MLS > UEFA Champions League (in Referee Reviews at Least)
By: Daryl | May 7th, 2009
My favourite thing about Major League Soccer is that they do things differently. Some of it is frustrating (no promotion/relegation, trades instead of transfers, the draft system) and some of it is just plain wrong (the self-inflicted Beckham-mania). But sometimes MLS gets it right.
The free for everyone MLS YouTube channel is often cited as a good example. And it is. But after two Champions League semis with controversial refereeing decisions (Darren Fletcher and Eric Abidal’s red cards, Tom Henning Øvrebø denying Chelsea’s multiple penalty appeals) it’s also worth pointing to how MLS and US Soccer treat their referees.
Every week, USSoccer.com publishes a Referees Week in Review, where U.S. Soccer Director of Referee Development Paul Tamberino and U.S. Soccer Manager of Assessment and Training Brian Hall give feedback on recent MLS refereeing decisions.
Using video clips and explanations of what happened, the Review does the exact opposite of what happens everywhere else, and makes the refereeing review process somewhat public.
“It’s always been this smoke-and-mirrors thing when it comes to officials,” Paul Tamberino told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “It’s like, ‘We’re not going to tell you what the call is. It’s secret.’ It was always an us-against-the-world mentality. I think that’s the way it is in most sports.
“But that’s not how it should be. It’s best to be honest and up front.”
Which brings us back to Tom Henning Øvrebø, the Norwegian ref who’s currently public enemy#1 in the English press, for daring to be in charge of a Champions League game that a Premier League team didn’t win. Yes, he had a bad game. But not enough to warrant the frenzied media reaction and the (strangely predictable) death threats.
I’d argue that part (not all, but part) of the anger directed at high profile referees like Øvrebø is that the public is given more or less zero feedback from governing bodies like UEFA. If UEFA put out a “Referees Week in Review”, they’d at least have the opportunity to either publicly defend some of Øvrebø’s decisions or publicly censure his performance.
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: Champions League
Tags: Barcelona, Champions League, Chelsea, referee, Referees, Tom Henning Øvrebø, World Football, World SoccerSubscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
“It was always an us-against-the-world mentality.”
What should be expected when there’s threats on someones life? I’m all for referee explanations and understanding. However if refs are continued to be not just hated but threatened, then you don’t deserve referees that walk out on the field for the job. Then you can try to have the game without a referee, and maybe people would stop violently fouling and diving all over the place.
Posted from
United States
-
I disagree Daryl.
MLS is not treated as the life and death that the European football games are treated as. Making this public will just end up angering the fans even more and probably on result in a higher death threat count.
Basically, the emotions in MLS arent running as high so those reports can be looked at relatively objectively. Can we expect the same in Europe? And lets be honest, the media only makes it worse by almost encouraging this behavior. The other problem is that if they start making these public and every ref is bound to have a bad game or two, whenever, if ever a ref has a bad game, the media and the fans want him banished from the game forever. The pressure to get rid of a ref after one bad game would leave us with no refs at all. It really is the equivalent of selling a player if they had one bad game.
Posted from
United States -
Funny, I didn’t know this was going up and just published a post on the downside of this — the fact that the players know exactly what the refs have been told to focus on and are “embellishing” accordingly.
Posted from
United States -
Hasn’t this always been MLS’ mantra though?
The, “Yeah, the [fill in instance: trades, Galaxy favoring, pay structure] doesn’t make any sense but at least we admit it!”
Posted from
United States -
Why don’t we have replays for refs like in other sports? It’s a win-win situation really. Refs don’t get harassed for getting it wrong and fans don’t have to put up with crap decisions if there is video evidence.
Posted from
United States -
Part of the problem is that UEFA views the referee’s decision as “sacrosanct”. But they are human and they make mistakes. Now 2 players are going to sit out of the final for red cards they didn’t deserve. At least within the English FA they allow these to be reviewed after the fact. But UEFA won’t do that. They believe their refs can’t make mistakes. As a result, people get more upset when they do make mistakes.
Posted from
United States -
@ Weston: I for one hope never to subject the game of soccer to horrifyingly boring instant replays.
@ Yulles: It’s not that UEFA believes that their referees are always right. It’s that they are traditionalist. They want to leave everything on the field and move on, not harp on about this and that call constantly.Posted from
United States -
Spot-on, Daryl. It’s transparency we need.
Øvrebø had a poor match, but not that bad. I think a favoritism for Barça was in the general air all over the world — principally due to Chelsea’s approch to the 1st Leg (and it registered in our LiveBlog coverage).
Mr Ø probably had the feeling clanking about in his subconscious and was loath to give Chelsea a significant decision.
I felt the worsed decisions were the Pique handball, which was clearly a loss of an earned-advantage by Chelsea despite being ball-to-hand. A penalty, if seen. The other was the Abidal sending-off. Pure simulation by Anelka.
The point I haven’t seen made which favors Mr Ø is that by diving all over Christendom, Drogba & Anelka make a technically difficult job by the Referee EVEN MORE DIFFICULT. The cannot be trusted **NOT** to simulate and so a refs bias to only award CLEAR DISADVANTAGE TO THEMSELVES is assured & reinforced.
Drogba’s character has boomeranged upon him and I am glad to see Chelsea’s murmerings without hesitation that he’s going on the trading block (though I wonder if their firm price doesn’t refelect a lack a bit of sincerety … sort of takes QPR & Sheffield United out of the running). It’s good for Chelsea to cut right to the chase and move on to next year.
Moreover, roll tape: I feel Lampard was disgusted by his colleagues performances and will agree that the disadvantage to Chelsea was self-inflicted.
Posted from
United States -
Pleeeease don’t add video replay. Once you go down that path eventually it’ll just be the NFL and it’ll take four hours to complete a 90 minute game. I love soccer in part because it keeps going. Because throw ins are so casual, indirect free kicks too to an extent.
The only league where I think video replay is fine is the NHL. They only use it on goals, everything else is as the ref saw it. I think that is fine but still sometimes play stops for 10 minutes to figure out if the puck crossed the line.
I also didn’t think it was a terribly reffed match. Was it sloppy? Yes. But what can we expect. When fouls are being thrown around so rapidly you’ve got a greater chance of getting at least one or two were wrong but I tend to give the ref a break. They really do have a ridiculous job. Those that really try to play it fair and by the book but with sensitivity to the situation are doing it right but sometimes the game can slip and emotions make things more complicated.
Posted from
United States -
“The other was the Abidal sending-off. Pure simulation by Anelka.”
I really don’t think so. Abidal ran over the back of Anelka’s legs, in full stride just a nick cause his other leg to bump into itself. Abidal admitted that he fouled him, and Anelka was on his way to goal hence the red card.
Posted from
United States
Comments are closed
Home 
