Wigan vs. West Ham [R] - numerous controversies

See Bob Evans' blog. He has a definite view on this game.

 

No issue here with me. The unfortunate aspect is that Cole doesn't really have an opportunity to look around and check to see if his high foot might be dangerous.

9 men or not, I didn't see any requirement to give Parker a yellow. I don't know what Michael Brown did, but "aggressive attitude" is not a term used in the US. I suspect that Parker was upset about whatever it is that Brown did.

It looked like to me Neill got to the ball first, although it isn't exactly clear how much ball Neill actually got. Obviously, the more ball, the more a yellow is appropriate, IMO. We just don't see too many studs-first tackles in MLS like this one. I have no idea how this type of play has been called in England this year. MassRef would probably give two reds to Neill. However, I have no problem with just a yellow. For me, a lot depends on how much contact he made on the ball. Similar to the Cole second yellow, I don't believe there was any unsporting intent. The speed of play obviously is quite fast.

I didn't think a red was required here. Parker was running away from Cattermole, Cattermole was running hard to catch up, then Parker stopped abruptly, turned sharply to the right and stuck his leg way out. Since Parker was turning to the right, it made sense for Cattermole to try to move to the right of Parker and make an attempt at the ball. As Parker played it. Cattermole really had no choice but to run into Parker, and the soft pitch surely contributed. Certainly it was a bad tackle, but the commentator made it sound like the Hindenburg had just landed.


I don't see any significant controversies here. These mostly were borderline cases. The match seemed well reffed to me.

 

Bob Evans:

"Neill of West Ham goes over the top of the ball, studs first into the ankle of Cattermole of Wigan, but gets only a yellow card."

Except Neill did not go over the top of the ball.

It should also be noted that Attwell's view was from the opposite side of the ball.

 

Come on PVancouver, there is no need to disagree just to get a reaction. That second red was a SHOCKING challenge. He came in high and late, on an opponent's KNEE. Good god man, what league do you ref in where that isn't red?

The double yellow on Cole was 100%. The first yellow was clear, and was a good advantage call. The high foot - what realistic rationale does he have for his cleat being six feet off the air in an opponent's face? Easy second YC.

The Neill tackle could have been red, probably should have been, but I think the result was worse than the intent, and replay made it seem even worse.

The replays of the scuffle after the Cole RC were too inconclusive for me to really know what should have been done there, but where is behaving aggressively given as a YC offense? Oh well.

I though Mr Atwell had a very good game considering the intent the players came in with, though obviously only seeing the highlights I don't know how much little stuff he might have let build up.

 

I think the players decided to take Atwell for a ride. Undoubtedly, they knew that he was a new, relatively inexperienced referee and wanted to see what they could accomplish. It is interesting to me that the questions at the end of the interview are not about whether the referee did a good job, but rather whether or not the players lost respect for the referee. That is what I thought happened.


I don't see what Cole's problem is. First tackle is easily a caution. Good attempt at advantage and then going back to caution after the ball goes out of play. Going back to another thread, had Cole's seccond caution drawn blood, I think you would have seen straight red, although Atwell didn't impress me enough to be convinced that he would do the right thing. Studs up almost 6 feet off the ground to the face, to me, is a sending off. I'm kind of surprised that the Wigan player didn't make more of a meal out of it.

Even the commentators thought Neil's tackle should have been a straight red. Studs up almost halfway up the lower leg, come on. I don't know how much more textbook it gets than that. This is where it gets shady for me. In a league that incessantly feels the need to vioate FIFA directives and rescind red cards, IMO they absolutely need to start increasing sanctions after matches are over. Regardless of what happened on the field, this challenge should be sanctioned as SFP. If Atwell didn't deal with it properly, then the league should. One of the things that will help stop these things from happening is to make sure that they get punished every time, even if the referee doesn't do it.


Atwell finaly got the Cattermole decision correct. The lunging nature of the challenge, with the insolent attitude of Cattermole afterwards is evidence enough to me that it was nothing short of intentional. IMO, he should get more than the 1 match ban. It was obviously retaliation. It was also interesting to me that it seemed like the players knew that Atwell was in over his head, and did a good job making sure that there wasn't a full-out brawl on the field. I was not impressed with the way he handled the situation. He stood over to the side and it took him quite some time to show the red. He looked indecisive. I'm not one to blame things like this on a referee, because it is the responsibility of the players to play fair and not act like idiots. I think this got to the point that it did because the players didn't feel that justice was being meted out. They gave Atwell the opportunity to take care of these things in the begining, but when he showed that he wouldn't, took it upon themselves to issue vigilante justice. Seeing as how Atwell is the FA's golden boy, it wil be interesting to see if anything happens to him, especially publicly. I don't think he should be sanctioned; I think it's a bad practice to publicly sanction referees. He should definitely be remediated, and it might be beneficial to let everyone know that he was been retrained on these things and to not test him out on the field.

