Ernie Merrick watched, face somehow greyer than normal, as Gui Finkler was kicked around all match.
Nine fouls were inflicted on the Brazilian alone before a booking was issued to Melbourne City, including a rather thuggish hack from Fernando Brandán, after which the City attacker smirked and winked at the Wellington bench, trotting away with a slap on the wrist.
The reluctance to dissuade the constant fouling on Finkler was just one of the questionable decisions made by referee Kurt Ams, an official who – until this season – hasn’t been an active A-League referee since the 2010-11 campaign.
As Melbourne City rested Bruce Kamau, Manny Muscat and Tim Cahill – all started on the bench – the true depth of their squad came into view. City-lite were, just about, the best team in the contest, although the way they drolly strolled toward the final whistle invited the sort of late equalising concession about which they have appeared unconcerned so often this season.
A number of City games have ended in an unnecessarily nervy manner; the late equaliser they conceded against the Wanderers a few weeks ago is an example of this slackness – arrogance, even – coming back to bite them.
As it happened, in this match no such equaliser occurred, and the highly questionable penalty that Ams awarded City in the second half saw them take a clear stride into second position on the table.
Cue the hysterical conspiracy theorists, barking out their anti-City narrative, accusing the league of coddling their star outfit. As much alleged evidence as these wild-eyed handwringers claim they have, this match was simply not part of it; the refereeing was generally terrible, and hurt both teams. The Phoenix were awarded a very generous penalty of their own, after Kosta Barbarouses tumbled theatrically in the box, one eye on the referee as he fell.
But when Bruno Fornaroli and Marco Rossi were engaging in some regulation handbags inside the penalty area, tussling under a floated cross, Ams again puffed the cheeks and shrilly awarded the decisive spot kick. It looked as though the levering motion that threw Fornaroli to the ground was as much instigated by his attempted bicycle kick as it was Rossi’s grappling, and both players had clenched fistfuls of opposition shirt.
There wasn’t really enough time to see whether Ams would hold similar grappling that might have subsequently occurred in the City box to the same legal standard, as the match was already in its final quarter. Needless to say, Merrick was despairing after the match:
“Bruno’s penalty claim – he’s got hold of the shirt of Marco Rossi and then he goes for an overhead kick and nearly kicks Marco in the face. He misses the ball and pulls Marco down on top of him, Marco gets a yellow card, and they get a penalty.
“I think when the video referees come in those situations will resolve themselves so much better. I can’t wait for that actually.
“We have got to have video refereeing. It’s been proven to be much more accurate in every other professional game. We need it, we need it now.”
Of course, the incident which inspired these pleas would not have been untangled and made clear by looking at it again in a replay bunker. That Ams judged Rossi’s action as an illegal one was just that; a judgement, steeped in his own personal definitions of what is and isn’t acceptable contact in a contact sport. Of course, the fact that these encounters happen throughout matches and normally go unnoticed by the officials casts the call into an illegitimate light, but no replay could feasibly overturn it. Merrick’s words were bathed in the agony of a losing manager, grasping desperately for something to cling to for comfort.
But, as useless as it would have been for the Phoenix on Sunday, video referees might have offered manna from heaven to poor Kerem Bulut two weeks ago. His extended erroneous celebration would even have given the video official a veritable eternity of thinking time. Bulut – and all the other players whose strikes have been wrongly chalked off for offside – would have been awarded the goal after a negligible pause.
As much as linesmen and women execute their trying task with near-superhuman levels of accuracy, a video camera is actually purpose-built to do their job better, seeing two actions occur, spread a great distance apart, at the same time with perfect clarity. Rarely are offsides inconclusive upon further, scrutinised review. If only to avoid soul-crushingly cringe-worthy moments like Bulut’s, this should really be thought seriously about.
The problem with video referees are that they shine no light on the rules in football in which certain, unknowable amounts of intention are involved. Handballs must be deliberate to be fouls. There is a horridly fuzzy line separating a dive, and what might generously be called evasive action.
Attempted kicks are considered as illegal as actual kicks landed on flesh and bone. No referee actually enforces the rule that advises a player that uses offensive or abusive language be sent off, and any lip-reader – professional or armchair – can attest to the sort of language players frequently spray in the referee’s direction, or each others.
What happens, pray tell, if the ground and video officials happen to disagree on what constitutes “excessive” force? This – as much as the potential for staccato disruptions of our beautiful, flowing game – is a hugely valid concern.
It would have to be a subtle creep, starting with things like offsides, for the transition to occur. Football is the world’s game, played in beautiful graphic-designed space-theatres, and ramshackle favela glory-bowls. Not all venues would be equipped to offer replay-based interventions. The sport is only now just getting to grips with goal-line technology.
