11th November 2003: Learning from
the egg-chasers is not something I would normally advocate, but when
it comes to player control and discipline, both codes of rugby are
far in advance of football in my opinion.
I have long regarded rugby with some envy with regards to the respect
that their referees enjoy from the players. Any form of back chat
is classed as dissent and they lose ten yards and, because of that,
you never see a crowd of players around a referee complaining about
a decision. I also think it helps that the referees are miked up on
TV games which must certainly help to curb bad language - I'm sure
most rugby players are equally foul-mouthed as their footballing counterparts,
but they've learned to control it. The annoying this is that footballing
referees have the same power to move the ball ten yards forward for
dissent, but it is hardly ever used. If referees could award a free
kick ten yards closer to the goal at any sign of back chat, and they
were prepared to do so several times for the same incident if necessary,
surely it would be eradicated. I believe that rugby team captains
are allowed to question decisions in a calm manner, and I'm sure a
similar approach could work in football.
Part of the reason for this respect for referees in rugby is that
they rarely make mistakes. As in any form of life, respect has to
be earned not simply imposed through punishment. Unfortunately, football
referees have a long way to go. Having said that, rugby is a much
easier game to referee. The nature of both codes means that it is
much easier for a referee to keep up with play and rule breaches are
generally much easier to spot. I think two referees would be of use
in football - it would help to ensure that at least one referee is
close to play, and it would always give two views of an incident.
Obviously linesman (or referee's assistants) are supposed to do this,
but I think they often get unfair criticism for missing offences close
to them (and believe me, I'm guilty of dishing it out!), because their
primary function is to look for offside and you can't look in two
places at once. Unfortunately, a second referee is one of those fundamental
changes, like a 35 yard offside line or stopping the clock when the
ball is out of play, that FIFA seem unwilling to even consider, maybe
because some radical changes are not easily implemented at all levels
of the game.
But one area that could be vastly improved, certainly in England,
is the disciplinary process. I commented a few weeks ago how the Rio
Ferdinand incident should have been done and dusted within days, yet
here we are, some six weeks after the incident, without a result.
Even the FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, has criticised the FA for the
time that has been taken. (As an aside, it seems incongruous that
Rio can continue to play for Manchester United and yet remains banned
from the England squad - are the Old Trafford club more important
that England in the FA's eyes?)
It seems even more ridiculous when you consider the example from Rugby
League this weekend. In the test match against Australia on Saturday
evening, Great Britain's Adrian Morley was sent off for a dangerous
tackle. The disciplinary hearing, which included representatives from
the Australian and British rugby league authoriries, was held on Monday,
less than 48 hours after the match. Australians may argue that the
punishment was lenient, but the fact that the matter was dealt with
so swiftly is proof that, given the desire, you can resolve these
issues quickly. It took eight days for the FA to write to Rio Ferdinand
about his missed drugs test - you can argue that the seriousness of
the offence was greater, but I'm sure a rugby league player would
have been dealt with much more quickly.
FIFA need to learn from other sports in controlling the game, and
the FA, at least, need a serious review of their disciplinary procedures.
The length of time these things take serves merely to extend the time
that the story is newsworthy, giving the non-footballing public the
impression that football is in a sorry state, which it most certainly
is not.
|
