively make football a non-contact sport? Tricky one this: on one hand the problem could be solved by making ‘first contact’ an actual rule, but what would you then do with a player getting an obvious touch first but with studs high and breaking an opponents leg on follow-through?  Frankly, I don’t see an obvious answer to this bar use of common-sense that I’m sure Anthony Taylor will almost certainly say he applied anyway.

The last talking point is surely the easiest to solve and the least contentious – unless of course you’re a FIFA official. The third referee needs to be away from the touch-line and looking at a TV. It’s true West Ham would have had the goal they did score against Liverpool ruled out but I can think of at least one occasion this season where a point would have been gained elsewhere, had this been employed. It’s a nonsense when a referee is talking to a linesman about what did or didn’t occur when the incident is being played (illegally incidentally) on a big screen behind them. 

As we saw last weekend in the Fulham match, the new goal line technology can show a ball 2 centimetres on the line so why not use that same technology to further benefit the game? Imagine  a miked-up referee explaining over the tannoy why Andy Carroll’s goal had been ruled out, then add why he decided to give a penalty later. Top entertainment! And I say this from someone who would have suffered from the decisions. Add that to the instant offside decision and you have – if you’ll excuse the term – a whole new ball-game.

If only someone had the time and money to replay every Premier league game this season with the hindsight of technology, I wonder how the league table world look? 

In a sport that has evolved to the point where contentious issues are often the only uncertainty, it would be a wonderful paradox to  actually find Anthony Taylor as some sort of championing hero.