It’s clear that football is hardly the bastion of enthusiastic technological reform so, as Merrick calls hoarsely for action now, perhaps he shouldn’t hold his breath.
j binnie
Guest
If we are going to change the referees interpretation of the rules what are we going to do at corner kicks when all over the penalty box there is evidence of countless fouls being committed with very few if any, penalty kicks ever being awarded. Occasionally we will see a goalkeeper being awarded a free kick when the ball is airborne,(one assumes for "interference by an opponent"), but seldom, if ever, will we see a penalty awarded for the endless jostling,manhandling, and "fouls " that are constantly taking place???? Maybe if the referee warned the players and then awarded penalty kicks at every corner kick we would get action from the all powerful men on the sidelines. Can you imagine if 6 penalities were awarded in a frantic 10 minutes???? the mind boggles. Cheers Jb
Paul
Guest
Nemesis. Please stop commenting on things like this, you don't know what FIFA discussions have taken place or what they intend with these laws therefore your opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Please eat your own dog food because that's what you tell everyone else to do!!!!
pacman
Guest
Greg wrote : "Further, there needs to be clear guidelines on player communication with referees to cut out the constant scenarios of 6 players sprinting in to confront the referee .It should be an immediate yellow card and the player given 5 seconds to leave the situation or given a further yellow and red. Whenever this happens and the players does get a yellow, they just continue the abuse and the referee is too afraid to follow through with a red." I agree 100% with your second sentence.
Nemesis
Guest
The way I've seen it during trials, a VAR sits with several screens showing different angles of the play and he's in direct communication into the ref's earpiece. So, my assumption of the way it would operate for 2(b) Ref sees a foul (e.g. 2 pen decisions during City vs Nix). He calls the foul, but asks VAR to review the decision or he goes to the sideline & reviews the decision himself. Incident occurs in the box and ref misses it. VAR tells him he's missed a clear penalty and the ref either awards the penalty, or goes to the sideline to review what the VAR says he's missed.
AZ_RBB
Guest
Ok I understand 2a But still unsure about how 2b works. When does the referee look at the video? If he misses a penalty call then obviously the game goes on. Is the game stopped when the VAR tells the referee there is something needing to be looked at? The length of time the game is stopped for is another concern. The trial will be very interesting.
Nemesis
Guest
AZ_RBB, this is my understanding based on what I've read from Fifa, what has been reported & some explanatory videos ... 2a) After a goal scored if the ref is concerned about off-side (e.g. Cahill in the FFA Cup, or Bulut goal vs Brisbane), or handball (Henry's goal vs Ireland) he will use VAR 2b) For penalties, I'd say the VAR will have huge input when ref misses a potential penalty infringement. But, here's the thing .. the ref makes the final decision. The VAR just brings the incident to the ref's attention and the ref can then review the video himself. For the instances when the ref thinks he's seen a foul in the box, he would ask the VAR to confirm (e.g. both penalties in City vs Nix). The video will be available to be observed only by the ref via tablet device on the sideline. I'm not a fan of video involvement in decisions but I'd be willing to accept this type of involvement because it doesn't appear to interrupt the flow of the game. We'll soon get a chance to see how it works in ALeague.
AZ_RBB
Guest
I understand under 2a you say the game doesn't stop. But how far back can they look to find the infringement? And what about under 2b? Does the referee stop the game and ask that it be reviewed? Or does he let the game continue while the video ref looks at it? And I imagine the video replays being look at by the officials is not broadcast at the stadium? I would like to see a stop to video replays on screens at stadiums. It's not a huge deal but it's a bit strange seeing something replayed which can't be changed. I think across most of Europe they don't show replays on screens.
Greg
Guest
No to video referees for me. Teach the players some manners and respect for referees and it will go a long way to: (a) end deliberate attempts to deceive the referee (this is not diving, nor is it specific to Football. In every sport the players use tactics to deceive the referee and it is bloody annoying). (b) understanding that referees will make mistakes and you can't go up to their face and abuse them because of a simple human error. The problem is the FFA fine coaches for criticising incorrect decisions. But it means nothing. All the coaches know the rules of the game, the "punishment" should be x hours of refereeing/linesman at local suburban grounds. There is always a shortage so let them see what it is like to cop a spray for getting a 50/50 offside call wrong. Further, there needs to be clear guidelines on player communication with referees to cut out the constant scenarios of 6 players sprinting in to confront the referee. It should be an immediate yellow card and the player given 5 seconds to leave the situation or given a further yellow and red. Whenever this happens and the players does get a yellow, they just continue the abuse and the referee is too afraid to follow through with a red. It would be a drastic change in the game, but one that FFA should be radical on and make a statement.
Nemesis
Guest
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the Video Assistant Referees (VAR) that Fifa will be trialing in various leagues, including the ALeague later this season. This is what FIFA has told us: 1) VAR does not take the place of the ref, nor over-turn any ref decision. The ref is always in charge & makes the final decision to accept or reject the VAR. 2) VAR can only be used for 4 specific match situations: a) review after ball has crossed the goal line to determine if there was any offside, or infringement. The ball has crossed the line & play has stopped so there is no impact on flow of the game b) penalty decisions - to ensure no clearly wrong decision is made to award/not award c) red cards - to ensure no clearly wrong decision is made d) mistaken identity - to ensure no wrong decision is made How does it work? 3 Steps Step 1: The Ref informs VAR (or VAR informs ref) that decision/incident should be reviewed Step 2: Video footage reviewed by VAR who advises ref Step 3: Ref can either review the video himself at the side of the pitch; OR accept info from VAR Source: http://quality.fifa.com/en/VAR/