Rodwell sending off rescinded. What happens to the referee?
The FA have accounted Jack Rodwell wrongfully dismissed in the Merseyside derby last weekend. He will not serve the 3-match ban that usually follows a dismissal.
However, there is no mention made of any measures to be taken against the said referee, Martin Atkinson. His error caused the balance of the contest to be in the favour of Liverpool.
Before any Liverpool fans start to fume, Kenny Dalglish himself said that before the sending off it was a close match. This is not a demand for the three points, or a replay, or any other unrealistic aim.
There does, though, remain the question of what happens to Martin Atkinson. In employment cases of wrongful dismissal, the employee has the right to claim damages against the former employer. Granted that Rodwell was not the referee's employee, but he was subject to the ref's (apparently wrongful) perceptions.
Two issues arise here:
The first is that football, as a multi-billion dollar business, is utilising technology from over a hundred years ago. The most notable technological advance in the last century has been the addition of nets to the goals. That is if we exclude the Star Trek earpieces sometimes worn - please could we stop this? If the (lack of) technology was working well, it would be an acceptable situation. However, the technology is not working. Mistakes are being made too often. Prior to the derby, Liverpool's manager had complained quite publicly about poor refereeing decisions this season. Discontent at the current rate of refereeing faux pas is notable. The time has come for video technology to assist referees with their decisions. It is not replacing referees' discretion (though some might applaud such an action), but instead it is permitting the referees to use all the aids available. To be brutal, footballers generally cheat anyway. This would be a way of reducing unfair advantages gained from such behaviour.
The second point is what will happen to Atkinson? Why did the FA make no comment about the consequences to him of his error? Is there a policy for such instances? Apparently we have another year of the Respect campaign. However, the public is not given the respect of knowing what will happen to an official who has made such a thunderous blunder. I'm afraid that to be told that referees are human and make mistakes does not really carry weight. It may be factually correct, but is an invalid excuse. It is an after-the-event shrug. It is not respectful. It may be that there is already a process that has begun, whereby the referee in question is to face certain consequences, but we have been told nothing.
This need not be about one specific game. There is a general arrogance by football authorities shown towards those of us who finance the game by attending or paying to view. We are offered a game that is ever more fast moving, but with no technology to cope with that new pace. And when things go wrong, tough cheese. If football fans acted with the same intelligence as shoppers, we'd go elsewhere. Bit difficult to do that with a monopoly, though.
Older/Newer
« Latest Everton FC news from the Liverpool ECHO - Baines: Derby injustice will spur us on, Prenno's take on the derby, Blues to appeal Rodwell's red | Latest Everton FC news from the Liverpool ECHO - Bily: I'll battle for my place, Blues fans on Merseyside derby and Martin Atkinson »
7 Comments
Latest Premier League video
What about the coins and bottles being thrown at players also hasnt been mentioned.
Another point is the horrific Hibbert challenge that went without the ref pulling him up,that was a straight red card challenge.
The coins and bottle throwing incidents investigations are in the same pile of things to do stack as the throwing mobile phones at Rooney , throwing excrement at Man U supporters and spitting on Neville incident or even the fans chanting "Munich" at Old Trafford. (pattern emerging here - a bitter and vile hatred towards anything connected to Man U).
The point being, Liverpool fans are the very last people on the planet to be taking the moral high ground on fan behaviour.
As for the Hibbert foul, it was a bad one... but had it not been for the ridiculous sending off it would've been a completely different game and that passage of play wouldn't have even happened as play would have mapped out completely different. Everyone knows this, unless you are a thick no nothing kopite.
The point of the article is a call for accuracy and accountability by the authorities of the game. A thorough reading of the whole article would illustrate that. To resort to who was worse chatter is pointless tribalism. The authorities must be laughing.
By the way, it applies to politics as well as football.
The Sav
The key issue is that the red card rules are no longer acceptable. No top-level game should ever be 10 vs 11. The game is ruined and the millions of viewers around the world are given a sub-standard entertainment.
Two options immediately come to mind (1) a sending off should be immediately reviewed during the game and/or (2) the player should be substituted and punished later. The game must always be 11 vs 11.
A very interesting point, John. Your argument, it seems, is that the customer is receiving an inferior product when players are removed from the game and not replaced. The punitive element would remain - removal of the culprit - but the product - the game with 22 players - continues as before. A counterargument might be that the product is still possibly diminished in that the replacement may be of lower quality than the dismissed player. MIght this also be used by, say , players who are injured and decide to take out an opposing troublesome player. After all, he is going to be substituted anyway.
I was so confused about what to buy, but this makes it udnesrtandable.
I rekcon you are quite dead on with that.