 

According to the Evan's piece, he's done for the year

 

If I felt Cattermole could have done something to avoid the contact, or worse, if I felt he deliberately jumped up in the air to purposely land on top of Parker, then a straight red would certainly be in order. I just can't tell from this video.

Likewise, it is difficult for me to determine how much ball Neill got. Did he get all ball, or just barely a touch? It wasn't easy to tell. I don't see any reason why Neill would not have gotten a solid foot to the ball, unless he is blind. If he got all ball, and then the ball bounced off Cattermole, and then Neills studs went into the lower leg of Cattermole, then I just find it really difficult to say that sending off Neill is the right thing to do.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with any of this.

Well, he did send off Cole. And then he sent off Cattermole. He gave out eight yellows. He wasn't spineless.

You mean after the one poor decision in which he only gave a yellow and not a red? He "finally" got a decision right? Tough crowd.

 

Maybe.

"(And I have just learned from tomorrow's papers that he will not be in charge of a Premiership match for the foreseeable future, and perhaps for the entire season.)"

 

I stand corrected. I never meant to imply "aggressive attitude" is not a cautionable offense, but merely, since it is rarely heard in the US, more specifically, MLS, it is difficult to compare.

I didn't think you would see it as a slight. My point was that you specifically (or others, in general, such as Bob Evans, would see it as a clear red, and even as a multiple game suspension. Was I wrong?)

Apparently referees need a thicker skin. I wasn't insulting you. I was merely saying that you would likely be in favor of a red in this situation, as you have clearly indicated, recently, that all, or nearly all, studs-first tackles should be eliminated. No, I am not going to take the time right now and look for quotes.

I also disagree about the importance of whether or not I am actually a referee. Even if I was a referee, I would not be doing games at this level. I was a player but never at a high level. So what? I believe I have a feel for what these high level players are thinking, even if I am not one. For example, boylanj64 sayd "The high foot - what realistic rationale does [Cole] have for his cleat being six feet off the air in an opponent's face? Easy second YC." Well, I would argue that Cole was looking only at the ball, and was not at all aware of where the other player was. He only desired to play the ball. And 99% of the time, he would have been able to (no opponent would be there). Getting a straight red for such a play is awfully harsh, even if it could have been very dangerous.

You would have a better argument if you said I don't watch much Premiership football, because I don't. The level of play, what has been called in other matches, etc., is certainly different from MLS.

 

We've been discussing the appropriate location of arms in a jump on another thread, but ask yourself, as a player, when you jump for a ball, does your foot ever end up six feet in the air? I mean, it just doesn't make sense for a foot to be that high - no matter what your purported motives were, it can serve no good for anyone.

 

While I do agree that Neill didn't go over the ball, he did completely leave his feet, going in studs-first - giving this the essential elements of a two-footed challenge as he had absolutely no way to control himself once he committed. He was very fortunate that he was not sent off.

-- CSR

 

That is a rather odd statement considering that Cole actually did play the ball with his foot, although probably not with the degree of control he would have preferred. I just don't seem him as possibly being able to reach the ball with his head.

 

He could have brought his leading foot back if he did not believe he would reach the ball before the opponent. However, that wouldn't have prevented him from knocking the opponent over. But shouldn't a two-footed challenge be limited to a challenge using, well, two feet? I won't disagree that he was fortunate, depending on how much ball he got. If he missed the ball entirely or nearly so, a red would certainly be in order. But even if this was the case, the referee should be given some discretion. This play occurred at very high speed.

 

Of course he could have headed the ball - the announcers even say "quite strange, considering the ball was at the perfect height for a flick on with the head." Maybe by the time he put his foot up he couldn't have, but if he hadn't misjudge the flight of the ball it is an easy header. Misjudging a ball is no excuse for sticking your foot through an opponent's face.

 

You're being hypocritical here - you argued the second RC, which DID involve two feet coming in, was not a red card, but here, simply by dint of two feet NOT being involved, was not. You're using a double standard. The point CSR is making, and it is correct, is that the player took both feet off the ground when he went in - at the least, dangerous play and a YC is proper. With contact, above the ankle, with the cleat exposed, probably a red. I will not castigate Mr Atwell for this though - difficult call, poor angle (which he could have been better on), though the speed was not as high as you claim PVancouver, especially by the standards of the EPL. Amateur, college ball, top flight youth, they are frequently at this speed and referees have to be able to react accordingly.

 

No, I didn't. Whether or not it deserves a red rests on other issues, not, IMO, on whether or not it is a two-footed tackle.

I argued that the first challenge should not be labelled a "two-footed tackle", which, in MLS, is known as a "Frankie Hejduk". But perhaps CSR wasn't actually labelling it as a two-footed tackle, but merely saying that it had most of its "essential elements", that are often seen as too dangerous to be permitted.

