Time for the media to lay off football officials?
Being a referee is a tough, lonely job. And, as football gets ever quicker, more demanding and more exposure, it’s obvious that that job will continue to increase in pressure.
One particular Premier League referee stands out more than most.
Mike Dean.
It’s fair to say he’s faced a lot of criticism over the years — some of it justified, some not so much so.
There’s even a humorous Twitter account, documenting his (and some other referee’s) actions…
This weekend he’s been at the forefront of those criticisms again.
The criticism comes from two events within the AFC Bournemouth vs Manchester City encounter. Firstly the lack of a red card being shown to AFC Bournemouth player Nathan Ake for a tackle on Gabriel Jesus, and the second for showing a red card to Raheem Sterling in the 99th minute of the game.
So here’s my take.
Both decisions he made were absolutely correct.
Firstly, the Ake incident.
Jesus had literally only just tackled Ake himself, around 10 yards inside the Bournemouth half. Not only did Jesus not have control of the ball, but he would also have been in a foot chase with at least two other Bournemouth defenders, as well as the advancing Asmir Begovic in goal — although some will argue that he would have had the pace to beat them. But this is where those arguments are flawed: the referee has to make the judgement on what he sees, not on what “could” happen; the referee has to judge the players as though each is identical in pace, technical ability and performance.
The questions that Mike Dean would have had to ask before making the decision on card colour?
- Is the player (Gabriel Jesus) in full control of the ball? NO
- Was the tackle reckless, dangerous or out of control? NO
- Is there a member of the defending team who could reasonably be expected to recover and tackle the attacker, before a shot or chance on goal is created? YES
If the answer to question 2 is “yes”, it’s an immediate red card. If the answer to question 3 is “no”, it’s an immediate red card provided question 1 has been answered “yes”. If question 3 has been answered “yes”, then it can’t be a red card according to the laws of the game.
Secondly, the Raheem Sterling red card.
Firstly, I just want to highlight that Sterling would not have been shown “a red card for celebrating”, as the media are reporting. How do I know this?
Because of Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct of the game. The law is quite clear here, on celebrations.
The celebration must not be excessive.
And it continues:
A player must be cautioned for:
climbing onto a perimeter fence and/or approaching the spectators in a manner which can cause safety and/or security issues
gesturing or acting in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way
covering the head or face with a mask or other similar item
removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt
Did Sterling approach the spectators in a manner which can cause safety and/or security issues? Absolutely.
Did he celebrate in any of the other ways listed? No.
But he doesn’t have to have celebrated in each of those ways; one is more than enough for a yellow card to be produced.
Bizarrely, I just know that some fans will argue he didn’t approach the spectators in a manner which can cause safety and/or security issues.
He ran to the spectators who were already on the pitch, and ran into the centre of that group. This caused more spectators to spill over onto the pitch, with crowd control stewards and police struggling to contain the crowd and also protect the players who were continuing to approach the corner where Manchester City fans were watching from.
His actions were, according to the FA Laws of the Game, worthy of a yellow card.
Despite what some sections of the media think, it’s not Mike Dean’s fault that this was Sterling’s second yellow card offence. His tackle just a few minutes before his goal, was petulant and equally worthy of a yellow card.
Two yellow cards for the same player, also as per Law 12, results in the player being sent from the field of play.
So why the unfair criticism of Mike Dean? Is it simply because this was a game involving one of the “big teams”? Previous form?
Who knows. But the media, in these early weeks of the Premier League, appear to have more of an anti-official agenda than in any previous season — highlighted further last week, by the bizarre witch-hunt around the assistant who correctly called an offside decision.
It makes their jobs so much more difficult in both the short and long terms. The criticism is unfair, unjustified and just plain ridiculous.
Let’s give them a break, eh? Especially when they’re making the correct decisions.
