I was talking to a friend of mine before the first semi-final this week. Admittedly, he had a vested financial interest in Germany winning, but made a point which is not out of place in the current climate concerning the football of a certain nation. "Italy's best chance of winning is if they have bribed the ref."
I would like to state that if Italy bribed the referee on Tuesday night, then can they please bribe every referee in the entire tournament from now on. No, wait - the world.
Benito Archundia Tellez, (I wanted to name him at an early stage in this piece, because I'd be the first to jump on him, naming and shaming if he was rubbish, so fair's fair) the Mexican in charge of the Germany v Italy game, was outstanding. You don't know how satisfying it is for me to watch a game and be content with a referee's performance.
It does happen, but usually it is me watching a referee send someone off, give a penalty or disallow a goal. I get a certain satisfaction watching them make very tough decisions and get them right. But the difference in Tellez's performance was that his demeanour, attitude and decision making was so good from start to finish, he allowed both teams to go on and create one of the best World Cup finals matches ever. Certainly, in my view, the best in this tournament.
I criticised the referee in the Portugal v Holland game very heavily. Reading it back, possibly too heavily. I stand by most of the things I said, but I think what I didn't stress enough was the player's involvement in that encounter. 16 booking and four red cards almost inevitably means that the referee has lost control and was very finicky, but it also means that players completely lost their discipline, and it amazes me that people only waited until we fell foul to the Portuguese to realise what irritating, cheating little SOBs they are.
I think the opposite should happen what reminiscing on the Italy v Germany semi final. The focus should be on the players. They were the ones who made this game. The high level of skill, commitment, honestly and sheer will-to-win was very apparent, and unless France seriously step it up, Germany will be the moral runners-up, as I still believe England were in 2002.
Both teams really tried to play intricate football, with pass-and-move the bywords - but the trouble with this is it can often lead to the opponents realising the nature of this and resorting to nobbling tactics. The ref's task was made easier by this not occurring, but where he should be praised is that when a heavy tackle came along, he knew which ones were fouls, which were just heavy and strong, yet fair, and also which merited a yellow card. Sure he may have got one or two wrong, but nothing major, and in a 120+ minute game, we'll allow him a couple.
The praise is not so easily forthcoming Jorge Larrionda of Uruguay, but he still came away with plenty of credit from his handling of Portugal v France. For me he got the big decision correct, which was the penalty award, and he got several others right too - i.e. he didn't award Portugal a penalty for, well, anything.
The suggestion is going to be that he didn't clamp down on the diving. I agree to an extent, but let's discuss the penalty first. Funnily enough, watching the game with others in the pub, I got the sense that people didn't really think it was a penalty, but were happy to let it ride because it was against Portugal. So they said it was!
For me, that is coming up with the right answer by the wrong methods. "He caught him, but only just" is the shout from those saying its no pen. Well he caught him, then, didn't he?
It brings to mind a time I was playing golf with a mate of mine. Great guy, but no-one would ever describe him as shy and retiring. Anyway, we're on the 6th tee, and he's spanked one down, its gone right over the trees onto the adjoining 17th fairway. We get there to find a woman standing next to the ball looking a little aggrieved, her playing partners looking at her as if they have suffered over the previous 16 holes and are now sick of the site of her.
"That ball hit me." She said. Uh-oh. Problems here. She doesn't look injured, but does look the type to make a fuss anyway.
"I'm very sorry," says my mate, starting to feel terrible about the situation.
"It came over the trees, bounced over there then ht my trolley." We now start to feel less bad because she has only spoken two sentences and has contradicted herself already. It hit her - no it didn't it hit her trolley. Make your mind up, love.
Meanwhile her playing partners have formed a sub-committee and have decided to make a run for it. She glances to them for support in this matter, ending their chances of escape.
"I am very sorry," my pal re-iterates, "But I did shout 'fore'". Which he most certainly did, piercing my eardrum in the process. In fact I shouted 'fore' as well.
"Well I only just heard you." Says she. I was about to interject to prevent my mate getting banned from the course by shouting at her when she was distracted by the sound of her three fellow golfers trying to tunnel away under one of the bunkers. She left alone and went on her away, never to be seen by us again.
What I suspect my mate as about to say, and certainly what I was thinking, was the stupidity of the statement "I only just heard you". Well you heard us, then.
"I am awarding a goal."
