Craven Cottage Newsround

November 5, 2009

Roma and the ref 2-1 Fulham

Filed under: General, Match info — weltmeisterclaude @ 8:21 pm

Conspiracy theories don’t usually do it for me, but after tonight’s farce….  if Jack Warner can retain a high ranking position in FIFA than nothing in football is impossible; could it be that UEFA, frightened by Roma’s poor start to the campaign and desperate to show off their new Europa League, have issued a far reaching anti-non-famous club mandate?

No, I don’t think so either, but in two games against Roma we have now seen three poor red cards (two of them while we were ahead).  Stephen Kelly was eventually dismissed in the home game after the referee thought he saw Brede Hangeland take down Jon-Arne Riise, and now, with Fulham in control, we see Erik Nevland sent of for… clipping Daniele Di Rossi’s heels?  And just to be safe, Paul Konchesky got a straight red too, his crime being to foul a Roma player who was in the act of prancing.  Said Roma player (his name escapes me) was kicked so hard by our left back that he had to roll over on the ground four or five times, as if he had jumped out of a fast moving train.

If UEFA are so set on using six referees for these occasions, why not open the ballot to good ones?  Sure, you can let the trainees have a go on the goal-line shift – nothing seems to happen there – but if the Europa League is to be taken seriously, why not let someone competent take charge in the middle?

Because if you don’t then things like this happen.  Fulham, our most celebrated game for donkey’s years, deservedly ahead, then cut down because a referee can’t distinguish between a slightly dodgy challenge and an achilles heel raking, or whatever it was he thought he saw Nevland do.  Game over.  It was going to be hard enough with 11 men.  Ten?  Forget it.  Roma would attack, pin us back, goals would come.   This is exactly what happened, Roma’s Riise firing in from distance via deflections from Gera and our own Riise to make it 1-1, a jammy goal but one that had been coming.   Then Roma scored again, a good left footed cross and a good header, and that was that.  We were pinned back and couldn’t keep the ball.  Because we were a man down.   It’s ridiculous.   We can all live with bad decisions, and indeed we profited from a couple of slightly iffy calls at the weekend, but there’s no way these were red cards, no way.  To think otherwise is to be wrong.

We started well.  Dempsey and Kamara worked well together, finding gaps in Roma’s defence and engaging well with Riise, Gera and the impressively attacking Konchesky.  Roma were sitting back, waiting for something to happen, and soon enough it did.  Dempsey cleverly reversed a pass into Kamara’s stride, Kamara nicked it past the defender, tumbled on the way through, and sure enough, penalty.   This somewhat dimishes the conspiracy theory now I think about it, but the penalty was that clear that even the most bent ref would have had to award it.  To do otherwise may have made the plot too obvious (I am still only half joking. I think.  Who knows?)

Kamara sent the ‘keeper the wrong way and Fulham were ahead.  Roma were occasionally impressive but this game was under control.  Nevland replaced the livewire Kamara at half-time (the latter having been injured for much of the first half), and the rest I have ranted about already.

Pah.

25 Comments »

  1. Game was in Italy. Conspiracies abound.

    Comment by Derek — November 5, 2009 @ 9:48 pm | Reply

  2. This brilliant, angry and passionate post is almost an exact replica of the conversation me and my mates (one Fulham, one not) had after this farce ended (although the post is far more articulate).

    I too was a conspiracy theory sceptic, but what we witnessed over the two legs was nothing short of disgraceful. In a world of Jack Warner, last-minute-seeded-World Cup-play-offs and Argentina 1978, is it ludicrous to believe there are higher powers at work? Where there’s money, there’s corruption, and I can’t think of a sport as flushed as football (well, perhaps F1, but the corruption in that ’sport’ is common knowledge.)

    When you see 5 massive decisions go against your team – two red cards, a non-penalty and a non-corner – you have every right to feel aggrieved. This isn’t paranoia, it’s blindingly obvious.

    The referees in this tournament are poor, yes, but there is a bigger problem here: Sepp Blatter’s refusal to allow video evidence to be used in penalty box and red card incidents. Far from adding to the drama, human error is ruining games and damaging the sport. Thousands of travelling fans and those precious TV viewers UEFA and FIFA rely on for their profit were left with a lame second-half, three plays have been booted out of the remaining first round games, the club were left staring down the barrel and nobody is accountable.

    Speaking about video evidence, Blatter has said, “it would take away the spontaneity and fascination of our game – we must keep football with a human face.” You are wrong, Mr. Blatter. Video evidence does not take away the spontaneity of a Messi run, a Lampard belter or a last-minute equaliser. And it certainly does no damage to fascination. It may not be perfect, but it would go some way to ensuring justice is done and seen to be done.

