I remember a famous
politician once saying, T know our policies are right but we
should explain them better. I thought the same over Mark
Halsey's decision to change his mind in the Fulham v Arsenal
game, a couple of weekends ago.
In case you
didn't see it, the incident featured the two Coles; Andy
playing for Fulham and Ashley, Arsenal's international full
back. Andy Cole was heading towards the Arsenal goal when
Ashley stuck out a foot and the Fulham player tumbled in the
penalty area. Halsey blew his whistle for a penalty, but
instead of pointing to the spot and running over to the goal
line as most referees do to get away from protesting players,
he held his ground and seemed to be wavering. Finally, after
much protestation from players he went over to his assistant
referee who told him that Ashley Cole had played the ball. He
then rescinded the penalty decision and restarted the game
with a drop ball.
Everything he did was
correct within the law and I believe something for which he
should be commended and not ridiculed as he was by the press
and television pundits.
As far as the tackle
is concerned, the law is quite clear. 'A direct free kick or
penalty shall be awarded if a player tackles an opponent to
gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent
before touching the ball. The television replay shows quite
conclusively that the assistant referee was right; Ashley Cole
toe-ended the ball before Andy fell over his outstretched leg.
No foul
Chris Coleman the
understandably embittered Fulham Manager, said after the game
'Your can't give a penalty and then take it away for no
apparent reason'. But what Mark Halsey did was quite within
his powers. The law says 'A referee may change a decision on
realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of an
assistant referee, providing he has not restarted play'.
What excited the media
and the pundits, however, was the reason he gave for
consulting his assistant. 'The reaction of players on both
sides' he said, 'put a little doubt in my mind'. Many have
suggested that this remark has given the red light to players
to try and bully referees to get them to change their mind. As
if they don't already.
Unfortunately, of
course, you can seldom rely on player's reactions. Players
protest for many reasons even when they know they are in the
wrong. I remember once disallowing a goal, because I had seen
the scorer deliberately control the ball with his hands,
something not evident to other people at the ground. He chased
after me with his arms raised in protest. I said to him, 'I
know you handled it, you know you handled it, so it's no
goal'. He replied 'Well it was worth a try'.
The problem was of
course that the spectators had taken the players protestations
at face value and gave me stick when I left the field at the
end of the game. I think it worth noting that Mark Halsey
didn't actually say it was the player's protests that made him
think again, it was their initial reactions. There is no
referee who at some time, after making a decision has not
thought 'did I get that right?'
Usually there is no
way of knowing and the decision has to stand. However, Mark
Halsey was lucky that his assistant had a perfect view. It is
players' behaviour, their body language to a decision, rather
than their protests that make you wonder if you got it wrong.
That's what happened to Mark Halsey. He is one of the most
honest Premiership referees I have met, and everything he said
and did was right but no doubt he now wishes he had explained
himself a little better.
Dick
Sawdon Smith