Soccer's loss is rugby's gain
Referees have it tough on the other side
Perhaps the timing of this column will give away what it is likely to be about, but then again, many of you may be surprised to see something about soccer here at all.
However if you, like me, do not suffer – or at least make violently public – the sad and lonely antipathies towards soccer that the supporters of that sport generally try and articulate towards us, you may also have been in a public house watching Barcelona beat Arsenal in the Champions League final on Wednesday.
There is much between the two sports that can be compared, much of which comes out very much in favour of the oval ball: honesty and sportsmanship in play and in physical contact, deference to the authority of the referee, the level-headedness of the supporters, an unwillingness to hang out dirty washing in public.
It's not always true, but it does hold as a generality. However, of all that rugby holds in comparison with soccer, the more liberal advantage law develops the sport far, far beyond the shenanigans which could easily have cost Barcelona FC dear on Wednesday. It is a distinct advantage, in fact.
A description first, for those who declined the chance to watch some of the finest sportsmen on the planet on Wednesday. A Barcelona player was sent through on goal by a weighted through ball every bit as deft as one of Riki Flutey's chips against Wasps a few weeks ago.
The player bore down on goal, poked the ball past the onrushing goalkeeper, whose flailing hand then brought down the striker and denied him the chance to score. Foul.
However the ball ran free, and another Barcelona player, overlapping on the right, ran onto the ball and slid it into the far corner of the net. This was barely four seconds after the foul. Goal, right?
Well, no actually. In the event, there was a free-kick for the goalkeeper's foul, and the goalkeeper was shown a straight red-card for that most indefinable of crimes, the Professional Foul.
Barcelona, who could have been a goal up, failed to score from the free-kick, and instead spent most of the match chasing a one-goal deficit against ten men whose tactics ensured that they rarely spent a prolonged period of time in their opponents' half. The goalkeeper exited in tears.
In rugby, there would have been no question. The referee would have stuck out his hand and shouted "advantage blue" and waited. The Barcelona player would have scored. One-nil – just reward for a scintillating piece of play – two full teams, crowd happy, no tearful goalkeeper…the list of positives goes on.
An advantage has more impact in rugby – and can run for longer – because of the nature of possession. In rugby, all possession has the potential to be threatening, even if it is only a lumbering prop making a hard half-yard. It is for the referee to decide what is advantageous to a particular team. Advantage can run for several phases. This is what makes our game so good to watch. Advantage in football needs to be more immediate because of the comparative difficulty in keeping the ball. It is also easier to see when it ends. But four seconds?
There are often games that are spoiled by repetitive errors or infringements, but for some matches – Wasps v London Irish is a good example – a stat ought to be made of the number of stoppages which don't happen because advantage is running, and allowed to run its full course.
Terje Hauge, the referee for the soccer match in question, had a choice of awarding advantage or not, but his common sense was over-ridden by the spectre of a public flaying for 'not following the letter of the law'. He had to blow his whistle because a Professional Foul had been committed. To hell with advantage under those circumstances.
Barcelona were denied a perfectly good goal by the letter of the law which was supposed to clean the game up, but which has instead – like many others – reduced officialities in the game of football to such extreme shades of black and white that any human error on the part of a referee can and will be mercilessly forced down the public's throat, until the bile such scrutiny produces is brought back up in the form of naked and evil aggression against the perceived wrong-doer. Thus is football deprived of the services of Anders Frisk, whom I always found to be an excellent official.
So rugby, and rugby referees, gain from the more common sense laws, whereas football, and football referees are often forced to sacrifice commonsense for the sake of continuity. It is worth bearing this prominently in mind when watching a rugby match.
Much of rugby law is a grey area, which, we are given to believe, is under near-constant review as the law-makers seek to clarify it.
But the more 'clarity' there is in the laws, the more culpable the officials become for making mistakes because of the advent of the TV replay, and the less onus is there on their own perception, personality, and intuitiveness in handling a game. There is such a thing as over-clarity, and rugby is inching towards it.
What Terje Hauge's decision last night illustrated more than anything else is the potential for personality and common sense to be torn out of officialdom. Rugby still retains that personality: its reliance on the referees who are some of the greatest characters currently in the game, using their heads and feel for a situation in order to get the best result for all concerned out of a shade of grey.
Long may it remain so, for it would be a shame if we were also to start seeing more yellow cards than tries.
By Danny Stephens.
