The Malaysian Insider

NOV 18 — For Liverpool, perhaps the most significant loss against Birmingham was not the two points, but the moral high ground.

Some might argue that another two points will hardly matter now that they are so far behind the title race anyway — or indeed, the race for a Champions' League spot — but all in all, Liverpool has always prided itself on fair play, and its fans have long scorned the likes of those who go rather quickly to the ground such as Didier Drogba and Cristiano Ronaldo and well, Arsenal's rather impressive red card record under Arsene Wenger (around 80 since he took over).

But the sight of David Ngog lashing in a magnificent left-footed volley, starting in the place of injured superstar Fernando Torres, was soured for Liverpool fans not just by the disappointing 2-2 result at the end of the night, but realising after watching replays, that he had gone down without any contact to win the equalising penalty.

Now, putting aside what might or should have been in a game where Liverpool had dominated from start to finish, a penalty is a penalty. It is 90 per cent of the way to a goal and Birmingham players were understandably aggrieved.

However, there is an interesting question here as to whether contact is necessary for punishment to be meted out. A player comes in for a challenge and you leap out of the way to avoid it. There is no contact, so there is no foul?

There have been many times where a foul has been blown for in those circumstances. Indeed, an infamous incident was when a prone Patrick Vieira had kicked out in the general direction of Ruud van Nistelrooy in an Arsenal vs Manchester United game and the latter reacted with such a look of surprise on his face that the referee sent Vieira off. Ensuing scenes at the end of the game after van Nistelrooy had missed a penalty showed how much Arsenal players believed that karma had swung quickly around on the Dutch striker.

Similarly, defenders, under pressure from strikers and desperate to clear the ball, tend to simply bump backwards into the striker and then fall as if they've been pushed. Result? Freekick to the defender, of course.

But perhaps in these cases, they are incidences outside of the penalty box, and so, cause less of a furore. But the rules of the game do not make a distinction as to when a foul is not a foul simply because of the real estate it occurs in.

As for Ngog, the wisest thing he could have done, since he had enough awareness of the incoming tackle to fall "over" it, was to have drawn some contact by leaving his standing foot in the path of Lee Carsley's, frankly, badly timed sliding tackle. Tough luck for the boy, he'll now have to live with the tag of a "cheater" for some time.

Speaking of Carsley, he was one to mouth off, calling the incident "an embarrassing case of cheating." If indeed the tackle had caught Ngog, it would have been a rather bad sight and certainly have resulted in a yellow card as well. Spending his time working on his tackling might be more productive.

My real point here is not to question simply the validity of penalties in such circumstances, but the spirit of the rules of the game in recent times. It really seems as if this drive towards some kind of idea of "fair play" and "respect" — especially towards referees, who, I have outlined before, have not really done enough to earn it — has left the basic principles of the laws of the game forgotten — to punish foul play, i.e., to remedy situations where a team is unfairly disadvantaged.

Compare the case of Ngog, with other penalty claims where contact has been made, for example, in last season's Man United vs Liverpool match. Park Ji-Sung goes scampering into the box, at a very acute angle, sees Jose Reina rushing at him and pushes the ball past the 'keeper. But his kick left him no chance of reaching the ball to make any attempt at goal before it rolled out past the goal line even if Reina had not caught his trailing leg.

Certainly, there was no real, clear goal-scoring chance there (although it may be argued that Park could have kept the ball in play and try to feed someone else). In Ngog's case, he was heading towards goal, although also at a tight angle, but there was a definite chance for a cross or shot. Carsley's tackle, contact or no, put Ngog out of his stride and eliminated this possibility.

I'm not saying one should be a penalty and the other shouldn't. Perhaps both should be penalties, or maybe both shouldn't. But it does make for a situation where one has to wonder about the disconnect between the reason for rules, and the actual result of their implementation.

Moving away from penalties, there are just plain ol' bad tackles in the middle of the pitch which result in merely a free kick. What is the net result here? Opponent has possession, free kick continues to give him possession in a non-dangerous area of the field, and one of their players has a painful bruise to match.

Moving another season back, again, another Man Utd vs Liverpool example, Javier Mascherano was sent off after arguing with the referee, who had decided to book Fernando Torres for mouthing off after he had been unceremoniously hacked down for the umpteenth time by United defenders. Up to that point, no United players had been carded.

The question that is begged here is really, what has happened to the game of football when it has become more of a crime to be "ungentlemanly" than to actually commit fouls on the football field?

This is not about refs "making the right decisions" — even though they should — but that the laws of the game must mete out appropriate punishments and not forget what was the point of the laws in the first place. Is it justified that simply because he was "not malicious", that Birmingham defender Martin Taylor only received a three-game suspension after a red card following his horror tackle which left Eduardo out for over a year?

Certainly, I would not go so far as Arsene Wenger who called for Taylor to be banned for life. But the tackle was obviously ridiculous, and even if it was down to just a complete lack of tackling ability, has to be punished severely — in short, if you can't tackle in that way properly, you shouldn't try it.

And probably the most controversial thing I'm going to say is that the great Eric Cantona did not deserve his nine-month suspension for (mis)aiming a karate kick at a fan back in 1995. Football Association chief executive Graham Kelly described his attack as "a stain on our game" that brought shame on football.

I do take the point that as public figures, there is a certain level of decorum for professional footballers. But certainly it was obvious that he was provoked and that there was also a court case to settle the issue.

Some suspension was definitely warranted but you tell me, a kick that never really hurt Crystal Palace fan Matthew Simmons is worth nine months but leaving Eduardo with a fibula broken in two, and a badly mangled ankle is worth three games? It's political correctness gone mad, if you ask me.

Comments (6)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form