I hope that this hasn't been discussed before, but what do you think of Kim Milton Nielsen's decision during the 1998 World Cup 1/4 final between England and Argentina. Did Beckham deserve to go? How would you compare it with other incidents of a similar nature like Figo's headbutt on van Bommel, Dwayne de Rosario's retaliation during the recent U.S.A.-Canada Gold Cup 1/2 final, Drogba and Lehmann's altercation, etc. Do you feel that the refs' application of the rules in situations like that has been changing over the years - would similar conduct be less harshly punished by today's referees? Here's the incident: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RlMy7S04qGs
In the context of that tournament, with the focus on off-the-ball incidents, Beckham had to be sent off and everyone knew it. Referees were punishing almost any off-the-ball incident with a red card (you may recall Kluivert was sent off earlier for what could be classified as a semi-aggressive nudge with the forearm at worst). With that being said, I've never believed that Beckham's kick rose to the level of "violence or brutality" on its own. In most matches, I think a yellow would suffice. Moreover, I've always believed that Simeone deserved to go--whether or not Beckham was sent. An argument could be made for serious foul play solely for the charge from behind. Some might dismiss that due to the fact that Beckham doesn't get to the ball that much earlier than Simeone, and deem the challenge merely reckless. Even if that's the case, it's a fact that Simeone embellished; he infamously admitted as much on the eve of his next encounter with Beckham (a UCL Inter/Man U match, which I believe took place in 1999). Yellow for the foul, yellow for the embellishment and Simeone is gone. Beckham was rash and juvenile, but his actions weren't forceful or violent enough to endanger anyone. Simeone was either extremely reckless or violent (take your pick) and he then, by his own admission, dove in an attempt to get Beckham sent off. If the same incident happens in my game, in a vacuum, I reverse the colors of the card: red for Simeone and yellow for Beckham. But again, in the context of that tournament and what was going on in all the other matches, Beckham had to go.
I disagree. I thought at the time, and continue to think, that a red card for Beckham's tap was a gross over-reaction that in many ways spoiled the best match of the tournament. There was less force used that occurs during a typical open-handed shove. I agree with you that it did not rise to the level of "violence or brutality." If this is the case, then "violent conduct" hardly describes the action, and there is no basis for a red card. I think in general that the interference with the officiating by the organizers of that tournament was disgraceful. It was the reason why officials were over-reacting...why they were punishing many innocuous actions with dismissals...and was, in my humble opinion, an embarrassment to the profession. But it's also what happens when bureaucrats insist on second-guessing officials, and taking discretion out of their hands by (a) trying to impose absolute rules, which often as not make a hash of things when they confront the ambiguities that reality presents us; and (b) threatening professionals with dire consequences (such as "being sent home early) for not behaving like sheep, and following whatever happens to be the "fad of the hour." The foul that preceded the incident was the nasty one, the one that warranted a stern response. The red card to Beckham was, in my opinion, an instance of punishing the victim, and helping the misconduct to work to maximum effect. This is, in my opinion, the usual consequence of forgetting the reason for the rule: we apply the rule (punish retaliation) by imposing a sanction (red card) in circumstances where it makes no sense (mild tap in protest following a nasty tackle, as opposed to brutal response to provocation of any sort), and wonder why some of us wonder if we'll ever find intelligent life here on Earth.
I think seeing it on replay gives the foul less impact. I remember watching that game live and my gut reaction as soon as I saw the Beckham foul was "he's gone". Maybe he wouldn't have been tossed from the 2006 World Cup, or a current World Cup qualifier for England, but looking back at the context of the 1998 tournament and my own gut reaction to the foul, it was a justifiable decision by the referee. And remember, the English media crucified Beckham for the foul. Often, the referee receives the blame for an unjustified ejection, but I don't remember a whole lot of disagreement in the press regarding the referee's decision, it was all laid at Beckham's feet. I do think Mass Ref brings up a good point regarding Simeone though, who was clearly the instigator and was probably tasked prior to the match with frustrating Beckham to the point of mental distraction and/or a reaction that would provoke a yellow or red card. His tackle alone deserved a yellow (which he got) but could easily have been a red as well. SFP. Combined with his embellishment, which the referee should have taken into consideration since he was right on top of the play, Simeone deserved to go too. That's probably the only thing you can really question regarding Nielsen's decision making. Not that he was too harsh on Beckham, but that he didn't punish Simeone sufficiently.
