Thought this might be of wider interest. This was from a game I was at on Sunday, and it's worth knowing the context:
The big Prague derby. Slavia, newly resurgent, powered by shadowy Chinese money, need to win to regain the top spot from Viktoria Plzen. Sparta, in 3rd place are a long way behind and weakened by injury. Full house, plenty of fan atmosphere (continental style). Football dull as dishwater, but I told my buddy Vincent (a Spartan) at half time that I thought Sparta could sneak something here. Sure enough on 81 mins after another driving run through the heart of Slavia's defence by Sparta's 18 year old central midfielder Michal Sacek (I predict you will hear more of him), they took the lead in front of their ecstatic Ultras (or knobheads, as I would prefer to call them) Slavia had hardly managed a shot on goal, so I thought Sparta had it in the bag. And then in injury time (and there is less of that out here), this happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdXf85XQIckWe were at the opposite end of the stadium so to us it sort of looked like a penalty. But clearly on video that isn't the case, and the ref should not have fallen for it.
But yesterday, I was pretty startled to hear that the Czech Football Asssociation had decreed that this -and just this - was a mistake which warranted the ref getting a 3 match suspension!!!
A further context is that there is widespread talk of bribed referees in the Czech game, although I think only two proven cases. What are the Czech FA saying here? He made a mistake. Yes, it was a key game, a decision which may change the course of the title. And it was on live TV. (albeit on cable with a pitiful live audience). A mistake is a mistake, isn't it? Or if they suspect it was a "deliberate" mistake, they bloody well need to have the evidence.
My conclusion? Video playback for the 4th official needed. Of course. How many more times before they get it?
Comments
The interesting part for me was the intense atmosphere (from the video clip) and almost threatening. Is that the general case Prague?
Edit : now fixed.
@PeterGage
Re the crowd, I would say it is superficially threatening, because somehow the flares and detonators get past the security, (as did our chopsticks) but it is mainly posturing. In fact where we were, the equivalent of the East Stand, there were plenty of "normal" fans in Sparta colours mixing with the home fans on the concourse before the game and nobody had any problem, certainly not the security. When Sparta took the lead a lot of them around us didn't hide their jubilation either, and one of them got hit by a well-aimed hot-dog, but he deserved it. I thought at first he had blood on his neck, but it was ketchup :-)
Having viewed it, I see the Slavia player as running into the defender after pushing the ball too far forward, and to the left. I don't see the defender doing more than standing his ground.
So if a majority think thats a foul, it makes the Czech FA decision even worse.
My issue with this sort of foul is that even if the defender is at fault, it's obstruction and an indirect free kick. When was the last time any of you saw an indirect free-kick for obstruction given in the prem? I had to double check the rule still existed because premiership referees always give a penalty for clear cases of obstruction.
But seriously,in fact I think you will find this sort of thing all across Europe, and as a Brit I am not much impressed by it as a way of supporting the team.
When the Slavia fans hold up their display of "Spolu" (together), this was actually organised by the Club. On 13 minutes the match day announcer told them to get ready for the display on exactly 15 minutes, for one minute, and the message was put on the big screen. So on 15 minutes they did as they were told. And I so wanted Sparta to score while that display was up. Because how does this display encourage the team, or have anything to do with what is actually happening on the pitch? I have the same problem with the organised chanting by the 'leader' with the loudspeaker. Yes they keep up a constant barrage of chanting, but they don't spontaneously engage with events on the pitch. And yes they become part of the spectacle and add colour, but this only works in the biggest games. The average Czech game is quarter full and the crowd generally just sit around making good cynical jokes while a few kids practice at being 'ultras'. The Sparta fans are knobheads because they let off flares and detonators even when their team is doing OK, and at one point we were all coughing and spluttering because of the smoke, so how does that help their team, which was attacking that end? And as for setting fire to a few sundry seats..pathetic. Viktoria's fans don't do that when they go away, another reason why I like them.
- If it's a dive, then the person being banned should be the player, not the ref.
- Peter, as a qualified ref, your point of view is interesting. You say ..."giving the forward a golden opportunity to fall over said leg. A penalty for me". This almost suggests that as a ref you would have known that there was no intent (on the basis the forward "fell over"), but you would still have a awarded a penalty?
"It is all about discipline, dedication and desire," Mills told BBC Radio 5 live's Monday Night Club.
"It appears Luke Shaw isn't giving it his all. He has all the ability in the world but it all comes down to attitude.
"Even if he has been injured, there is no excuse not to keep the weight off or to be as fit as you possibly can be and look like you are making the biggest effort ever. It is your job.
"There is no excuse whatsoever."
---
Incidentally, blatant dive. As in many of those incidents, the player is throwing himself down histrionically before there is any contact.
Had the defender not made a positive move (ie hung out his leg), then the attacker could be seen as running into a static defender and no penalty would have been awarded.....just my personal view
*much like the rule, which was very clear at the time, that players couldn't be treated on the pitch, that they'd have to leave the pitch to get treatment, thus no holding up the game. It was continually and consistently mis-applied by official to the point where the rule was rewritten to match the farcical reality whereby the time is still wasted with on-pitch treatment, and then the player is forced to leave the pitch for no reason other than to unfairly penalise the injured player's team.
**it is often, as in this case, the attacker body checking the defender, yet still managing to win a free-kick somehow.
I don't see any problem with the obstruction rule as it was, other than attackers have got too good at manufacturing contact and fooling officials to the point where they didn't feel they could accurately enforce the existing law.
The law was changed last season so that an injured player can be treated on the field of play (if the damage to the injured player is not deemed serious so delaying the restart of the game), but only if the referee cautions or sends off the opposing player who committed the foul. The logic being why should the "aggrieved" team be penalised by only having 10 players on the field of play, when the opponent has committed a serious foul (by virtue of a yellow/red card awarded). Seems logical and fair to me