THAT Free Kick. Arsenal Vs Porto, Wednesday 17th February 2010

If you are an Arsenal fan you may have, during the first 16 of the Champions League, been infuriated for many reasons. Possibly the fact that the result was a completely undeserving defeat, maybe because Lukas Fabianski proved once again he is not entirely capable of top class matches, it could be because once again Arsenal were plagued by injuries or it could even have been due to the fact that Francesc Fabregas was fouled more times than you could count. Though it was more likely that you were infuriated by a certain referee's decision. This decision being, of course, about Lukas Fabianski handling a back-pass from veteran Sol Campbell. 

You may have been chanting from your living rooms a famous tune 'The Referee's a ****er' or possibly murmuring under your breath the dreaded words of '12 men'. But, whether it was one of the above, a different chant or just stunned silence each Arsenal fan in the world was participating in one of those ventures.

This is unfortunately a much harder case to shout about. Many non-Arsenal supporters will tell you 'the ref was not biased or cheating'. Of the course the referee wasn't biased (because referees are not COUGH COUGH) and he also did not cheat. Everything he did surrounding the incident was perfectly justifiable in the Rule Book but, as with any sport, playing by the Rule Book does not make for a proper game. As many scientists say 'It is the exceptions that prove the rule', or as far as football goes it is dealing with these exceptions in a way that the game will see fit.

The referee did not.

Here is a list of what went wrong: The free kick should not have been taken quickly. Fabianski held the ball while the Porto player attempted to take it off of him. Which is fine. However when the referee asked for the ball Fabianski had to hand it over. Obviously the keeper was expecting the referee to ask for a wall to be set up and make sure none of the arsenal players were too close. This is not what happened. The referee immediately handed the ball to the attacking team an action which Fabianski had the been so keen to avoid.

Secondly the referee, after handing the ball back to Porto too early, is standing right next to the ball. If the Porto player had tried to pass the ball through the referee, failed to do so and complained. The ref would almost certainly have told them they were taking it too early to avoid being the cause of a problem. He should not be so close to the free kick which shows that he was not expecting  a quick free kick to be taken. From which i would presume that he had wanted to set up a wall on the goal line. His position had one other effect. He was now standing between Sol Campbell and the ball. Campbell, being the closest defender, is he man who should have been standing in front of the ball blocking the quick free kick. (The ref would not have penalised his as it would seem completely unjustified to do so). He does not because, A: he does not expect the ball to be given away by the Referee so quickly and B: the referee was standing in his way.

Thirdly the free kick is taken from the wrong place. If you are an Arsenal fan you may have, during the first 16 of the Champions League, been infuriated by a certain referee's decision. This decision being, of course, about Lukas fabianski handling a backpass from veteran Sol Campbell. 

You may have been chanting from your living rooms a famous tune 'The Referee's a ****er' or possibly murmuring under your breath the dreaded words of '12 men'. But, whether it was one of the above, a different chant or just stunned silence each Arsenal fan in the world was participating in one of those ventures.

This is unfortunately a much harder case to shout about. Many non-Arsenal supporters will tell you 'the ref was not biased or cheating'. Of the course the referee wasn't biased (because referees are not COUGH COUGH) and he also did not cheat. Everything he did surrounding the incident was perfectly justifiable in the Rule Book but, as with any sport, playing by the Rule Book does not make for a proper game. As many scientists say 'It is the exceptions that prove the rule', or as far as football goes it is dealing with these exceptions in a way that the game will see fit.

The referee did not.

Here is a list of what went wrong: The free kick should not have been taken quickly. Fabianski held the ball while the Porto player attempted to take it off of him. Which is fine. However when the referee asked for the ball Fabianski had to hand it over. Obviously the keeper was expecting the referee to ask for a wall to be set up and make sure none of the arsenal players were too close. This is not what happened. The referee immediately handed the ball to the attacking team an action which Fabianski had the been so keen to avoid.

