As far as apologies go, Mark Clattenburg’s one to Hull City’s players for missing the most blatant case of hand on ball, since the elf-sized Diego Maradona outjumped the relatively giant-sized Peter Shilton at the 1986 World Cup, will have been about as comforting as brushing your teeth with a toothbrush made of barbed wire.
The official is said to have made the remarks after missing Alexis Sanchez’s hand ball that led to Arsenal taking the lead at Emirates Stadium last weekend.
And while that incident was not the worst thing Clattenburg (who incidentally quit on Friday) missed in the match – failing to send off Kieran Gibbs for a shoulder charge that bordered on actual bodily harm on Lazar Markovic when the Hull forward was through on goal and Gibbs was last man was – it reignites the existential debate on whether it is right, or even necessary, to ask one man to judge a player's intentions.
__________________________________
Read more
■ Weekend talking points: Struggles at Barcelona and Arsenal
■ FA Cup picks: Do United and Arsenal pick up weekend wins?
■ Champions League: Ronaldo still short of 100, but Real Madrid win
__________________________________
No question Sanchez was in such proximity to visiting goalkeeper Eldin Jakupovic, who had blocked his original effort, that even with the Chile international’s fine motor neuron skills it would have been almost impossible to have moved his hand out of the way in time.
But the outcome – a goal to Arsenal, an unfair punishment for Hull – surely means that all judgement of intent should be taken out of the equation. The goal should not have stood.
The only way to ensure every hand ball decision is the correct one is to punish all, regardless of whether one, 10 or a million people think it was deliberate or not.
The Sanchez incident sparked a social media frenzy by commentators demanding the introduction of television replays to help match officials in these type of situations. Except that does not solve the problem. It is asking the wrong question and passing the buck.
The eye in the sky would be asked for his judgement on whether the Chilean had meant to deliberately handle the ball. And he may very well have. But the question should simply be did the ball strike the Arsenal player’s arm – yes or no? The emphatic answer is yes.
The video referee should only be used to alert the official on the pitch if he has missed a hand ball, not supersede him in questioning a player’s intentions.
If every hand ball is punished then every team gets the same treatment, good and bad. A referee blowing up every time hands or arms touch leather would lead to more free kicks but also more penalty kicks and hence more goalscoring opportunities.
Sure you could get a few 6-6 scores. You may even get players deliberately targeting players arms when they are in the penalty area. But punishing all the same would result in a 100 per cent success rate. No more moaning by small clubs how a referee favoured a big team at home, no more crying foul that decisions did not even themselves out over the course of a season. They would. For everyone.
As is currently the case, the official should be asked to use their judgement if a player handles a ball that denied a clear chance of a goal, as Clattenburg did late in the Arsenal match when he sent off Hull’s Sam Clucas for using his right arm to keep out Lucas Perez’s goalbound header. But that should be the extent of their remit on reading a player’s mind.
Hands up if you like the idea.
sluckings@thenational.ae
Follow us on Twitter @NatSportUAE
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/TheNationalSport
