Many people will no doubt have some sympathy with Manchester City’s pocket-sized midfielder, Shaun Wright-Phillips, who received a three match ban after his skirmish with Stoke City’s Rory Delap.
In their Premier League game, Delap seemed determined to stop Wright-Phillips who was running away from him with the ball at his feet and at his second attempt brought him crashing down. Not content with this, however, he lashed out with his feet at the ball, which was lying under Wright-Phillips prone body.
The referee, Martin Atkinson, quite rightly stopped the game with the intention of sending-off Delap for his aggressive actions. As he ran towards the incident several players gathered round obscuring his view and he missed Wright-Phillips kicking out at Delap’s legs. Not having seen this retaliation, Atkinson sent off Delap but took no action against Wright-Phillips. Unfortunately for him, however, the all seeing television camera caught the whole action and Wright-Phillips was charged retrospectively with violent conduct. The video disciplinary panel gave him the same penalty as Delap despite a plea for leniency from his club, claiming that he had been provoked, as the camera also clearly showed.
Of course in local football with no television cameras, disciplinary committees only have the referees’ reports on which to make their decisions. This shows how important these reports are and, as well as just reporting the plain facts, the referee needs to justify why he took the action of sending the player off. This doesn’t mean he can make up incidents he didn’t see because the disciplinary committee are not the only people who read the report. The offending player will also be sent a copy, and if there are any discrepancies to what actually happened, he can lodge an appeal.
The irony for Wright-Phillips is that, had the referee seen his kick and not taken action, the video panel couldn’t have acted, but of course a referee cannot ignore any retaliation he sees. He might however say it was retaliation in his report, if he sees the original offence.
About five years ago at a stoppage, I turned to see one player strike another. If the player being attacked had contented himself with fending off the blows from the aggressor, I would not have taken any action against him, however he decided to fight back, kicking his assailant where it hurts most. I therefore had no alternative but to send off both players for violent conduct.
The first player argued that he had struck out after being called a name. We should never underestimate the hurt or anger names can cause. I can recall numerous occasions when players have claimed their action was in retaliation to being called an offensive name which I had not heard. In this case I mentioned in my report that name-calling was alleged. With the second player, I made it clear in my report that he was attacked first and that his actions were purely retaliatory. I don’t know how they were treated, because as referees, we are not informed of the punishment players receive.
Many incidents are the opposite of the
Delap/
Wright-Phillips encounter where the referee only saw the first
offence. Very often the referee will only see the retaliation. For various reasons he may not see the claimed original foul or hear the alleged name-calling. Referees do not have eyes in the back of their heads. In local football the referee can only report what he sees or hears himself and therefore, perhaps unjustly, it is often only the retaliator who gets punished.
I appreciate that it is easy to advise players not to retaliate, advice not always so easy to take when they have been on the receiving end of an opponent’s physical or verbal abuse, but they must realise that they are the ones who will suffer the punishment.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2009