I’ve watched thousands of football matches in my life, most of them on television, and when I think back through those matches I recall hundreds of times that a pundit said “that’s not a foul”, “that’s not a penalty”, “that’s never a red card”, or “that’s a crazy decision by the ref”. These proclamations are often followed by blaming the referee for the players acting poorly, “the ref has lost control of the game” or suggesting that the fans “should rightly feel aggrieved” by a decision. And of course, there’s the timeless classic “in my day that wasn’t even a foul” or my favorite “the game’s gone”. The latter of which is often said with a snicker as if they are joking but given the age of the pundits in question and their ties to the game of the 60s or 70s we know that they are often actually expressing a sense of grief at a loss.
And then consider the interview after the game. The so-called journalist asks the manager what he thinks of the calls in the game, often as the very first question. It’s important to remember that the coach has to repeat this interview multiple times, one for each major news outlet, and each time they ask the same leading question, attempting to get a juicy soundbite out of the coach just after the heat of battle has died down. The purpose for this is all too clear: get a controversial quote.
And on Match of the Day or an equivalent weekend breakdown TV show, middle aged men will furrow their brow and wonder how it could possibly happen that the referee would make the call the way that they did. “In my day” again will be offered here, same with “not a foul”, or “that’s a soft penalty” and “never seen that given”.
But the controversy doesn’t stop there. That week on the podcasts, the pundits again will go over the decisions that they felt were controversial. And again, we will hear “bad call”, “not for me”, “never a foul”, “how’s that not a handball”, “all we want is consistency” and so on. This is repeated on every show.
And of course, that same coach will be quizzed in their mid-week press conference. The stenographers in the press will ask them their opinion of the calls that have been so unbelievably controversial for the last week. And if the coach is smart they will say “I’m not interested in talking about that” but more and more lately the fans have been demanding that the coaches “speak out about the injustice” and so they have been falling into the trap. Which naturally births more controversy in the form of “coach K takes swipe at ref M” and the inevitable afterbirth “coach C tells coach A to stop moaning about the referees”.
And well of course what happens in the middle of all of this is fan outrage on social media, in the stands, and in real life (aka. down the pub). Supporters are rarely going to agree with a referee’s calls against their team and are usually going to agree with the referees calls for their teams so there is a natural ebb and flow to fans being upset with calls.
As someone with over 20 years experience watching football, it’s obvious that the temperature of this debate has gone up markedly in the last five years. There were of course games like Arsenal’s 50th game (against Man U) where the supporters to this day remain convinced that there was something fishy going on or the van Persie red card at Camp Nou for shooting 0.7 seconds after the whistle had been blown. But like global warming, what we are seeing now is that smaller calls result in bigger storms and the storms are happening more often, with much more ferocity.
To keep this dying show on the road, the giant compost heap of controversy never takes a break. The fans can’t seem to stop consuming controversy, shitting it back out, and feeding the machine again. And what keeps all of this going is a complete misunderstanding of the laws of the game at the level of the pundits, journalists, and others with their hand on the till.
I’ve been saying this for years and yet very few want to listen but let’s try it again: the laws of the game are subjective. What constitutes a foul – just one major example – is not black and white. You can have fouls where there is little to no contact. You can have heavy contact and not have a foul. The same goes for what’s a red card, yellow card, and so on. Even deciding something which seems more of a dualism like offside (where we now look at the toenail of a player) has some subjective elements such as whether the player was involved in the play and in what phase of play was the player involved?
And when they try to make the laws of the game more objective, which they did with handball a few years ago, the consequences are insane. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the days when a defender was punished any time the ball struck any part of their arm in any position. And so the only way to make handball sensible is to have some grey area. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but we should look at things like the distance the ball was kicked from foot to hand, or how far out the player’s arms are, or whether they are trying to balance themselves, or if the hand makes a motion toward the ball. And let’s not even consider the insanity of trying to make a foul more objective.
And guess what that means? That means that sometimes a handball that looks sort of like a handball that was given in the past won’t be given in the future. AND VICE VERSA! The sooner that we ALL come to grips with this, the better our viewing experience is going to be.
I think it’s instructive to think of things like fouls (and other subjective calls) as part of a continuum. On the one end of the spectrum you’ll have heavy tackles that you think should be called a foul but are not called; and on the other end you’ll have light tackles that you think shouldn’t be called a foul, called. The same with handball. The same with foul throws. The same with red cards, yellow cards, and so on.
That’s not to say that the officials are above criticism or that they are doing everything right. The officials absolutely do not get everything right. They should be criticized. But they should be criticized by people who understand the laws of the game and within the context of understanding the nuance that the laws are highly subjective.
Instead, what we get are pundits, journalists, columnists, bloggers, and incredibly popular podcast hosts who will readily and almost gleefully admit that they don’t understand the laws of the game. Not understanding the laws doesn’t stop them from saying that they think the referee got the call wrong. No sir! They can’t let the controversy industry stop chugging for a single minute. Not even long enough to have read the laws of the game.
