Compelling Soccer

Expanding on the David Ngog furor from the past two days, I thought I'd go into a little exploration of the FIFA guidelines on fouls. Partial credit goes to my roommate for this idea; he broke out the FIFA rule book when he was discussing how the rules were applied in FIFA 10.

Anyway, I found the section on free kicks and ended up posting a smaller summary of my take as a comment on the SBI forums. Basically, the rules show why this certainly wasn't an egregious dive and could have been called a penalty either way.

This is the section on direct free kicks:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick).

And then for penalties, listed right after:

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by
a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball,
provided it is in play.

This was mainly in response to the people who argue it's a dive and can't be a penalty because Carsley never made contact with Ngog. I bolded the key section. The rules state no contact has to be made; an attempt is just as punishable as actually tackling the guy. (The fact they don't call this in FIFA 10 is one of my roommate's biggest complaints about the game, btw, but that's a video game) So if you try to take a player down but fail, the referee can determine the attempt warrants a free kick and if its in the box, a penalty.

Of course the situation is tricky in what constitutes an attempt. That ends up becoming referee discretion because we can't read a player's mind.

In this case, Carsley came in from the side on the ground. He may or may not have made an attempt to play the ball. He didn't play the ball though, which means his leg was in a position to trip up Ngog without any contact with the ball. The player can try to avoid the leg, but it's easier said than done. Ngog's natural stride takes his first leg over while he launches himself up with the second stride. That's why I'd agree that it was a dive. But the reason it can still be a penalty is because the referee could easily decide that the defender made a reckless challenge intent on stopping the run one way or the other. Carsley can say he was going for the ball, but a veteran player also knows that by coming in with the slide tackle, you have a fairly good chance of getting the man and obstructing his path to the goal in some way. That's why the attempt is in there; you can screw a player over pretty badly just by putting an object, in this case, your leg, in his path. I don't know if his primary goal was to get the ball or stop the run by any means necessary. But no one does, which is why you can't argue the call.

And this is why Carsley has little argument. You don't HAVE to touch a player. If the referee determines you made an attempt to trip a player, then it can be called a foul whether you succeed or not. (Hence "attempt" being in the rule and not only the trip itself) The referee can determine that the tackle was a poor one with intent to take down a player. If he does then you are out of luck. If Carsley had gotten the ball, it probably wouldn't have mattered. But when he missed it, it made it look like the attempt was to get the player rather than the ball. Ngog's embellishment helped, but if he had continued running and fallen the result would have been the same. This wasn't a case where Carsley's leg missed everything and Ngog fell down when he was already past him.

The fact is this isn't nearly worth the fuss it has been made out to be. But because it's Liverpool, there's an issue. Just like when Man U got "just enough time" to score the equalizer against Man City. Anytime something benefits the big four clubs, the scrutiny will always be there. The reality is this stuff happens all the time across the world and across major sports. I've seen far worse acting jobs and bigger embellishments in every one of the major US sports. Do people question manliness of the players when a receiver throws his hands up and tries to get a flag thrown, or when a QB throws himself to the ground a little harder hoping for a roughing the passer call? Or how about a swipe tag that misses? Do you complain and say the player shouldn't pretend to have made the tag successfully? It's part of the game and some would be called heady for doing it.

Obviously, I'm rooting for the Reds, so I'm biased. However I did ask the Leicester City fan on my job about it and he had little issue with it, despite hating Liverpool. The tackle was poor in his mind and as a result Carsley had no arguments. Basically it came down to: "You go to ground and don't get the ball, you risk a foul and a penalty." And that was before I mentioned anything about the rules.

Bottom line, dive or not, Birmingham City can have little argument with the result. Also bottom line, as I mentioned yesterday, in the grand scope of things this play is insignificant to Liverpool. (And I doubt people care all that much about City) They were screwed coming in. They are screwed coming out in the one place that matters, the table. Despite the furor, this will end up being much ado about nothing.