If he gets to the ball first and gets 100% ball, or gets to the ball at the same time as the other player but gets 100% ball as he goes through, possibly knocking the other player down through the ball, would you not see this as a fair play?

Of course, by this same logic, I have to question the first yellow to Cole. Cole did bring down Brown, but the challenge wasn't "late", and wasn't particularly violent. An advantage call for a "careless" foul would seem more appropriate.

His name is Attwell, isn't it?

 

Another point I noticed, and that hints at a lack of respect for Mr Attwell from the very start. At the start of the clip we have a blatant push in front of the box - ok, Mr Attwell calls it. However, on the resulting DFK we have a West Ham player sprinting at the kick before it has been taken - clearly infinging, and probably getting within 5 yards of the ball. I doubt Mr Webb would have seen the same thing.

Beginning with the first card to Cole. You write:

This foul was ahrdly careless - Cole comes in significantly late, as evidenced by the fact the opponent had a chance to jump out of the way. Had he caught him the announcers would have been screaming for red. Cole comes in recklessly, not carelessly, and yellow would have been the appropriate call even had there been zero contact. Intent is enough.

The second yellow on Cole I believe has been sufficiently addressed. Regarding the yellow on Neill, you write:

Maybe - the announcers certainly would. However, by leaving his feet completely and sliding in with studs exposed, Neill shows complete disregard for his opponent's safety and leaves his own fate in the hands of luck. It is, at the very least, a yellow - I would say better than 50% chance he would have seen red for SFP there had the referee not already sent off Cole.

 

I didn't read Evans' take on it until after I posted. I think it's a shame. I'm not going to argue that Atwell didn't do a poor job, but the FA has basically ruined his credibility with the players. The FA were jumping through hoops to promote him to the EPL and elevate him to the FIFA list when pretty much everyone on the world who pays attention to these things felt that he was neither good enough nor ready for what awaited him. So now, the FA has been given exactly what they asked for in Atwell. He is now being turned into a scapegoat. If he was going to be good enough to be a PL/FIFA referee at 26, one would think that he would also be at 30. 4 more years of training in the Championship and some bottom level PL matches with some serious oversight/mentoring would have made him come along nicely. Now they have a member of their FIFA panel who is being removed from the list of referees eligible to work in the top domestic league (which is a FIFA requirement to wear a shield). All of this could have been avoided if they had not been so hasty. I don't like sancitoning referees, especially like this. Had he made a greivous error in application of the law, or been caught in an off-field scandal I could see it. Overall, he lost control of a match and made poor judgement on what many would consider judgement calls. I don't think that justify's their abandoning Atwell. THe FA needs to bear some responsibility here. Rather than throwing Atwell under the bus (and a double-decker bus at that....I bet they are heavier), they should be using this match as a training tool to help one of their up-and-coming referees succeed in the future.

 

That is where I was going with my comments. What makes a two-footed challenge so dangerous isn't really the presence of two feet - it's the lack of control as the offender throws himself into the challenge.

As you mention, I think there's more to it. If someone goes in two-footed and in my opinion is doing so with an attempt to injure or intimidate, then his getting only the ball is secondary to me. I'm probably sending that player off.

I generally agree that Cole's first caution was probably a bit harsh. Based on the video provided, I didn't think it was particularly late or reckless. But having received a caution, deserved or not, Cole should have been much more careful after that. Already sitting on a caution, there was no way he should have been so adventurous to make the challenge which earned him the second caution.

-- CSR

 

I agree the player infringing the 10 yards should be carded, even if he doesn't affect play (when it is that egregious).

It sure looks to me that Cole makes contact with the ball before touching the opponent. Now, could he have done it without taking out the opponent? This is debatable. I don't equate "with pace" with "reckless".

Wow. Cattermole's studs, while exposed, came nowhere near Parker. Bringing Cattermole's studs into this is ridiculous. Every player who runs "leaves his feet completely". If he doesn't, he is considered to be walking.

 

Too add to that. And this isnt shown in the clip. When we were going to take that free kick the West Ham wall would simply not get back the 10 required yards. Every time Atwell turned his back the wall would blatantly move forward. Atwell would go back, march them back, turn his back, and the same would happen.

In the end he actually got us to move the ball further back so that the wall was 10 yards - they then charged it down as has been discussed.

Thats when he lost the game. Cards should have been shown for the wall continually trying to gain an advantage.

 

If you had read the quote, you would realize I was discussing Neill's tackle, and thus his studs, and not Cattermole's

 

Rookie ref Attwell to be stood down (again) after night of madness at JJB

No wonder soccer is so popular in England!

It is rather interesting that the Cole send-off is viewed as the turning point.

The common thread between this send-off and the Cristiano send-off is that in neither case did either player do anything "malicious". Instead, they are considered to be "innocuous incidents".