For me, that’s where this all needs to start. The folks who cover football professionally should have to know the laws of the game and by and large they very clearly either don’t, or they are willfully ignoring their knowledge of the game in order to brook controversy. They should also invite paid referees on their shows, not necessarily to explain another ref’s decisions (because how could they, since, IT IS SUBJECTIVE) but to correct the media professional every time they make s stupid statement like “that’s not a foul”.
And if they don’t know the laws of the game then what are they using to make proclamations like “that’s never a foul, not for me”? It’s vibes. The vast majority of people who cover football professionally use vibes to decide whether or not something was the right call. So do fans to be fair. Though I don’t know why fans should have to read the laws of the game since they aren’t, you know, paid to be a professional football pundit.
And more often than not, these vibes that people use to decide that “this ref is shit” are vibes from last century. Graeme Le Saux and Lee Dixon aren’t bad dudes and for sure they have read the laws but how many times have we heard them say “not a foul for me, that would never have been given in my day”? And while I have heard it said a few times, it’s exceptionally rare for the co-commentator to rebuff these old men and say that the laws of the game are subjective and that the game is not at all like it was 10 years ago, much less 30 years ago. That should be happening almost every time, not rarely.
But the most recent development is for a football professional to just say “I guess I don’t understand the laws of the game”. It’s great that people admit this but it’s unacceptable to have that person giving their paid, professional, opinion on whether a referee got a call right. At the very least they should be given a course on the laws and if that still fails them, they can either be barred from making these kinds of absurd pronouncements or (better yet) replaced with younger professionals who do know the laws of the game and understand the subtle and incredibly difficult decisions that Premier League officials have to make.
Thanks for saying this again Tim. It bears repeating. It’s one of the many reasons I so wish for this generation of pundits to be retired. It should be a requirement that if you played football as far back as the 90s (conservatively. I would even say the 00’s) you don’t get to be an “expert” on today’s game. That should go for every major sport because they’ve all moved on so much from that era. Of course that’s not happening.
In the NFL, things are not much better. But when they give new blood a chance, the results are spectacular. Listen to Greg Olsen comment on a game, a player who recently retired, knows the league, knows the players, and knows the plays.
It’s a totally different game than what Troy Aikman would call. Troy hasn’t taken a snap in over 20 years, but his name recognition buys him infinite time in the booth even though he has nothing of substance to say. Where Troy would say: “That’s a nice effort by back on the pass protection there,” Olsen would say: “That’s a play they ran last quarter where they pull the right guard and the RB chips on his way out to be option #2 in the RPO. We did that one a lot against teams with a good pass rush. The defense was selling out on the run because this team runs it 80% of the time when they snap it under center. Nice play call from the OC and it got them big yards last time too.” I know which I prefer.
It’s the same in the PL. I don’t want to listen to these grouchy, out of touch old men displaying their ignorance and arrogance over 90 minutes, week after week. I want to hear people with real knowledge pop the hood on the intricacies of positioning and the subtle interplay between the tactics of each coach as well as introducing data oriented approaches. All we get now is just different versions of “they need to try harder” over and over again. Oh and the constant coaching and encouragement for the underdog, defensive team, hardly pretending to be impartial. It’s tiresome.
Totally agree. I think that the Spanish league coverage is slightly better – they at least include overlays and graphics with data and sometimes talk about the plays. We get none of that in the PL. Like you say, it’s all about “heart” and “pashun” and how hard the team ran or how much they tried. It’s all so incredibly old fashioned. And the American studios just continue this stuff. Big reason why I’ve started watching football in Italy and other places. Just a much different approach to the games.
Didn’t understand 1 iota of the NFL commentaries comparison but got the gist of it. And I agree… Lol
When I’m “forced” to find a stream to watch a game, I’ll invariably opt for a non-English version and tune out from the commentary entirely (because I obvs can’t understand it).
I’m so tired of Carragher and Neville and their “banter”. I’m not a fan of Henry’s punditry either. Owen is an egomaniac and not very smart (to put it mildly). Shearer is generally a dislikeable person. Roy Keane, although funny at times with his continuous moaning, is a self-confessed thug (with Haaland JNR the ghost of Christmas past to haunt him).
The only former player pundit that I could listen to for hours is Ian Wright. No airs and graces. Uses his position to challenge the system and support worthy causes. He might come from that older generation but he’s just an incredible human being.
Do pundits have to be former players? I’d prefer astute analysis from someone who understands the game very well but perhaps didn’t play professionally. Many of the above-mentioned might have played at the highest level and are “legends” of game but, it’s unbearable listening to them at times.
Yeah, no idea why subjectivity as a concept is so controversial. There’s no reasonable rule that isn’t subjective – we live in a probabilistic universe, not the Sims.