You do? I don't think we've contradicted each other at all. Simeone's behavior was worse and, by our respective interpretations of the Law, we wouldn't send off Beckham. Neither one of us feels it was violent conduct. But you also admit that there had been an insistence throughout that tournament on punishing behavior like Beckham's with a red card. If you and I both know that, then surely Nielsen, Beckham, and everyone else on the field knew that. That's all I mean when I said "Beckham had to go." In the context of that tournament, it was a red card. You, I, and perhaps millions of other people didn't like that, but there weren't many people that had been watching that tournament and were surprised when the red card was produced. I think the surprise would have been if a red didn't come out, in fact. Beckham knew he was gone and so did his teammates. If the red wasn't given there, match control was gone because everyone expected it.
Excellent responses, thanks! I agree that one has to take into account that refs need to follow certain guidelines (that could be slightly different depending on the particular tournament). It seems as if now there is a greater emphasis put on punishing the instigator - one could argue that Materazzi's two-match ban for insulting Zidane was very harsh (Simeone fouled Beckham and goaded the ref into ejecting the Englishman, but did not receive a suspension). I concur that game management is essential, though I don't think that this particular match was ill-tempered before Beckham received his marching orders (but I may have forgotten about other controversial incidents).
The fact is that Becks kicked out at an opponent while the ball was out of play. A wimpy kick to be sure and certainly he was provoked into it, however when you start deciding what sort of kicks are allowed after the play is over and which ones are not, you make it confusing for the players. The players need to understand that acts of violence (other than a soft push or something like this) like kicking and striking an opponent will be dealt with. They should further understand that if you do these things when they can't make a legitimate play on the ball, especially when its out of play, then you are going to be sent-off. There is NO place for off the ball incidents like this in football. We can't allow it or we're going to end up with a lot more of it. To me there is almost something sacred about this - it's an "unwritten understanding" that if you kick or strike an opponent while the ball is out of play that you are going to be sent off. I will reiterate, the contact Becks made wasn't very violent, but he did kick the opponent in the back of the knee where many important ligaments are located. The fact that he did it while the ball was out of play made it impossible for the referee to react differently. (Plus it was right in front of the ref!) I say this with some caution though - I do not mean that every circumstance should be dealt with in black and white way - but I really feel that once the ball is out of play, these things become much more significant in terms of match control and player safety. The minute you don't respond harshly to misconduct committed while the ball is out of play is when you start to see it occuring all over the field until you can't control it anymore. I was working a men's 2nd division match last night (one man system) and a player was fouled (pushed over) I called it and it didn't seem to me to be a big foul, but then the player who fell to the ground viscously kicked the opponent who was standing near him on the ankle. I sent off the player who kicked out immediately. Can you imagine what happens if you let that go... These things MUST be dealt with.
You lose me right here. If a soft push can only be a yellow card when the ball is out of play, then surely a soft kick can. Or a soft "strike" (say a swing at someone's shoulder or a swat to get their hands off of you). We do have to decide what sort of kicks and strikes are allowed after play. Rather, we have to determine the degree of punishment, just as we would during the run of play. If Beckham had made that kick off-the-ball, but while the ball was in play, what would you have done? You say later in your post that... I believe you're spot on, here. But "harshly" can be a yellow card when a similar act during dynamic play would only be as simple foul (by "similar" here, I mean the degree of force in the kick). You're right when you say everything isn't black and white. Things become more critical when the ball is out of play and misconduct occurs, but that fact shouldn't turn us into robots who reach for the red card indiscriminately. The latter portion of your post seems to imply that you recognize that, but it doesn't square fully with the beginning of your post.
