I suppose referees have always
felt a certain antagonism towards televised football, ever
since the introduction of the instant replay, but it's not
often they get the opportunity to quiz a leading sports
television presenter. However, Reading referees spent an
enjoyable hour last week, in the company of ITVs Jim
Rosenthal.
Rosenthal is best known these
days as the television face of Formula One motor racing, and
heading ITVs team for the rugby world cup final in Australia,
but as he explained, ever since his days as a cub reporter on
the Oxford Mail, he has covered a great number of sports
including his first love, football.
When presented with a chance
like this, the referees didn't fail to challenge the unfair
coverage given by television to referees and their decisions.
The constant reviews and playbacks to prove that the referee
was wrong, supported with comments made by commentators
unqualified in the laws of the game.
Jim Rosenthal thought that more
often than not, they proved the referee had been correct but
in any case he didn't see it was a bad thing. People in high
profile situations must expect their actions to be
scrutinised.
For instance,' he asked, 'how
many times will Kanu's miss from a yard out, be shown?' My
argument with ITV as I pointed out, is a little different.
Last year when the goal by van Nistelrooy against Southampton
was shown on their Premierships programme, I was disappointed
with their negative coverage, especially on their Monday night
edition. I wrote at the time suggesting that they could have
done a service to the game, by explaining how the offside law
works. They returned to the subject the following Monday but
only for their pundits to read out the various clauses of the
offside law in mocking tones, no attempt at an
explanation.
'Ah well,' said Jim Rosenthal,
'the offside law is hard'. It took me back to Euro 2004 when
Thierry Henry, playing for France, ran back from an offside
position to collect the ball and was given offside. 'I thought
that was allowed under the new rules.' said the television
commentator. It made me wonder at that time, whether
television commentators can't understand the offside law, or
if they don't want to try, because they believe it's too
hard.
I related to Jim Rosenthal,
that the week before, I had conducted a training session for a
class of intending referees, many of them aged between
fourteen and eighteen. After explaining the offside law, I
showed them some videos of actual matches and asked for their
reaction.
One incident was very similar
to the Henry situation. Everyone gave offside. They knew that
what counts in law, is where the player is when the ball is
played, not where he is when he receives it. I wish I had a
pound for every time I have heard a player, manager, or
spectator, shout 'how can that be offside?' when a player has
come back into an onside position after the ball has been
played. I could be spending this winter in the Bahamas.
The final clip I showed was the
van Nistelrooy incident. Not offside they all said, although
like Henry, van Nistelrooy came back into an onside position
after the ball had been kicked. They knew this was because a
player in an offside position, will only be penalised, if he
interferes with play, or an opponent, or gains an advantage as
a result of the pass. Clearly, van Nistelrooy never received
the ball from the kick and it was only after three other
players had touched it that he scored.
As I said to Jim Rosenthal, if
fourteen year olds can understand the offside law after just
one training session, surely it is not too hard for television
commentators. Is it?