Bias is a different matter – it is very possible to criticize the interpretation/application of subjective rules when it consistently prejudices some people or groups. The solution isn’t to remove subjectivity (impossible), it’s to reduce bias in decision-makers (difficult but possible).
Technology does help with that, including much hated technology like VAR and DRS, but it doesn’t directly remove it. Only pressure and conscience can do that. But I don’t understand why people mock technology for not removing subjectivity – that’s not the purpose. It’s to provide evidence at a quantity and speed that is more manageable for the human mind. And “tech” is subject to its own human-created biases, but it at least provides clearer evidence of bias. Maybe that’s not good enough, but it’s not quite “VAR’s ruined everything”.
Three excellent points.
The different takes on the Newcastle and Arsenal handballs last weekend perfectly illustrate the subjectivity of the rules. Both were valid takes on a law with a lot of room for interpretation.
That said, I think VAR would be so much better applied if those subjective interpretations were spoken aloud, so people could hear them say I don’t think you should give that because (IMHO) the hand was (NUFC), or wasn’t (AFC), in an unnatural position – so we could hear what VAR was recommending and why, and why the ref was agreeing or not.
A bit like in rugby.
Instead decisions are taken, or recommended, in a silent and perplexing vacuum, which only serves to provoke and frustrate.
Great point but that would require an unpalatable level of transparency and competence on the part of the referees, from the referees perspective. A bit like body cams on police officers. It should happen but it may take time. Heck, even the NFL is avant garde enough to mic up the head ref for a brief explanation of a coach’s challenge or an overturned call… so is hockey and the NBA. It’s not like this is unprecedented.
I’ve also heard calls to make referees do a press conference after games like coaches do where they can talk about what they saw and why they made the decisions they did. I like your idea better though.
Would also stop players from abusing the refs. I remember in the past, Man U players surrounding and screaming/intimidating refs on every call. You didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to read their lips either.
I’m half and half on the idea of open mics. On the one hand I appreciate open communication and transparency. On the other hand showing the decision-making process for subjective calls could open refs up to even more vitriol and abuse.
On the other hand, it might lead to (for fans at least) MORE respect for the ref if they can justify their decision in real time, so that even if you don’t agree with the subjective interpretation you might at least understand it. Plus, I think it would make it harder to defend biased calls, out loud in front of 50,00 fans.
Regarding the vitriol and abuse, this could easily be dealt with by imposing stricter rules (or more strictly applying the existing ones). No one gets to talk to the ref except the captain, and ANY abuse is a yellow card, swiftly followed by a red. What constitutes abuse, you say? Well, that’s subjective…
Just want to comment briefly on the Liverpool game. I think this could be a sort of watershed moment for the club. The game finished 3-2 but wasn’t that close. Liverpool’s second goal came against the run of play and they never seriously threatened a 3rd.
I want to talk about our wobble moment in the second half where we sat back at 1-0 and became passive instead of proactive. It also happened against Spurs. To me this has two major components. One, the team is instructed to be a little more conservative with the lead and they let that go too far. Two, they don’t really believe how good they are. It’s this latter point I want to focus on. Against both Spurs and Liverpool, we came out and dominated the second half. It was the same players, minus the injured TAA who was a bit of a liability for them anyway. So what changed was their mentality, in both games. They came out and played their game and they rolled the opposition in both matches. It was like flipping a switch. Can we do this? Oh, I guess we can! The players had to buy into that but the coaches had to remind them in both games that if they just pay their game they will beat these guys. Both Spurs and Liverpool have gotten the better of us in recent years so there is understandably an air of psychological superiority that must be cracked. I think the squad cracked one level against Spurs, the team that denied them CL last season, and then a whole new level against Liverpool, widely acknowledged as an elite team, elf event PL and CL winners with basically this squad. We were better than them but it perhaps understandably took a while for that to sink in. That belief has to keep building and we will slowly gain the mental upper hand too. When that happens, the thrashings will start.
Also can I just say Darwin Nunez is my new least favorite footballer? The crying eyes celebration at 1-1 with 60 minutes to go from a player who just joined this league and faces us for the first time is already an all timer in the pantheon of duschbaggery.
Unbelievable that we got Jesus at almost half the price of him.
Yes to subjectivity. But I’d like the PGMO to make public some of the stuff they’d be using to educate, train or evaluate their refs. A few years ago the NBA put up some videos as examples of why a certain call is made in certain situations, and why some were reviewable and some not. If PGMO/PL could honestly do a ref review for the fans every season, explaining, and owning, their calls, it would go a long way to building trust. Of course the media will also need to stop stirring the pot. (Plus, mic up the refs.)
PS. When bt sports just launched Mark Halsey was evaluating ref decisions in real time for them (I thought he was mostly fair). the pgmo then decided to add dermot gallagher to broadcast studio panels ‘to present the pgmol’s view’
this ought to be a good thing but I don’t think they really want to educate anyone as to the laws of the game either. At least it doesn’t come across that way.
These are good points as well.