Terry injury in Chelsea-Aresenal cup final (R)

[macheath]

In the Carling Cup final between Arsenal and Chelsea, Chelsea defender John Terry got knocked unconscious by a kick to the head from an Arsenal player, on a bouncing ball right after a corner kick. Terry's head snaps back, he goes down like a ton of bricks, stretchered off--fortunately no serious injury, apparently.

But, for referees--is this a foul on the Arsenal player? None called.

Here's a clip. Close up, slo-mo of the foul comes at about 25 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcIVYYHxoEA&mode=related&search=

Terry's head is well above waist level, as he comes diving in. Arsenal player is pivoting to clear the ball, with a kick well above waist high.

End of the game ended up with a brawl and pushing, three reds and two yellows in stoppage time. That's a different discussion.

[MightyMouse]

Yep knocked out alright, his arms went down slowly as if caught frozen up to shield his face, ouch. I feel really bad for Terry, he's one of my favorite players, this can happen in football. Freakish accident?

[Alberto]

I hope Terry is okay, but to me it's clearly Terry's fault. In fact one could easily argue if the Arsenal player stopped his act of attempting to play the ball, that Terry was guilty of a dangerous play. Terry is dropping his head in an attempt to head the ball.

[ref47]

no foul. possibly dangerous play on terry. for me, headers should be up, not down, when in traffic.

[MassachusettsRef]

I hope Terry is okay, but to me it's clearly Terry's fault. In fact one could easily argue if the Arsenal player stopped his act of attempting to play the ball, that Terry was guilty of a dangerous play. Terry is dropping his head in an attempt to head the ball.I'm not sure about that. In fact, I'm certain I disagree, I'm just not sure if I believe the complete opposite or not.

To me, Terry makes a legitimate play at the ball with his head. That sort of ball, in a goal-mouth scramble, is almost always played with the head by an attacker. And I really don't think Terry lowers his head all that much at all; he effectively dives forward, so maybe his head dips to the level of his shoulders, which really isn't that "low" per se. I just don't see any real argument here that Terry is guilty of playing in a dangerous manner.

The real question to me is whether or not you deem it an unfortunate, freak accident where two players played fairly, or you rule it a PK. This is a very tough call for me. On the one hand, Terry got there first and won the ball and then got drilled in the head with a boot. The Arsenal player is playing the ball, yes, but he also has to be aware of opponents and teammates, which he was clearly not. If a player is "playing the ball" and kicks his opponent on the shin, rather than the ball, we call the foul; why should it be different with a headed ball? It's hard to argue that the Arsenal player didn't "kick" Terry and that's a penal foul. So, it's hard to argue that, by the book, this isn't supposed to be a PK.

Then again, tradition sort of dictates that it's not a PK. The Arsenal player deflected the ball first and this was part of a follow-through. By the book, that doesn't excuse a "kicking" foul (this is not an instance of making contact with the player first or not in a tackle), but we all know that the argument would be made that the ball was going out of bounds regardless and this was a freak accident that had nothing to do with the play. Furthermore, because of the nature of Terry's injuries, we can't tell if there would have been a lot of appeals for a penalty or not. In other words, did the players think it was a PK? I'm guessing most didn't, so if that's the case, why give it and make issues for yourself?

It's a really tough call. By the book, I think it's definitely a PK, but it's an extremely tough sell and probably going to get you into a lot of trouble. My gut reaction when I first saw it, though, is that I would have pointed to the spot. I think the vast majority of us would have given Chelsea a free kick had this happened at midfield, so I think it also should be a penalty. I expect a lot of disagreement on this, though.

[falcon.7]

I agree Mass, a tough sell. I think one could argue that it is just an unfortunate accident. In my opinion, it was clearly unintentional - but we don't judge intent anymore. An IFK going in would be very hard to set up properly with a wall and such, and an IFK going out would get all sorts of heat from the attackers. The other option is a drop ball, but it's best to avoid these, especially in the area of the goal.

To me a penalty means the attacker was fouled in such a way that it warrants a free attempt on goal. Maybe that's the wrong philosophy, but I can't see any restart in this situation, other than maybe a drop, that properly addresses what happened and is still fair to both sides.

I also like how Webb handled the tussle that took place later on. He calmed everyone down, sent off the Chelsea player, WAITED for him to leave the area, THEN sent off the Arsenal player. Avoids conflict on the way to the dressing room, and gives a little more time for everyone to cool off.

