Bruce: Referee's are spoiling the game

[Citiref]

Bruce: Referee's are spoiling the game

Birmingham manager Steve Bruce believes over-officious refereeing standards is leaving English football at risk of losing its entertainment.

Midfielder Nicky Butt saw red on the stroke of half-time in Saturday's 1-1 draw at Portsmouth in a decision that Bruce said finished the match as a "spectacle".

He said: "It has to be addressed because the directives we are getting are making it impossible for referees,

"We are English. We like to see a bit of blood and thunder, a bit of spirit."

He added: "What I can't understand is if you are going to send Nicky off, which is for a flick of the foot which doesn't connect with anybody - he misses - why is their guy not sent off too?,

"You give him a yellow card? For what? Blocking somebody? Well that is not a yellow card, you give them a yellow or red card for raising his arm.

"If you are going to dish it out to Nicky, then you have to give it to the other guy too."

http://www.worldfootballers.com/news.php?filter=&id=9322&year=2005

[IASocFan]

Bruce: Referee's are spoiling the game
..

They used to play without referees, but the players decided they needed someone to sort things out. That was about 125 years ago.

:rolleyes:

[MassachusettsRef]

He's not without a point insofar as violent conduct goes. It seems that directive after directive from the various governing bodies seek to further broaden what sort of incidents fall into that category. Whether you think it's good or bad, more and more off-the-ball incidents are bringing about red cards when they wouldn't have several years ago. I personally think the turning point was WC98, when you saw a slew of red cards for after-the-whistle retaliation, even though the individual incidents weren't necessarily violent (Kluivert, Beckham, Blanc, etc.). That tournament seemed to set the tone for what we've seen since.

Some think this is good, because it's an attempt to eliminate all off-the-ball and after-the-whistle incidents. Others, like Bruce apparently, find it draconian and think that--as emotions will obviously run high in professional soccer--referees should be afforded some latitude and made to use common sense. It really comes down to a matter of opinion. But he is right in the sense that things have changed and referees have become more strict over the past several years.

[superdave]

If this is the play I'm thinking of, Butt, from behind the player, kicked up, attempting to rack his balls.

If that ain't a red, what is?

[JohnR]

If this is the play I'm thinking of, Butt, from behind the player, kicked up, attempting to rack his balls.

That is the play indeed.

Don't know what it is with EPL managers, but collectively they are the biggest collection of whiners I've ever seen. They make Phil Jackson look like a gracious loser. Steve, your player didn't act like a man and you're not acting like a man. Do you have one there in Birmingham City? Perhaps you should set an example.

[GlennAA11]

My guess is that the pressure to get results makes these coaches see the game differently, and with a bit of desperation.

I think eliminating the thuggery and letting skillful play win out is what most people want to see, despite what the coaches say.

[MassachusettsRef]

Just to clarify my earlier remarks.

I have no doubt that Butt deserved to be sent off, judging from the description. And I have no doubt that Bruce is simply letting off steam because his team dropped points and he wants to point the finger.

With that said, it's almost undeniable that at the professional and international level, there have been dozens upon dozens of send offs around the world for "violent conduct" that really doesn't rise to the level "violence" or "brutality" (the words FIFA uses). Players are being sent off solely for doing anything once the ball is out of play. Witness Beckham's kick in WC98 or Moreno's recent heel-clip in an MLS match.

Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing; people are free to make their own judgements. But I personally take the opinion that some of these incidents could be dealt with via yellow cards or stern warnings when they are not really "violent". In that sense (putting aside the particular Butt incident), I agree with Bruce.

I'm much more concerned, personally, with foul tackles that amount to Serious Foul Play and aren't sanctioned. For some reason, the crackdown in that area isn't as strict or as obvious as the one on violent conduct. I think Serious Foul Play is a much bigger plague on the game than Violent Conduct right now, because it's MUCH more prevalent yet it's dealt with and sanctioend far LESS.

[JohnR]

I think Serious Foul Play is a much bigger plague on the game than Violent Conduct right now, because it's MUCH more prevalent yet it's dealt with and sanctioend far LESS.

Understood.

