It has to be said that Steve Coppel; is an unusual Premiership manager. After the Fulham match he said that he felt sorry for Dermot Gallagher, the referee, No such feeling of sympathy from his Fulham counterpart, Chris Coleman. What they did agree about however was the harshness of the decision which sparked their comments.
Both managers admitted that Ian Pearce of Fulham had brought down Kevin Doyle in the penalty area and in a position where it was probable that he would score. Their
dispute, however, was that the referee sent off the Fulham player for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
'Poor Mr Gallagher,' said Coppel, 'had no other option but the law is definitely an ass in this situation.' Coleman was much more forthright. 'It's alright for UEFA or FIFA or whoever sets the bloody laws in the first place,' he said, ' but we've got to allow referees the chance to make a decision rather than being like robots. I wish he had been braver and not sent Ian off. It spoiled the game.'
I don't know about being braver, it would certainly have been foolhardy if the referee thought it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Referees can't pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which ones they won’t.
What Steve Coppel was saying, however, was a little different. Rather than sending a player off, he feels that when a goal-scoring opportunity has been denied by a foul then, instead of sending off the offending player, another
goal-scoring opportunity should be awarded.
This is not an entirely original thought of course. The European Elite Group of Coaches, which includes Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho, last year put forward to the International FA Board, who for Chris Coleman's benefit, is the body who 'sets' the laws, that when a
goal-scoring opportunity is denied in the penalty area, the player should not be sent off. Their reasoning was that the team offended
against was given another goal-scoring opportunity, a penalty. What the Board would have made of it I don't know, because it was withdrawn before it could be discussed.
All this bleating reminds me of the well-known biblical saying, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. It is the coaches who have created the necessity for such a law in the first place. In fact, if we look at most of the changes to the laws in recent years, they have been introduced for two main reasons. Firstly, to make the game more attractive by keeping it moving and creating the possibilities of more goal opportunities. Secondly, to counteract the negative thinking of the coaches who have sought to do just the opposite,
Coaches are under tremendous pressure. They are not judged on how well their team plays but on results, which has produced the win-at-all-costs mentality. This includes reducing the chances for opponents to score by fair means or foul.
This law is relatively new, it only came into being in 1997. Older readers will no doubt remember that in the years preceding, it was not considered unethical or unsporting to bring down any opponent who looked likely to score. Even if a penalty was given, nothing would be lost and penalties have been missed. What the International FA Board and most other people felt, was that this type of action was spoiling the game. They didn't want to see players chopping down opponents whenever they threatened their goal.
The law makers had to come up with something that would act as a deterrent and also be a punishment that would be felt more than just a free kick and a yellow card. Don't feel sorry for the referee, he is your visible sign of the law makers' determination to make the game more sporting and more entertaining.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2006