Just read an article in which new Chelsea defender Paulo Ferreira talks about the difference between soccer in Portugal and England. He notes that diving is a much bigger part of the game in Portugal. It's just part of the Portuguese League. I think anyone who saw Cristiano Ronaldo when he first arrived at ManU might agree. These days, young Ronaldo stays on his feet much longer. Here's what got me thinking: "You know there is different refereeing in Britain," says Ferreira. Is there really a significant difference in the way the laws of the game are enforced? I've always assumed players were more prone to deception in some countries because of cultural attitudes that celebrated such coups. Is it perhaps a difference in refereeing that is encouraging diving in some regions?
Maybe this is a little off-topic but it is one of many influences in cultural differences and attitudes to how the game is played. There's definitely a cultural difference in how players from different countries approach playing (especially for their National Team). Where I come from, Australia, playing for your country in any sport is the pinnacle of anyone's career. Sports people here do everything in their power to be selected in their sport's national team. I'm now seeing the long-term English-based AUS national team football players taking on what I call the "English disease" of thinking they are above the interests of the national team, for whatever reason other than actual injury. This manifests itself with some high-profile football players wanting to pick & choose when & where they'll condescend to play for the national team. This is a short-sighted and counter-productive strategy that these players are pursuing, especially for their status of being "internationals" to the Home Office regulations (wrt British working visas). In Australia, this kind of commitment is not supported and strongly condemned by all & sundry (including the players' AUS clubs) but in England this very same attitude is applauded as "looking after the players' club's interest". Obviously this causes quite some friction with those caught in the cross-fire of the two cultures/attitudes. IMO, the Australian attitude has been the foundation of its national & international sporting success to date. Clearly this is an issue if Australia ever wants to replicate those other teams' success in the sport of football.
Just to add my English outlook on both the refereeing and national team situations. Refereeing first. In England, we believe there is a big difference between the refereeing of England to almost the entire world, Europe at least. The main cause of this is the flow. The Premiership is regarded as one of the best leagues in the world because it is one of the fastest. Any foreign player who comes to the PL always comments on how quick it is. This is aided by the referees who tend to play advantage more and let more go. English fans like to see passion in their football, and always have. It is the most played sport in England and therefore those that watch it, tend to play it too. And anyone who's ever reffed an English grass roots game will tell you how full-blooded the game is. That is the history of the sport, and that is how we like it. In the modern game, examples of this are Steven Gerrard, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Scott Parker, etc, who enjoy going into 50/50 tackles, or "clearing house". So English referees, having grown up through grass roots, adopt this approach to the PL. Provided the player gets the ball first, play continues. In La Liga, Serie A, Ligue 1, etc, and player who goes in "aggressively" for a tackle, tends to get blown up for 'dangerous play'. Also, aerial challenges are much more penalised in Europe than England. Hence, La Liga and Serie A have a much higher average foul count than England. It is also one of the reasons why we believe Mike Riley did so badly at Euro 2004, because he adopted the English approach, especially in the Germany vs Latvia game, and let the play flow and using common sense, instead of the foreign approach, prefered by UEFA, of reffing to the letter of the law. With regards to diving, it is THE most hated part of the game in England. Players that dive in England certainly know they have straight after. And players dare not get a reputation for it! Just ask RVN or Pires. It is just not acceptable. The weird thing is though, the referees don't do much about it because they don't really have to. This is prevented in England through the fans and the media who hate it, so players tend not to do it. However, in Europe, it is completely acceptable, and almost encouraged. And because it happens so much in the European domestic leagues, the referees struggle to tell the difference between dives and actual fouls. Unfortunately, that means when English teams play in Europe and are reffed by foreign refs, diving is common place and it really winds the English up. Now onto the national team. Obviously in England, football is your average man's, and increasingly woman's, life and blood. So the chance to represent your country and the nation's favourite sport, when so many millions play it, is a real honour. However, in England, unlike in most of Europe's domestic leagues, we don;t have a winter break. And with 38 PL games, potentially about 10 domestic cup matches, and about 10 UCL games the season tends to get clogged up, with no break whatsoever from August-May. Now for clubs, who pay the international players about £2m a year to play for them, the possibility of them getting injured in pretty meaningless friendlies doesn't seem worth it. It also adds to the workload on the player. So clubs tend to be against it. And tbh, IMO, it is perfectly understandable. If I was paying someone £2m a year to play football, and he went off for a friendly and came back injured and out for the rest of the season, I would be more than a little peeved. The players tend to agree with this view, and if they are feeling any slight injuries, will pull out of the England squad. However, when it comes to meaningful games like European or World Cup qualifiers, then players and clubs are much more willing to play, and clubs don't mind their players playing. I certainly wouldn;t say that this means England players are less honoured or less passionate about playing for the country than other country's players. If I'm being honest, I can perfectly understand it.