    “As long I am president, it will only be goal-line technology. Until I am no longer president, there will be no chance [for video replays],” says Blatter. For football’s sake, Sepp Blatter must go.

    Comment by kingedwrite — November 5, 2009 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

  3. Whilst I share your frustration, I think there’s a saying something like “every conspiracy theory can be explained by sheer incompetence”. Certainly he was an incompetent referee. I know I won’t be popular, but Fulham have to take some of the blame too. Nevland is prone to rash challenges. This was an unnecessary tackle from behind. It merited a yellow. Given the prior history of decisions, why make a challenge like that? In Konchesky’s case, Roma were running down the clock, holding the ball, just inviting a foul from Fulham. Konchesky obliged. Even if it wasn’t a red card, it was only going to waste more time. We have to be smarter than that. We played magnificently in the first half. We were in control. A more Euro-seasoned team would not have made the rash mistakes which we made. Now I’ll sit back and wait for the torrent of abuse.

    Comment by Mike H — November 5, 2009 @ 10:56 pm | Reply

    • “A more Euro-seasoned team would not have made the rash mistakes which we made. Now I’ll sit back and wait for the torrent of abuse.”

      Well, a “more Euro-seasoned team” would be ‘made’ and not be put into the positions we were forced into.

      Comment by timmyg — November 5, 2009 @ 11:06 pm | Reply

    • Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

      I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that Nevland is “prone to rash challenges” before, though. If anything, he’s not prone to play much defense all. Greening is prone to rash challenges. Murphy. Michael Brown, for sure. Dempsey, maybe. Nevland? I don’t buy it.

      And by your “it merited a yellow, so why make the challenge in case you get a red” logic, you shouldn’t make any tackles at all in case you get a yellow for a clean play.

      Comment by Josh — November 6, 2009 @ 3:29 am | Reply

      • My recollection is that Erik (of whom I am a great admirer), has had 2 or 3 yellow cards for poor tackles which looked bad. They stick in my mind because he doesn’t seem that sort of player. As Roy said once “Erik’s honesty is palpable”. This was a poor tackle – from behind, no chance of getting the ball. In my mind a yellow card. My point is not that he shouldn’t tackle, but why make a tackle a) where you have no chance of getting the ball b) you are coming from behind the man c) you know damn well the Italian will put on an Oscar winning performance d) there’s no direct threat on goal. I’m not defending the ref, I’m suggesting that Erik may have been a bit naive or his judgement was poor or he was over-exuberant. None of those justify a red card however. Same with Konch at the end. It was obvious they were playing for a foul. Why give it to them on a plate?

        Comment by Mike H — November 6, 2009 @ 3:46 am | Reply

        • Mike’s right, Nevland slides into tackles full on, and has made a few reckless challenges in the past. Greening? The odd clumsy lunge but nothing heavy. Same for Dempsey. But Nevland will leave his feet and go flying in. Does it quite a lot (often soon after he’s come on, incidentally).

          Comment by weltmeisterclaude — November 6, 2009 @ 6:17 am | Reply

          • The word ” naive” came to my mind during the second half.

            We needed to read the situation and the referee better and partly that’s down to lack of expierience

            Comment by Tony Gilroy — November 6, 2009 @ 8:37 am | Reply

            • You know, whilst I was thinking the same thing, and cursing it, I then thought to myself “but maybe its exactly that naivete which makes Fulham such an endearing club”. The challenge is, as you say, to read the situation and the referee better, but not to become cynical and manipulative the way that Italian clubs are, which would destroy the unique character of our great club. Roy is the man who can do that, but I’m not sure there are too many like him left.

              Comment by Mike H — November 6, 2009 @ 8:54 am | Reply

  4. Some comments from Roy:
    http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=goal-fulhammanagerroyhodgsonerik&prov=goal&type=lgns

    Comment by Derek — November 5, 2009 @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  5. A reality check in this instance is to ask yourself the likelihood of Roma being forced to play 70/180 minutes against Fulham a man down as a result of one indisputably wrong and one remarkably harsh refereeing decision. To put it another way, were 100 neutrals with knowledge of the ways of the world informed that the Fulham/Roma tie had transpired that way, but not told which of the two had been so very unfortunate….would their guesses have panned out approximately 50:50? I think not.
    One for Rich to run through a Monte Carlo simulation maybe :-)

    Comment by b+w geezer — November 5, 2009 @ 11:19 pm | Reply

    • there have been 1704 posts on this blog and I’m sure less than 1% have been about numbers ;-)

      Comment by weltmeisterclaude — November 6, 2009 @ 6:19 am | Reply

  6. Terrific rant! Loved it.
    I think Fulham are a better side than Roma, but now it will be hard to finish above them.
    On the bright side, Fulham played some terrific football.
    And whatever was wrong with Gera last year? I really rated him at West Brom, but he was so disappointing. Now he looks a really good player again.
    And I’ve never seen Roy look so angry – but at least it was anger, not a toddler’s tantrum like Fergie’s.

