Fabulous Story from NRAH

Blog purveyor extraordinaire, Paul Levy, shares a great story regarding how a referee can really ruin a moment if they let the LOTG and a lack of common sense get in the way.

Check out Paul's story, Sportsmanship Supreme, at his blog, Not Running A Hospital.

It is a classic!

Playing the "black card"

I just don't know where to start with this one.

I could use it as a warning to referees everywhere that there is no such thing as a "friendly match."
What referee gets prepared for a mass confrontation event during a badminton match?

Seriously, how do you deal with something so extraordinary that it has only happened (per the announcers) once or twice in history!

While the referee apparently got the call right ... I wonder how much training is given for such an event.

I was waiting for Hulk Hogan to charge in and rip his shirt off.



I could go down the path of a horribly named penalty ... I mean a "black card"? Why not just say disqualification? Then again, as I listen to how a caution is described in MLS stadia across the US it is generally a "yellow card, caution, warning."

I get the origin ... but ... I dunno ... any sport that uses a shuttlecock is just weird to me. Then again I ride around in a colorful spandex suit that practically shows what religion I am.

I had to chuckle when the female announcer let an explicative go at :17. But the more I thought about it the more I knew they would not be fined as no one was watching. Then again more than a couple MLB teams are suffering this right now.

I think my overall point while trying to be somewhat tongue in cheek, is sport is sport, and it does not matter if it kids playing youth anything, or adults playing professional something, a referee has to always be ready for anything.

Even a hockey game breaking out in the NHL.

Should We Punish the Innocent?

To put this in context, take a look at, "Keep the heat on cheats", from Mirror Football.

It details that to wrongly book players who may not be actually cheating is alright, so long as it is done for the "right reason" of doing so for The Game.

I'm not so sure I agree with this personally.

Trust me, I get that a referee can make mistakes. I have made whoppers throughout my career from the local U6 match, all the way up to the international friendlies I was involved in. Making mistakes in a match is unavoidable, and I found an attitude of "try your best, and fix the rest" was particularly helpful. One can always get better.

There is nothing wrong in my estimation to book a player for something, like a dive, when you genuinely believe in your heart of hearts the player dove. In my career I found myself asking these players often, after the match, if it was, or was not a dive. Some answered honestly, some did not, some declined to answer fearing it would taint my opinion the next time I saw them. In all cases I was trying to learn what goes into a good dive.

If however you are not sure, bringing out a "speculative caution" is a big risk. It alters the management of the match in a big way, and if not really earned, places an undue burden on the cautioned player. Let's face it, a player generally plays differently when playing with a caution, than without.

This also does not take into consideration, at some levels, fines, sanctions, or even suspensions that can occur to a player who has accumulated "points" by so many cautions. Is that fair to punish a player for something they may or may not have done?

Where I believe however, this is at its most dangerous, and referees will not go, is if a player is already under a cation in a match, and commits an offence that, without the previous caution, would have resulted in one, but now with a caution already, a "speculative caution" will likely fail to appear. I just don't think referees will go there.

Where is the consistency there? If a player should be booked, book them. Even if this "speculative booking" should take place, send them off. Right?

I don't think they will because a send off materially changes the match, and to speculate, even for noble reasons, about a players motive, is not appropriate.

In short, the ends (of eradicating diving in players by cautioning) do not justify the means (of speculatively cautioning, or sending off these players).

It's a laudable goal, but I think to guess, and have a handy excuse from the league, is intellectually lazy in this case. If you think they dove, caution them. If you don't know, let them be. If you make a mistake in judging, shame on the player, not the referee. But, the referee should learn form it, not just duck under a handy made excuse.

Now, in speaking out the other side of my mouth, there are times when I think this IS appropriate. Particularly, in offside decisions that are just that close.

We have heard it before, if there is doubt, leave the flag down. This is to promote the attacking nature of The Game.

One in the same? Maybe.

One big distinction to me is that a speculative caution causes harm to individual players that is unrecoverable in the course of the match, where allowing a goal can certainly be harmful to a team, but is generally recoverable in a match.

A fine line distinction ... yes. One I personally can live with though as I have a very difficult time justifying booking a player when I am not really sure if they did it or not.

A Real Gentelman's Game

For any who were following the drama in Stage 14 of the TdF we were treated to a spectrum of events that ranged from grotesque to divine.

For those unaware, several carpet tacks were spread on the road at the summit of the last climb, the Mur de Péguère. This caused absolute mayhem that included a reported (48) punctures for riders, several team cars, and many referees with over $10,000 of damage reported due to these punctures. Also, Robert Kiserlovski (Astana), tumbled to the tarmac, likely as a result of a puncture from a tack, was forced to abandon with a suspected fractured collarbone.

Reason for this assault is unknown, but when it was unfolding live, Madame X suggested it a Basque separatist statement. Hat tip to her as the Washington Post agrees with her theory here. While I laughed it off at the time, I am eating crow today.

In the carnage was last years Tour de France winner, Cadel Evans who punctured (3) times on his way down the final decent. I was sick to my stomach watching time slip away from him as no team car was present, no neutral support vehicle, and no teammate with the same size wheel, or bike to offer him to allow him to defend his title.

Wiggins the current race leader was made aware of the situation, and in the ultimate gesture of sportsmanship, neutralized the stage, and waited for Evans and the remainder of the teams who were effected by the sabotage. One notable exception was a single escapee, Pierre Rolland, who was eventually reeled in and will be punished by the peleton for the remainder of Le Tour.

Funny thing was when Wiggo was asked about it the next day, he was clear that he did not want to capitalize on another's misfortune, and he noted that such hooligans belonged at a football (soccer) match.

I found that interesting.

For something that I had often considered the ultimate "Gentleman's Game", I was shown that maybe, just maybe, we can learn a thing or two from another sport.

Hat tip to Mr. Wiggins.

Unsporting Behavior?

Should the referee get involved in this one? Yes or no?
Kudos to Steve for bringing this one forward.