The Birmingham derby, whose
importance I discussed last week, often creates controversy which reaches deep into the days beyond. The latest encounter certainly did that - thankfully on the field of play - and in doing so has sparked a debate which I can't bring myself to ignore.
As you may know, I am an Aston Villa supporter and as such cannot legitimately claim to be writing this post without bias. However, my interest in the incident I'll be covering stretches further than club support. The raging debate has indicated that one of my biggest footballing bugbears is more entrenched than I thought. The concept of "contact" is, in my opinion, massively abused by supporters and the media. It manifests itself broadly in two problems:
- When a bad tackle is made, it is often excused on the grounds that "he won the ball"
- When a good tackle is made, it is often punished on the grounds that "he makes contact with the opponent"
I have a problem with football in general becoming less physical (in the 'hard but fair' sense) while over-aggressive tackles are allowed because of a touch on the ball. Given what occurred at Villa Park on Sunday lunchtime, I'll be focusing on the first of what I consider to be the problematic truisms above, and the eye-opening reaction it triggered.
The purpose of this post is not to be biased, to gloat, to criticise Birmingham City - who I thought did an impressive stifling job on Sunday - or to regurgitate the thoughts of
AVFC Central's Dan Ward, who has written the
best summary I've seen of the penalty decision itself. I have, instead, sought to clarify my own beliefs about what is actually in the rules and how that should be applied in the spirit of the game. Moreover, I want to stick one on the Sky-loving fans who are easily led by clueless pundits and commentators.
The Incident
In the 81st minute of a remarkably tense match between Aston Villa and Birmingham City on Sunday, Gabriel Agbonlahor found himself heading towards goal. His touch took him slightly off course as he entered the penalty area. As he moved back in towards Joe Hart in the City goal, Roger Johnson, who has had a fantastic season, went to ground. He clipped the ball before his momentum took him into far more significant contact with Agbonlahor.
It is my very strong belief - and has been throughout seeing the incident from the stands and then seeing countless replays since - that Johnson's touch on the ball was insignificant, leaving it (a) in play and (b) within playing distance of a then-upright Agbonlahor. He then went on to take both of the striker's legs, thereby committing a foul. As I've mentioned, "he touched the ball" is something I believe to be misleading, and so to me - Villa bias or otherwise - this was a definite penalty and was correctly awarded by Martin Atkinson. Incidentally, I thought he had an appalling game.
Birmingham's reaction has been under the spotlight this week and has now resulted in several FA charges. The club will be charged with failing to control its players after a group of them, led by Stephen Carr, remonstrated angrily with Atkinson after the decision was made. Alex McLeish is lucky not to face a similar charge. Johnson's forceful post-match comments have predictably landed him in hot water, while Carr faces an additional charge
and an investigation by West Midlands Police after appearing to make an offensive gesture towards Villa supporters on his way off the pitch. For the record, his gesture of choice was the ever-reliable 'wanker' sign.
The Media Reaction
I've made my position on the incident itself pretty clear, and I think the stance taken by much of the football media was ignorant, irresponsible and indicative of a lack of insight when it comes to the Laws of the Game. What makes it worse is that I knew it was coming. On
Match of the Day 2, Jake Humphrey and Lee Dixon took the path most travelled and suggested that Atkinson had made an error in awarding a penalty after noting (correctly) that Johnson had got a nick on the ball. "You're wrong", I thought.
And then
The Guardian's Stuart James came out with
an hilariously misguided (and, if I may say so, clearly anti-Villa) article which claimed that the penalty was "erroneously awarded" because Johnson "clearly won the ball". "Bollocks", I thought. The distinction between winning the ball and touching the ball is, in this situation, a crucial one.
Johnson did not
win the ball, clearly or otherwise. He got a slightly clumsy touch on it, not unlike the one John Terry made nano-seconds before almost ripping James Milner's leg in half at Wembley. Was that not a foul?
The Referees' Reaction
As soon as I noticed - to my surprise - that I seemed to be in a minority in my opinion on Johnson's challenge, I began to dread the moment that rent-a-quote ex-referee Graham Poll would come out in agreement. Sure enough, a
Daily Mail box-out from Poll points out that the assumption that getting a touch on the ball negates a foul is incorrect.
Meanwhile, I'd been doing some investigation of my own. Having picked out the page in the Laws of the Game which appears to rule that a careless, reckless or excessively forceful tackle is a foul - inside or outside the box - irrespective of the ball, I got in touch with a man who should be able to clarify the situation.
Ian Blanchard is the FA's Head of National Referee Development, and a former top class referee. Here's what he had to say:
If we take the incident in the Villa v Birmingham game, yes, the player made contact with the ball and that in itself is important. But was his challenge or tackle committed in a careless or reckless manner? If, in the opinion of the referee, it was, then the referee awards a direct free kick and in this case a penalty.
So, while it definitely wasn't excessively forceful, was Johnson's tackle careless or reckless? I would argue that it was most definitely careless, and in that sense I remain absolutely certain that this was a correctly awarded penalty.
The Lazy Football Community
I apologise for the obvious Villa slant on all this, and I only wish it had taken place between two other teams so I could be more impartial. But this is something that gets on my nerves in general and it's time it stopped. As football supporters, we're too quick to let the media - in particular SKY and their irritating resident gobshite Andy Gray - tell us what to think. When they're wrong, it becomes problematic. So when Stuart James or Lee Dixon excuse a clear foul on the basis that the ball was touched, we shouldn't just take their word for it.
Because this incident took place in a Villa match
and touched upon a personal annoyance, I took the time to study the facts, look at the Laws and found that what we were being fed by
MOTD2 and James was nonsense. We need to think for ourselves more, study the game more, read more. It's important to remember that SKY and other media have an agenda. That's why the "debate" on video technology is so one-sided, that's why they seek to simplify football with crap like this "ball first" argument and that's why they work to create controversy when there is none. Take responsibility.
(Pic via
Sporting Life)
Read more