Don't you think that's because the one is easy and the other is not? It's pretty simple to pick out a kick to the balls away from the play and say, "Hey, that's an automatic red." The Serious Foul Play stuff is tricky ... you think Bruce is annoyed now, try him or any other EPL manager if play hardball on tackles. Remember that poor referee who red-carded Jenas for that tackle in Week 1 of EPL? Since by acclamation Jermaine "didn't mean it" the referee was forced into a type of public apology by rescinding the card.

[MassachusettsRef]

Understood.

Don't you think that's because the one is easy and the other is not? It's pretty simple to pick out a kick to the balls away from the play and say, "Hey, that's an automatic red." The Serious Foul Play stuff is tricky ... you think Bruce is annoyed now, try him or any other EPL manager if play hardball on tackles. Remember that poor referee who red-carded Jenas for that tackle in Week 1 of EPL? Since by acclamation Jermaine "didn't mean it" the referee was forced into a type of public apology by rescinding the card.Agree with everything you've said here. I said at the time, and still believe, that the rescinding of Jenas card was a bad precedent--not only for the use of replay, but for the notion that referees weren't supposed to crackdown on tackles like his.

And you're right about VC being easy to call. There's a mentality now that "hey, that was obvious...that's got to be a red". Well, "obvious" shouldn't equate to red. A forearm to the chest after the whistle isn't usually 'violent', yet we see a lot of red cards for that sort of play just because it's so obvious. Yet, many many foul tackles--be them from behind, over the ball, or with studs exposed into the ankle--should warrant red cards but don't, because they are more difficult to spot and more difficult to justify (especially when the player "gets [part of] the ball").

The silly off-the-ball stuff is usually just tempers flaring up and it can be calmed down (in many, but not all) instances with a yellow or a word. The serious foul play sort of tackles are endemic to the game and cause, in many cases, serious injuries. Eliminating that sort of stuff from soccer should be a priority over the schoolyard pushing and shoving that sometimes occurs after the whistle.

[macheath]

Plus there are some "cultural" factors, although some we should eliminate. I once reffed a men's "recreational" game between English expats and an immigrant team from El Salvador. Yikes! The Brits thought that "normal" footy includes smacking the other players to the ground on uncontrolled charges, while the Salvadorians hit the mat and rolled around for a few minutes on every challenge. Both were playing what they took to be "normal" football, and it was quite exciting trying to ref it. The limit was when a Brit knocked a Salvadorian player to the turf, arguably 50/50, but a little uncontrolled, and while the player rolled around, the Brit sneered at him, and said "Get up, you girl." Which he immediately did, fists flying...

[Craig P]

He added: "What I can't understand is if you are going to send Nicky off, which is for a flick of the foot which doesn't connect with anybody - he misses - why is their guy not sent off too?,

"You give him a yellow card? For what? Blocking somebody? Well that is not a yellow card, you give them a yellow or red card for raising his arm.Having just seen a replay of this on FSW Report today, I sincerely hope Bruce hadn't seen a replay himself, otherwise he comes off as an idiot. Butt kicked up between the opposing player's legs, aiming for the genital area (I can only guess that he didn't connect due to lack of reaction from the opposing player), and if I saw the aftermath correctly, Butt didn't even draw a straight red for it. It was only a caution, and he was sent off either for it being his second caution, or for dissent or somesuch in the ensuing stoppage.

[macheath]

Having just seen a replay of this on FSW Report today, I sincerely hope Bruce hadn't seen a replay himself, otherwise he comes off as an idiot. Butt kicked up between the opposing player's legs, aiming for the genital area (I can only guess that he didn't connect due to lack of reaction from the opposing player), and if I saw the aftermath correctly, Butt didn't even draw a straight red for it. It was only a caution, and he was sent off either for it being his second caution, or for dissent or somesuch in the ensuing stoppage.

The match report has it as a straight red for Butt, but a yellow to his opponent in the situation. Butt has subsequently been reported to the FA for "abusive comments" to the official after the send off. This could well lead to further disciplinary action.

[SccrDon]

...He added: "What I can't understand is if you are going to send Nicky off, which is for a flick of the foot which doesn't connect with anybody - he misses - why is their guy not sent off too?..."

http://www.worldfootballers.com/news.php?filter=&id=9322&year=2005

Translation - "My team lost, and we had a man sent off on a foul that didn't result in a surgery, so the loss was the ref's fault."