To Argue or not to Argue; That is the Question

As we are well into the football season now, it is high time to have some Grumpy comment. When it comes to football, there are so many aspects that one could choose from. On this occasion, I shall share with you my conclusion that everything can put into one of two buckets. (1) The things that I understand and (2) things that I do not understand. Have you got that? Quite simple really.

Things that I do understand include why players from both sides put up their hands for a throw in. Although one of the numerous examples of institutional cheating, it is a completely rational attempt to fool the referee into making an incorrect decision in your favour, and anyway, if you don’t do it, then the other side will. It is the football equivalent of lying to the police about your speed. “I am sure I wasn’t going more than 34 miles per hour, officer……………………Was I really going that fast?”

Falling over in the penalty area also falls into this category. As no referee has ever given a penalty where the player does not fall down, it makes perfect sense for the player not to try too hard to stay on his feet. It fact, it is negligent to try to stay upright.

Another perfectly logical enigma is why the offside rule is so simple in theory, but almost impossible to follow in its interpretation and in practice. If football rules were simplified too much, then commentators would have nothing to talk about at half-time and at the end of the game. “Now let’s look at this latest gaff from the referee”. Forget about the goals. Football commentators equivalent of Fox Hunting (and ought to be banned, except that “the referee enjoys the chase as well”)

The First Item that falls in the heading of “Things that I do not understand” is how all football league games start on time. If kick-off is at 3.00 pm, then you can set your watch by this (unless the Sky TV advertising schedule delays the start.) In business meetings that I attended (Swiss are exempt from this), most participants only arrive after the meeting is due to start. For football games to start on time is quite an achievement as timekeeping requires organisation and discipline, which in most cases has only been mastered by the Swiss. Nevertheless, when it comes to the Great Game, even matches played in (what are loosely known as) countries with a “Latin temperament” (i.e. bad timekeepers), the games kick off on time. Would someone please explain this to me!

Let’s move on to much more familiar territory and explore the mysteries of player behaviour at penalties. It never fails to amaze that players always argue with a penalty decision. On the other hand, it never surprises anyone that the referees never change their mind (the decision in the Celtic v Dundee game this October somewhat knocks a hole in this central observation.)

I do not have any actual data here. I will make some up, but I will not be a million miles wide of the mark. On a rough calculation, there are 2,100 games in the leagues in a season. If on average, a penalty is awarded in every third game, then there about 700 penalties in a season, give or take a few hundred, certainly enough to draw some statistically valid conclusions. Now, here is the observation. In 700 cases out of 700, the defending side protest about the decision and in 699 out 700, the referee doesn’t change his mind (Dougie MacDonald being the exception.)

Perhaps there is a leading football textbook, with a misprint and that all young footballers are required to learn. “You must not argue with the referee about a penalty”, (with “not” omitted”). Yes. I am sure that this is the natural explanation. Any other thoughts?