"But the ball was only just over the line"
"You are charged with the murder of so-and-so."
"But, Your Honour, I only just murdered him"
"You swine, you slept with my girlfriend."
"But I only just put it-
Yes, I think we can leave it there, you get the idea. If Ricardo Carvalho only just caught Thierry Henry. Then he caught him, end of story. I do not have a problem with players going down like this at all. I understand the criticism of going down easily, but there is a difference between this and 'diving' or 'cheating'. This is merely exploiting someone else's mistake. Look at it this way, if Carvalho caught him at all, this would put Henry, albeit possibly only slightly, off balance. If he is off balance and carries on, he is likely to lose it and if he has carried on, the ref is unlikely to pull up the offender is he, realistically?
So it's a pen for me. Even if I still haven't forgiven Henry for making me look like a moron. I said in this column what an honest player a great role model he is, then a couple of months later he gets Puyol's shoulder in the chest and falls down clutching his face. Maybe Puyol uses incredibly thick lacquer on his hair and the sheer force of that floored Monsieur Onree.
As for the diving. It's very tricky. It seems cut and dried to many, but please be aware of the position the official is in. For me, the thing which is of paramount importance is that the decision given in the first place is correct. If the referee does not believe that the defending player made an infringement, it is not a foul. However, sometimes players do just fall down. Whether there was contact just not sufficient enough for it to be a foul, or he slipped or lost his balance, it isn't always a dive if the player doesn't win a free-kick.
I keep hearing 'the refs were told to clamp down on diving'. No they weren't. Not specifically for this World Cup. FIFA have said that referees should be vigilant about diving, but they always say that. That goes without saying. What they have been specifically instructed for this competition is not to caution players for diving unless they are certain.
It is not an offence to appeal for a foul. People forget this too. If they see, lets say Pauleta fall to the ground when he was clearly not fouled, then appeal that he was, they can scream for him to be booked. But if he does down under pressure and appeals for a foul, this is not an offence. If he deliberately tries to con the referee into believing it was a foul, then we are in yellow card territory. I know that sounds like I'm being incredibly picky, but please think about it, because there is a difference.
It's tough trying to think an analogy. I know - consider you are on CCTV in a supermarket. You are browsing an aisle and reaching for the top shelf when a fellow shopper brushes against you and knocks an item into your pocket without you noticing. (I know its unlikely, but just stick with me here.) You are stopped by the security guards for not paying for this. You protest your innocence. The CCTV proves you didn't know, and you get off scott free.
Fair enough so far? OK, we'll add in one of two factors. If the other shopper did it deliberately, then he should be punished accordingly. If the other shopper did not mean it, but you looked in your pocket, realised what had happened yet did not replace it and in fact carried on out of the store without paying, you are just as guilty and should be punished for that.
Hopefully you can see that the first scenario is neither foul nor dive, the second is deliberate foul, and the last is deliberate dive. The shopper making the most of it (lets call him, just any name at random, Cristiano) is the equivalent of the player diving to gain an advantage.
But any right minded person can see that if you have not had a clue that this product was in your pocket, you should not get done for it unless the police are absolutely certain that you meant it.
If anybody had have been booked in a semi final, this may have contributed in some way to missing a World Cup final. If the ref isn't 100% sure and makes an error, he could stop that player performing on the biggest stage possible. And that would be a crime.
That said, I did think he missed a couple that were very obvious. The Ronaldo missing-the-header-and-plunging-headlong-into-a-dive-complete-with-pike-and-twist routine was very obviously a dive, as were a few others. And Portugal fans, I am totally aware the problem is not yours alone and there are issues everywhere. It's just your team has been the worst offenders overall, as of late.
I am definitely an advocate of the video evidence at a later date argument. You guys should know by now I am not generally a technology/video ref supporter, but FIFA already review things and go back to create justice. They can see clearly things on the tape with the referee either cannot see, or isn't in a sufficient enough position to call foul on. Bans of one game for single offenders should suffice. If they re-offend, then extend the crime. Don't fine them, it means nothing. Its like shoplifting a DVD player and being fined twenty quid. The fine doesn't outweigh the benefit. Ask Ronaldo if he'd rather be fined 10 grand and get a penalty, or get neither. He'll have the pen, obrigado very much.
I'll leave you on this thought: Do Portugal produce their own Sports panel Show - They Wink and Fall Over?