I suppose what I'm driving at is that yes there are some cases where things happen when the ball is out of play that can be yellow and not red. I suppose when I think of the act of kicking and striking vs. a soft push I was considering how players often respond to seeing these things happen. Even a soft kick may not be viewed as soft by an angry teammate - I think a lot of people see a kick is a kick. Whereas many players accept that a soft push, in some cases, isn't really worthy of a send-off. So I think part of it is recognizing what actions will serve to provoke the players most severly. If this was done while the ball is in play... I don't see how you could view it as playing the ball, and kicking an opponent away from the ball (significantly) is just as bad or nearly as bad as doing so when the ball is out of play. So, I don't know how I would react - the question you have posed would be within a different context and I'm having a hard time visualizing this situation in another scenario - I think Becks would have tried to get up and go on with the game rather than kicking the opponent now that the ball had gone out of play. I agree we shouldn't be robots, that is for sure... Still, I have to say my tolerance for certain types of behavior decreases dramatically if the ball is gone or if play is stopped. Players must be assured that referees will protect them and that they will not tolerate violent actions that a merely done to provoke or retaliate. In the end it was Becks who took the bait and reacted in a way that left the referee no choice. Like it or not the victim got the worse punishment because he reacted to the foul. This is not like a court of law where you have a lot of time to make decisions based on past provocation. A woman who is battered repeatedly at home, who then kills her husband might receive a pass due to the amount of suffering she had to do, but those decisions take months. On the pitch, you have to mete out justice instantly or else the remaining players will deal with it for you, until you no longer have a game but a violent encounter.
The politics at that tournament indeed at nearly every Fifa event creates controversy for decisions because they basically micro manage the referee’s decision behind the scenes. I interviewed four Fifa officials who were at WC events, off the record! They are (INSTRUCTED!) a nice word for (forced to do) as those NOT refereeing but who decide who gets to, want them too! I am not a big fan of Nielsen's but to allow Simeone to stay and force Beckham to go was a gross miscarriage of Fair Play! You can not convince me the pushes in the chest were less violent then the bended leg of Beckham's when Neilson was doing the up, up, up, or the hand wave, away, away, away. Neilson was *embarrassed* that Beckham did what he did in front of him remembered the earlier CONTROL words by the referee committee and thought I either send him off or I do not get another game rather than referee the match for the match. It utterly disregarded the unwritten rule the game is for the players and spectators this was about who controlled what! It was a BRUTAL takedown and retaliation of such a MINOR nature compared to say the Zidane head butt and equate them as the same is ridiculous. Mind you to discipline the Italian Player for something that was unheard and not seen was no less ridiculous. Referee decision to ONLY caution Simeone for the easily excessive run down from behind that did in fact endanger the safety of Beckham (watch his head snap as he hits the ground) Then to see the raised foot nudge touch the player who went down as if a car had hit him was PATHETIC in every sense of the word! My view for ethical standards since the "Hand of God" in general is not fit to be printed. Mind you Argentina is not the only team so despised for such tactics. Many fellow colleagues from South America were no more enamored than I by the conduct of Simeone. To be so gifted as an athlete and to use the excuse of winning at any cost to justify a lack of morals tarnishes any accomplishments that skill might be credited to! Although Simeone later admitted he was playing the referee, feigning injury to get players sent off is a tactic CREATED by those in charge of refereeing not the players who are smart enough to recognize the training and the educational shortfalls of those supposedly in charge.
On the replay (in slow motion), it arguably looks as if Beckham attempts to trip Simeone (not kick him). Indeed a very difficult decision for the referee. Many good points have been raised, but as a whole the interpretation of rules could be a very grey area at times.