    Comment by DaveP — November 5, 2009 @ 11:20 pm | Reply

  7. My favorite song to sing to Italians (to the tune of Yellow Submarine):

    You only win when you pay the referee / you pay the referee / you pay the referee

    Comment by nordy — November 6, 2009 @ 3:52 am | Reply

  8. Just in an internet cafe in Rome as I write this…

    As ever a brilliant post Rich which summed up the sense of frustration amongst the fans at the game. Also agree with Mike.

    What more can I add to what is here already.

    Comment by Toby — November 6, 2009 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  9. Also in Rome…

    I suppose you can see it as a learning process. Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool etc all know that football in Italy has more than a little of the Strictly Come Dancings to it and the ref is often Brucie through and through.

    Still I’m with Roy when he said we are the better team 11 vs 11 and the Roma fans were lame. Ultras my (unstabbed)arse!

    Comment by Matthew — November 6, 2009 @ 9:15 am | Reply

  10. Did you enjoy yourselves though lads?

    Comment by weltmeisterclaude — November 6, 2009 @ 9:20 am | Reply

    • We had a great time – a bit lost from time to time and a lot of standing around on busses…

      Comment by Matthew & Toby — November 7, 2009 @ 12:18 am | Reply

  11. As an Australian, we well and truly believe in Football conspiracy theories about bigger teams. Years of having to qualify for World cups via playing in 3 confederations. Once it was win Oceania, beat lucky loser in CONCACAF (Schwarzer penalty saves against Canada gets us thru) then we had to play Argentina with Maradona playing! Or having Italians diving in the round of 16.

    This always make me laugh – or cry
    The Italian secret training video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU0Eho3kkjs

    I have never seen a ref be so sucked in by Italian ‘theatrics’ before – unbelievable.

    Having said that, The Nev should just be banned from tackling – he just has no idea sometimes.

    Comment by Geoff — November 6, 2009 @ 9:33 am | Reply

    • Of course the perception is that Nevland is “only” a goal poacher and doesn’t put in the hard defensive shift which is why he gets so little playing time.

      I guess he was trying to disprove that perception.

      Comment by Tony Gilroy — November 6, 2009 @ 9:55 am | Reply

    • Geoff, I have to hand it to you, that match the Socceroos played against the diving Italians in the round of 16 was one of the worst screw jobs I’ve ever seen a team get from a ref.

      Comment by Josh — November 6, 2009 @ 10:10 pm | Reply

  12. We can argue about whether Erik should have tackled or not all night long – the fact is it WASN’T a red card offence, nor was Kelly’s or Konchesky’s. The cleanest Premier League team of 2008-09 has now had 3 players sent off in 2 games in Europe. Does that sound right?

    I thought Ranieri’s logic was particularly appropriate for a country with Berlusconi as Prime Minister and mass corruption in Serie A: “I believe it was a red card as Nevland made the foul in a Roma counter-attack.”

    Comment by kingedwrite — November 6, 2009 @ 10:31 am | Reply

    • Well, I mean, we’ve actually had 3 players sent off in 8 games in Europe (counting the qualifying rounds), it’s just that all three have (go figure) come in the most recent two games. It’s still ridiculous but let’s tell it like it is.

      Comment by Josh — November 6, 2009 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  13. Great post Rich and spot on as always. It was desperately hard to take that our biggest night for some time was ruined by the ineptitude of a poor Ref. I agree with the comments above that Nevland didn’t need to be making that challenge but it’s impossible to understand how anyone could consider it worthy of a red card.

    That aside we had an amazing 24 hours. It felt a bit like a dream to have left Gatwick in the early hours, done a whislte stop tour of the major tourist sights, had a pizza and a beer in town and then seen Fulham play in an historic (though three quarters empty) stadium. Makes me desire these sort of games more often and there’s no reason why we can’t make that so.

    Comment by Chopper — November 6, 2009 @ 10:54 am | Reply

  14. Yes, we were robbed, but didn’t we play well when we had 11 men on the pitch. I think Roy’s getting this lot playing better and better, and the fringe players seem to be improving as much as the obvious first choicers.

    Zamora (again) was excellent when he came on. Duff when available has been a match winner for us. It’ll be interesting to see what Roy does when Davies is fit again.

    Our next six league games are all fixtures we’d expect to get something from. Our chances of progressing in Europe may have taken a knock, but otherwise I feel quite positive.

    Comment by Nick Johnson — November 6, 2009 @ 3:01 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.