So who was paying attention? Not the man that should have been, that's for sure. On Sunday afternoon, Manchester United won a corner against Chelsea. Wayne Rooney placed the ball and then sneakily passed it ever so slightly out of the 'D'. The ball was live, so Ryan Giggs collected the ball, ran towards goal, and set up a perfectly good goal for Cristiano Ronaldo.
Cue wild celebrations at Old Trafford. Celebrations that lasted five seconds. This is because the assistant referee, Darren Cann, disallowed the goal. In doing so, he either bottled a big decision or admitted that he missed Rooney's 'pass' to Giggs.
Luckily enough, Nemanja Vidic lost his marker and headed home the retaken corner after Dimitar Berbatov's flick-on. Justice was served. But the original goal should have stood. Ronaldo was denied his first ever Premier League goal against Chelsea. Cann disallowed the goal because Rooney did not notify him of his intentions. I've checked the laws of the game and cannot see anything to support this explanation. He should have been paying more attention. Perhaps Cann may have had an argument for ungentlemanly conduct, but that wasn't his explanation.
It is not as if Rooney had come up with the most innovative idea to greet football in years. I've played in teams that have employed the tactic. Tony Cascarino revealed in today's Times that Gillingham used to try it frequently in the 1980s. Admittedly, I can't remember seeing it recently, but I am sure I have seen it in the Premiership before. So what is Cann's excuse?
Despite being angry at the disallowed goal and relieved at the subsequent justice, I don't like the sneakiness of the tactic. Taking free-kicks quickly elsewhere on the park keeps the game flowing. But in the final third, the game is inevitably stopped for the attacking team's defenders to come up and the defending team to set themselves. Breaching this convention is the equivalent of bowling at a batsmen who is adjusting his helmet, serving a tennis ball while the receiver is toweling down or forcing a quick scrum against an incomplete pack. It is just not fair.
It is akin to a similar issue that the Premier League saw a few years back. When taking a direct free-kick, the attacking team would slyly ask the referee if they could take it before passing the ball into the net. The goalkeeper would usually still be hugging his post to set his wall as the ball hit the back of the net. How players could celebrate such a goal was beyond me. I remember Thierry Henry smugly sauntering off after scoring against Chelsea in just this manner.
Perhaps Rooney's corner trick will get the same treatment as these free-kicks. Now, whenever a free-kick is awarded within shooting distance, defenders pretend to blow imaginery whistles. It is a sight that we take for granted in the modern game: grown men pretending to blow whistles. But it works. Because the referee then tells the free-kick taker that he can only take the kick upon his puff.
Don't be surprised if defenders start blowing imaginery whistles for corners in the future. I for one think this will be a good thing. Even if they do look a little silly.
KFF thanks Lewis for requesting an opinion on this topic. If you have a suggestion for a blog, please email me using the links on the sidebar. Alternatively, you can leave a comment.
Cue wild celebrations at Old Trafford. Celebrations that lasted five seconds. This is because the assistant referee, Darren Cann, disallowed the goal. In doing so, he either bottled a big decision or admitted that he missed Rooney's 'pass' to Giggs.
Luckily enough, Nemanja Vidic lost his marker and headed home the retaken corner after Dimitar Berbatov's flick-on. Justice was served. But the original goal should have stood. Ronaldo was denied his first ever Premier League goal against Chelsea. Cann disallowed the goal because Rooney did not notify him of his intentions. I've checked the laws of the game and cannot see anything to support this explanation. He should have been paying more attention. Perhaps Cann may have had an argument for ungentlemanly conduct, but that wasn't his explanation.
It is not as if Rooney had come up with the most innovative idea to greet football in years. I've played in teams that have employed the tactic. Tony Cascarino revealed in today's Times that Gillingham used to try it frequently in the 1980s. Admittedly, I can't remember seeing it recently, but I am sure I have seen it in the Premiership before. So what is Cann's excuse?
Despite being angry at the disallowed goal and relieved at the subsequent justice, I don't like the sneakiness of the tactic. Taking free-kicks quickly elsewhere on the park keeps the game flowing. But in the final third, the game is inevitably stopped for the attacking team's defenders to come up and the defending team to set themselves. Breaching this convention is the equivalent of bowling at a batsmen who is adjusting his helmet, serving a tennis ball while the receiver is toweling down or forcing a quick scrum against an incomplete pack. It is just not fair.
It is akin to a similar issue that the Premier League saw a few years back. When taking a direct free-kick, the attacking team would slyly ask the referee if they could take it before passing the ball into the net. The goalkeeper would usually still be hugging his post to set his wall as the ball hit the back of the net. How players could celebrate such a goal was beyond me. I remember Thierry Henry smugly sauntering off after scoring against Chelsea in just this manner.
Perhaps Rooney's corner trick will get the same treatment as these free-kicks. Now, whenever a free-kick is awarded within shooting distance, defenders pretend to blow imaginery whistles. It is a sight that we take for granted in the modern game: grown men pretending to blow whistles. But it works. Because the referee then tells the free-kick taker that he can only take the kick upon his puff.
Don't be surprised if defenders start blowing imaginery whistles for corners in the future. I for one think this will be a good thing. Even if they do look a little silly.
KFF thanks Lewis for requesting an opinion on this topic. If you have a suggestion for a blog, please email me using the links on the sidebar. Alternatively, you can leave a comment.
When you are defending, look alive! If you switch off, whether its a set piece or during open play, you run the risk of conceding. End of.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you concede set pieces surely you should take whatever punishment comes your way and conceding goals from them is quite simply criminal.
Realistically, what advantage is there to an attacking team who breaks only to find their attack broken down by a foul?
Sure. They get a free kick. These days though by the time they get to take it, the 4 on 2 they were looking to exploit has become 10 men behind the ball marking space, men or both. Is that easy score past? I get the feeling thats generally the idea....... We've all heard of the "cynical" foul. A trip on the half way to halt a break or a foot left out as the winger skips past, and yes, these players run the risk of a booking (or worse), but what really hurts them? GOALS.
The majority of goals are scored within 30 secs of teams regaining possession (there are many stats to back this up) but the simple reason being that teams these days are highly organised. Their transition from their attacking shape to their defensive shape is rapid and once a team gets 2 banks of 4 (or in some cases a 4 and a 5) they are usually very difficult to break down. (Just ask any Arsenal fan!) This, I would suggest, is the reason that a referee playing the "advantage" is imperative to the modern game.
In summary, as the game evolves, rightly or worngly, the quick free kick is becoming a thing of the past but it is being replaced by the advantage rule. However, when the ref does decide he needs to blow his whistle, does it have to mean "advantage defence" instead?
Hi Cahill,
ReplyDeleteWhile I fully agree with many of your points (particularly the fact that referee advantage will replace the quick free-kick), I will focus on your last questions as I think this is what you were driving at.
When the ref blows his whistle, does it mean "advantage defence"? Hmmm. Well, it is fully engrained into happening for free-kicks in the final third now. And I think that is right. Holding up the free-kick may be frustrating when the situation had been two on two, but what if the free-kick was a tug of the shirt by a midfielder when the back four were all in position? A silly free-kick to concede, but if you let the attackers take it quickly and score in an empty goal, are you over punishing the defence? It is impossible to give refs the ability to distinguish as the boundaries blur.
Best to have the current situation and punish the defence with yellow or red cards if the foul does break up a great opportunity (or is overtly cynical.)
With regard to the corner situation, I stand by my suggestion. Corners are often the result of great tackles, blocks or saves that arguably deserve the chance to reset the defence. I have no bones with taking a corner quickly though, just not slyly.