Secondly the referee, after handing the ball back to Porto too early, is standing right next to the ball. If the Porto player had tried to pass the ball through the referee, failed to do so and complained. The ref would almost certainly have told them they were taking it too early to avoid being the cause of a problem. He should not be so close to the free kick which shows that he was not expecting  a quick free kick to be taken. From which i would presume that he had wanted to set up a wall on the goal line. His position had one other effect. He was now standing between Sol Campbell and the ball. Campbell, being the closest defender, is he man who should have been standing in front of the ball blocking the quick free kick. (The ref would not have penalised his as it would seem completely unjustified to do so). He does not because, A: he does not expect the ball to be given away by the Referee so quickly and B: the referee was standing in his way.

Thirdly the free kick is taken from the wrong place.

The image shows a half-accurate, (half accurate as i had to make it myself), depiction of where the infringement was committed and from where the free kick was taken. Judging by the sizes of the players and the referee i would have to judge that the free kick is taken from almost 2 metres away from where it should have been. If you have a free kick in your own half (the sort that a goalkeeper might take) then the ball being a metre off does not make much difference. If the ball is 2 metres off the ref might ask for the position to be changed. In the penalty area, with there being only 18 yards between the edge of it and the goal line, there is a much more noticeable difference. Any striker in the world would rather to only have shoot from 10 yards instead of 12 whereas no defender will have a preference for whether they clear the ball off the goal line or from 2 yards off the goal line. The position of the ball being wrong also meant that Sol Campbell was on the wrong side of the ball. Had the kick been taken from 2 metres back he big arsenal centre back would have been capable of delaying the game and a wall would have been set up.

Finally there is the reason that caps it all off. Had the referee been capable of making what would have to be called a simple decision. Thomas Rosicky found his way into the Porto 18 yard box. It is right before he can kick the ball that his leg is clipped by Alvaro Pereira. (Not the only incident he didn't see, he also managed to miss Walcott being forcefully throw to the ground, though the linesman did tell him otherwise, fortunately). It was an obvious foul and another incident where if it was not a foul it was a dive, the ref sees neither. Giving Porto a free kick for a deliberate dive the decision would be put down to poor sight of the incident. However, giving neither shows a complete lack of competency.

So all in all, the referee could have stopped a goal being scored in an immoral if not illegal way. You may be told 'but Fabianski could have stopped the entire affair from happening' well, if Rosicky had been awarded the penalty he most definitely deserved, then so could the referee.This picture shows a half-accurate (half accurate as i had to make it myself) depiction of where the infringement was committed and from where the free kick was taken. Judging by the sizes of the players and the referee i would have to judge that the free kick is taken from almost 2 metres away from where it should have been. If you have a free kick in your own half (the sort that a goalkeeper might take) then the ball being a metre off does not make much difference. If the ball is 2 metres off the ref might ask for the position to be changed. In the penalty area, with there being only 18 yards between the edge of it and the goal line, there is a much more noticeable difference. Any striker in the world would rather to only have shoot from 10 yards instead of 12 whereas no defender will have a preference for whether they clear the ball off the goal line or from 2 yards off the goal line. The position of the ball being wrong also meant that Sol Campbell was on the wrong side of the ball. Had the kick been taken from 2 metres back he big arsenal centre back would have been capable of delaying the game and a wall would have been set up.

Finally there is the reason that caps it all off. Had the referee been capable of making what would have to be called a simple decision. Thomas Rosicky found his way into the Porto 18 yard box. It is right before he can kick the ball that his leg is clipped by Alvaro Pereira. (Not the only incident he didn't see, he also managed to miss Walcott being forcefully throw to the ground, though the linesman did tell him otherwise, fortunately). It was an obvious foul and another incident where if it was not a foul it was a dive, the ref sees neither. Giving Porto a free kick for a deliberate dive the decision would be put down to poor sight of the incident. However, giving neither shows a complete lack of competency.

So all in all, the referee could have stopped a goal being scored in an immoral if not illegal way. You may be told 'but Fabianski could have stopped the entire affair from happening' well, if Rosicky had been awarded the penalty he most definitely deserved, then so could the referee.