It was my understanding that FIFA had very nasty sanctions if a player wasn't made available for "real" national competitions (World Cup qualifying) and the like. So a fair stick exists if a club doesn't release a player when needed. I understand them not being happy about sending players for "friendlies" (some of these look anything but) due to injury rates to very expensive players.
The national association can also have that player stood down from his/her club for the length of time that he/she was required by his/her national association.
One difference that I've noticed is that in SouthAmerica when a foul is committed the referee can wait up to 3-5 seconds before calling the foul, waiting to see if the team that got the foul didn't lose the ball. During the EuroCup I saw some of the f...ing dumbest calls. A midfielder ran with the ball and when he passed it to a forward that had a great oportunity to score the midfielder got foul AND THE REFEREE CALLED THE FOUL and made the forward stop on his run to score. I think the way is done in SouthAmerica makes more sense.
FIFA's rule is 6 games per annum IN ADDITION to WC's, Olympics & Confederation Championships. These 6 games can be of any variety. The player's club & club's FA can be sanctioned for playing any player in breach of the international team call-up, in a number of ways including having the player banned from playing for the club during a set period (IIRC 3 days) up to when he/she was required as well as the actual period of the games/tournament. There's really only two legitimate ways of avoiding a call-up (1) a verifiable injury or (2) a formal international retirement. Australia has invoked this ban in 2004 wrt Mark Viduka & Scott Chipperfield when the two players decided against playing for AUS versus Venezuela during a FIFA designated internationals time-slot. Other smaller countries (in a world footballing sense) will most certainly use this last resort when they have to deal with some less than co-operative clubs.
Yep I agree. In England, similar to the diving, the media and fans take a dim view of games that are stop start, mainly because it is what sets The Premier League apart from all other domestic leagues. So English refs tend to try and play advantage more than others, and is another reason why Spain and Italy has such a high average foul count. Carlos Amarilla is one of the best users of the advantage clause I've seen for a long time though.
But how did the players react to the decisions? The way you've described it, those were poor decisions, but speaking on a cultural basis, I've been told that Hispanic/South American style play is to prefer the free kick in most situations, except for the obvious advantage situations. And English/European style is to let play flow as much as possible.
The most direct reference to the English style of refereeing was by the infamous Urs Meier, who acknowledged that the goal that he waved off in Portugal would not have been waved off in England. He is right. The goal would very likely have stood in England, but was a 50/50 call in continental Europe.
This has been my experence in working the Adult leagues around Middle TN. The Adult open league wants the game to "flow". The All hispanic league wants almost every foul called and if it is in the attacking half, a "full blown", "wall setting", "play running" ceremonial restart. The league that is the most challenging to work is the leage that has teams made up of players from different cultures. This league has 16 teams, 8 from Hispanic countries, 2 mostly African teams, 2 Eastern European, 1 Korean and 3 English. Working a match between an "English" vs "Hispanic" seems to be the hadest for me to get a balance that is acceptable to both teams.
As ingerlishref noted in another thread, mike riley had a tough time at euro 2004 partly because of the points made in the original post. champions league games are without doubt the hardest to referee.