[macheath]

I agree with MassRef's thoughtful analysis. No way I can see this as dangerous play on Terry--he is making a legitimate play for the ball, his head is well above waist level, and he gets there first, as MassRef points out. Anything like this in my recreational or most travel games, definite PK. In the English Premiership, maybe not (TV commentators didn't spend much time on the PK possibilities). I would have booked Stephen Hunt of Reading when he kicked Petr Cech in the head last fall, but another no call in the Premiership, which arguably has the most overt serious physical play of the major leagues.

[Rufusabc]

I think Howard Webb has solidified his rep as the Top Dog in the EPL. I thought he called a GREAT game, and his handling of the tussle at the very end was strong, although the Guardian is today saying they might have gotten the 2nd Arsenal red card wrong as to the player responsible. But, it was a flash fight and the AR made the call and spoke to Webb who then sent the 2nd Gunner off.

A fantastic game nonetheless, and I think it was the coming of age for Theo Wolcott.

R

[bluedevils]

Holy crap, I can't believe I missed this game. On what channel(s) was it shown? I knew the game was coming up but from recollection it wasn't shown on Fox Soccer Channel? Did I just miss it, or was this a pay-per-view event or what?

I'm off to check FSC listings for this week to see if it will be re-aired...

Bummer, looks like this game is NOT showing on FSC or Gol TV this week.

Update again: looks like this game IS showing in the "Arsenal TV" timeslot today on Gol TV, but they don't come right out and say it :( . www.soccertv.com says the game is 4pm EST / 1pm PST today and on the Gol TV site, that shows up as a 3 hour block for Arsenal TV. Hopefully I can catch it later tonight when it will be shown again @ 1:30am EST / 10:30pm PST.

[bluedevils]

Terry got there first and won the ball and then got drilled in the head with a boot.

Hopefully I'll have a chance to see this match myself, but the above comment from your post stuck out to me and I wanted to comment on it in general. My opinion, if the drilling didn't affect Terry's attempt to score, that is why no PK was given and why the players and announcers didn't seem to think it was much of a possibility. At the higher levels, this is how it typically goes. You see a player get off a shot, then the defender clips him and the attacker falls. Clearly it is a foul, but it did not affect the outcome of the situation and so the referee calls nothing.

[IASocFan]

I agree Mass, a tough sell. I think one could argue that it is just an unfortunate accident. In my opinion, it was clearly unintentional - but we don't judge intent anymore. An IFK going in would be very hard to set up properly with a wall and such, and an IFK going out would get all sorts of heat from the attackers. The other option is a drop ball, but it's best to avoid these, especially in the area of the goal.

To me a penalty means the attacker was fouled in such a way that it warrants a free attempt on goal. Maybe that's the wrong philosophy, but I can't see any restart in this situation, other than maybe a drop, that properly addresses what happened and is still fair to both sides.
...

Under what law would you award a drop ball! I can see a foul or a dangerous play or neither. In the latter case, you restart with a corner kick with the ball having been deflected of the defender's boot.

Terry's head was somewhere at chest level (which is a pretty large area), but definitely below normal head level, and the defender's foot is at his waist level (leg parallel to the ground) as he jumps to clear. I think the non-call was right, but it was definitely close to the two other choices.

[MassachusettsRef]

Hopefully I'll have a chance to see this match myself, but the above comment from your post stuck out to me and I wanted to comment on it in general. My opinion, if the drilling didn't affect Terry's attempt to score, that is why no PK was given and why the players and announcers didn't seem to think it was much of a possibility. At the higher levels, this is how it typically goes. You see a player get off a shot, then the defender clips him and the attacker falls. Clearly it is a foul, but it did not affect the outcome of the situation and so the referee calls nothing.I have a hard time not calling what is "clearly...a foul," but even if you accept that reasoning...

The drilling to the head was caused by a kick that also had the effect of deflecting the ball over the crossbar for a corner kick. In other words, if the kick to the head doesn't occur, Terry's header--at minimum--ends up being a shot on net. Surely then, the "foul" also affected a scoring opportunity. Does that change things?

[bluedevils]

I have a hard time not calling what is "clearly...a foul.
C'mon, Massref, do you REALLY call everything the same in the penalty area as you do at midfield? I seriously doubt it. I've never seen a ref who does, and I've never heard a ref claim he does. Even if you think you call things the same in the attacking PA as on the rest of the field, in reality you probably do not.

The drilling to the head was caused by a kick that also had the effect of deflecting the ball over the crossbar for a corner kick. In other words, if the kick to the head doesn't occur, Terry's header--at minimum--ends up being a shot on net. Surely then, the "foul" also affected a scoring opportunity. Does that change things?
Yes, it would change things for me.

