Re: Liverpool Thread
TONY BARRETT
First things first, Luis Suarez dived during Liverpool’s home game against Stoke City last weekend and it was as abhorrent as it was ridiculous. Let’s get that out of the way because no one should be under the misapprehension that what follows is in any way a defence of the Uruguayan or any of his vertically challenged colleagues in the Premier League including Gareth Bale and Ashley Young, to name but two.
The dives that Bale and Suarez committed last Sunday were not even particularly good ones. They were more Greg Louganis (fortunately there was no board to crack their heads against) than Tom Daley and the only saving grace was that the sheer awfulness of their execution ensured that no match officials were taken in by their antics.
But amidst the avalanche of moral high ground-adopting opprobrium that followed, there was something seemingly innocent that was, if not equally as sinister as outright and blatant cheating, then certainly concerning. That is the widely held idea that because Suarez and Bale dived, and had been caught out doing so, they cannot expect to get decisions when they really are fouled.
It is a "boy who cried wolf" argument and it is one that is continually put forward whenever referees get a big decision wrong involving a player with a certain reputation. Last week, Graham Poll, himself a former referee, used his weekly column in a national newspaper column to pursue that angle as he argued that Suarez could not expect to be awarded a penalty when he was brought down against Norwich City because he had previous.
“The Uruguay striker has attracted a reputation for diving, which is now resulting in him - and his club - being deprived of spot kicks,” Poll wrote. “Suarez was brought down by Norwich’s Leon Barnett as he bore down on goal.
“It was one of the easiest decisions of the season and yet Jones, a competent referee, waved appeals away. The fact that it was Suarez again can only leave the impression that it is his reputation as a player who goes down too easily that is affecting referees’ decision making.”
First and foremost, it should be noted that Poll described it as “one of the easiest decisions of the season" and that’s exactly what it was. Jones – who earlier this season had failed to spot that a header by Everton’s Victor Anichebe against Newcastle United had crossed the goalline – somehow interpreted Leon Barnett grappling with Suarez and then felling him from behind with an elbow to the shoulder as nothing more than two players coming together in the box.
Television replays were not required to reveal it to be an abysmal decision by a leading referee. This was not, as was the case in another incident involving Suarez the previous week when he got a slight touch to the ball before being tripped by Manchester United’s Johnny Evans, a difficult decision to make. It could not be justified by highlighting past indiscretions from Suarez any more than a policeman failing to recognise and deal suitably with a street assault because the victim has previous. It was rank bad refereeing, a failure to spot a very obvious offence at what was a crucial juncture in the game.
What happened during Liverpool’s goalless draw with Stoke City the week after does not change that. If Suarez was the villain against Stoke then he was the victim at Carrow Road. You can’t have a system of rules with the aim of justice if it punishes the former but fails to recognise the latter, especially if the system is governed by something as subjective and easily manipulated as reputation.
Suarez should have been booked for his dive and he should have been awarded a penalty for being fouled. It really is that simple and any attempts to justify any player not getting the decisions they deserve is a distortion of what the laws of football are supposed to stand for.
The rules of the game are supposed to apply to every player equally. Each incident in which a foul may or may not have been committed should be judged on its relative merits, not on the identity of the players involved. If we go down any other route then fair play and the integrity of the game are brought into question to a much greater extent than by a dive, no matter how unpalatable and unacceptable simulation may be.
There is even a double standard at play from those who claim it is inevitable that reputation plays a part in decision-making. “It is human nature,” argued Poll, despite the fact that when it suits them referees are quick to hide behind a self-manufactured justification that the rules of the game prevent them from showing humanity.
It is all about the laws of the game they said when a young player was booked recently for lifting his shirt over his head to display a message in support of the Hillsborough families after scoring a goal. The rules are quite clear that such gestures are not allowed and therefore the player in question had to be given a yellow card. There is no room for human nature to take over and recognise it for what it was, so the argument goes. Instead it has to be treated as an act that is in contravention to the rules and as such the perpetrator must be punished.
That’s all well and good but you can’t have referees choosing when they are “only human” and when they are not. They can’t be influenced by the rules and the rules alone when it suits them only to decide that they are, after all, a moveable feast when it does not.
Again, their ultimate responsibility is to judge any given situation according to the laws that they are charged with enforcing, any other influences are superfluous and contrary to their responsibilities.
None of which is to suggest that any referees who do fall into the trap of judging situations on reputation are in any way abnormal. It is, as Poll suggests, only human nature. But the point is that they should not be excused when they err by doing so. It is a mitigating factor, not a justification.
When the Premier League fixtures resume after the international break the strong likelihood is that at least one of the players mentioned at the very start of this blog will (if fit) be involved in another penalty controversy.
Bale, Young and Suarez all run with the ball, they all take players, they all invite challenges from opponents and they have all won penalties as a result. They have also all dived and as such have a reputation for doing so whether they like it or not. But when any of the trio does tumble – under undue and illegal pressure or not – then if the referee in question is influenced by anything other than the incident itself he will be doing his own industry and football a disservice that both could do without.
