Are officials simply incompetent or something worse?

The FA Statement is simple but brushes everything under the carpet but the damage has been done.

"Danny Rose's one-match suspension has been withdrawn with immediate effect after the Tottenham player's wrongful dismissal claim was upheld by an Independent Regulatory Commission."

That FA statement hides a wider concern, do officials decide the outcome of games? Now Spurs may well have lost to Man City with 11 men but the point is they were not given the chance. The match was taken out of their hands and that simply raises the question of by accident or by design.

I appreciate that is a bold question and raises impartiality issues but quite frankly with some decisions that are given it's a justifiable question, especially with betting rings in sport. A sending off for instance is worth a certain number of points and you can bet above or below a predetermined points level in a game.

Spurs went 1-0 down and scored a perfectly good goal with Michael Dawson clearly having 4 players plus the goalkeeper between him and the goal. A player under today's complicated rules is not offside until he touches the ball and Adebayor, who was marginally offside, didn't so can't therefore be deemed offside.

The linesman who should be in line with the last defender can see with the ball on the far side where everyone is when it is kicked. In this case Dawson wasn't even close to being offside and at no point during the play did he remotely look offside or even close to offside, so why did the official give it?

Does he actually know the rules, is he incompetent or something worse? Is his eyesight really that bad?

At 1-1 the game is a different game but that is denied to us. Then the same official compounds his error by deciding the outcome of the game once and for all.

He makes another, at best, incompetent decision that brings into question his ability and suitability to continue at Premier League level, when he awards Man City a penalty for a perfect challenge.

The linesman remember had a perfect unobstructed view. The ball was not masked by layers, it was in clear sight to him. For him not to have seen Danny Rose play the ball from what 20 yards away means he shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, with defective eyesight he is a danger to other road users.

It looked at the time as if Dzeko dived with no contact and replays showed that to be the case. Again the incompetent official has had a clear view of this. However he decides what the outcome of the game should be there and then.

Danny Rose gets sent off for a perfect tackle, Spurs have 10 men and Man City go 2-0 up, game over.

Now that official has not only cost potentially 3 points but has affected our goal difference to. The FA in deciding to overturn the red card have shown that Rose did not commit a foul so why has Edin Dzeko not been awarded a yellow card for simulation?

What happens to the 4 goals the official has 'given' Man City, 5 if you count not giving the Dawson goal.

One man on the sideline has decided the outcome of the game, not the players on the pitch. How now do you rectify the wrong he has done, how do you repair the damage. The current system simply brushes it under the carpet, laughs it off.

We have goal line technology, we have goal line officials in Europe, not that they actually make ant decisions and do anything and we have cameras at every game. This is a major incident that turns a game, should it not be in the games best interests to get it right. The game has stopped the ball is out of play.

In rugby the ref would ask for a video replay and the 4th official to review it, which they do on the big screen so everyone can see. In cricket they do it when the captain can appeal 1 or 2 decisions depending upon the game. The umpire calls for a review and he can call for one for any other decision he chooses, the 4th official looks at it again on the big screen so everyone can see.

It adds to the drama and it gets the decision right. Why when the game has stopped, can the same not happen in football. Cricket and rugby have embraced the fact that sometimes the official gets it wrong yet football authorities don't want anything that would show an official to be wrong.

Just imagine if Spurs were to lose out on Champions League football by a goal difference of 2. That official would effectively be responsible for the immediate future of the club, for millions in revenue, for the ability to attract better players, the downside of getting these decision wrong is enormous.

Apart from the unforgettable Pedro Mendes goal at Old Trafford from which the only conclusion you can draw from the evidence was blatant cheating, Newcastle Chelsea springs to mind a couple of years ago. A Newcastle player through with no one apart from David Luiz within 5.6.7 yards of him and Luiz simply takes him out from behind without getting anywhere near the ball. The ref awards a free kick and incredibly David Luiz remains on the field. The guy was about to enter the penalty area 2 yards off centre with only the keeper to beat.

That can not simply be classed as incompetence, the ref must know the rules so why did he decide Chelsea should not be penalised then? Why were they allowed to pick up a point I think it was when losing at the time they would probably have finished with none.

Decisions like those two are entirely unacceptable, they cost points which have an effect on finishing positions at the end of the season. More points eases the pressure on you and puts it on others, less points puts it on you and eases it on others. The effects are multiplied.

If Spurs have been penalised 5 goals, as they in effect have, should they no therefore be given a 5 goal start next time they play Manchester City?

Subscribe to THBN

0 Response to "Are officials simply incompetent or something worse?"

Post a Comment