I really want to watch this game!

[MassachusettsRef]

C'mon, Massref, do you REALLY call everything the same in the penalty area as you do at midfield? I seriously doubt it. I've never seen a ref who does, and I've never heard a ref claim he does. Even if you think you call things the same in the attacking PA as on the rest of the field, in reality you probably do not.On issues that end up being pretty reckless and violent, yes, I feel that I do. It's one thing to give a "control" foul at midfield or in the defensive third that you wouldn't otherwise give in the attacking penalty area. But with issues that are flash points, involving pretty violent clashes, I think we have to be consistent all over the field. You can't call it a kicking foul at midfield and then ignore it in the area because it would be a controversial PK.


Yes, it would change things for me.

I really want to watch this game!You realize the YouTube clips for the Terry incident and the fight are found in these two threads, right?

[bluedevils]

On issues that end up being pretty reckless and violent, yes, I feel that I do. It's one thing to give a "control" foul at midfield or in the defensive third that you wouldn't otherwise give in the attacking penalty area. But with issues that are flash points, involving pretty violent clashes, I think we have to be consistent all over the field. You can't call it a kicking foul at midfield and then ignore it in the area because it would be a controversial PK.
You make a good distinction, but there are plenty of successful and well-respected top-level referees who have a different philosophy.

You realize the YouTube clips for the Terry incident and the fight are found in these two threads, right?
Yes, but I don't feel like watching the clips right now and much prefer to see things in the context of the full match -- although it has been spoiled somewhat since I know the outcome and background about some of the incidents -- and on a TV screen thru professional cameras. I get a much better feel for things that way than the YouTube route -- i.e. a small low-resolution window with no sound on a PC monitor.

[MassachusettsRef]

You make a good distinction, but there are plenty of successful and well-respected top-level referees who have a different philosophy.Well, if you and I have the same definition of "clearly," then I have a hard time considering such referees "well-respected."

I have no problem if someone wants to argue whether or not the Terry incident is a foul as I have clearly shown my own internal conflicts about it. But if someone looks at it and says "sure, that's a foul at midfield, but no way I call it as a PK," I'd consider such a referee gutless, rather than well-respected.

[bluedevils]

Well, if you and I have the same definition of "clearly," then I have a hard time considering such referees "well-respected."

I have no problem if someone wants to argue whether or not the Terry incident is a foul as I have clearly shown my own internal conflicts about it. But if someone looks at it and says "sure, that's a foul at midfield, but no way I call it as a PK," I'd consider such a referee gutless, rather than well-respected.

Non-calls for PKs happen all the time. It is not a rare event at all, in my opinion, for the referee to decide it was a foul 'by the book' but elect NOT to award a PK. This 'philosophy of what you call in the penalty area' topic sounds like a BigSoccer poll opportunity; I will search around and see if it has been asked before. My guess is that most referees who give an honest answer would be in the 'gutless' camp, as you describe it.

[MassachusettsRef]

My guess is that most referees who give an honest answer would be in the 'gutless' camp, as you describe it.To be clear, when I use that term, I'm not talking about a situation where you have, say, the slightest of shirt tugs. You want to call that at midfield as a preventive measure. But in the area, if it has zero effect on a play, and the attacker just dives at the first touch, you probably won't call it.

I'm talking about clear cases with extreme contact (like high boots to heads, or scissor tackles where the defender gets some ball) where a referee, when shown a tape, says "oh, yeah, that's a foul!", but then doesn't give it in the box because the PK would be controversial. That, to me, cannot be described any other way.

[Rufusabc]

I'm at a loss at all the arguments about whether this play where Terry gets injured is a penalty. I don't think it is even close to being a penalty, and I only saw it once and live during the broadcast.

Same play happened on Saturday in the Liverpool match with a much bloodier result for Crouch. Except his head was lower, it seemed.

[macheath]

I'm at a loss at all the arguments about whether this play where Terry gets injured is a penalty. I don't think it is even close to being a penalty, and I only saw it once and live during the broadcast.

Same play happened on Saturday in the Liverpool match with a much bloodier result for Crouch. Except his head was lower, it seemed.

Well, the last sentence is the key, isn't it? If the attacker clearly puts his head down low, in the way of the defender's kick, then the attacker is commiting dangerous play. But if the attacker (Terry) has his head well above waist level, and the defender is kicking above the waist, it's potentially a different situation. Hence this discussion.