It is probably one of the least known organizations in world soccer but arguably the decisions made by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) have more far reaching impacts on the sport than any other body.
Despite what many fans seem to think FIFA does not control the Laws of the Game but that responsibility falls to the eight-member IFAB. The membership is made up of eight members with four nominated by FIFA and the other four coming from the four UK associations.
The four UK positions is a nod to the genesis of the organized game and FIFA has long recognized the IFAB as custodian of the Laws of the Game.
The IFAB requires 75% of the membership to approve any changes so FIFA cannot push through law changes any more so than the UK associations can.
So when you hear that FIFA Presidential candidate Luis Figo wants to revert back to the old offside rule – the previous interpretation rather than the change in 1925 – you can take that with a large unhealthy dose of salt. Figo may want that but even if elected he would be powerless to impose such a change.
Decisions by the IFAB are made once a year and this past weekend the group met in Northern Ireland. Sometimes no decisions are made – although no decisions are still decisions – and it was video technology that stole the headlines again.
The IFAB delayed live trials of video technology proposed by the Dutch Football Association for use in the Dutch Cup next season. The Dutch plan was to focus on incidents involving goals, red cards and penalties and needless to say the IFAB have been roundly criticized for not moving aggressively on integrating more technology into the sport.
The IFAB became an easy target for journalists, pundits and bloggers who rolled out decisions they disagreed with and they assured us that referees, with technology assisting, would surely have ruled differently if only it had been made available to them.
The sending off of a week ago of Chelsea’s Nemanja Matic for retaliation against Burnley’s Ashley Barnes was a favored example. But in that case, and many like it, the argument fails because there is rarely any absolute truth. In the case of Barnes some saw an over-the-ball tackle while others witnessed a player make a pass and Matic making contact with Barnes’ follow through.
It is rare to give FIFA secretary-general Jerome Valcke credit but in the case of video technology he made a good argument for a slow and exceptional cautious approach given the far reaching impact that an expansion of video technology will (not might) have on the sport. “It’s the biggest decision which will come out of IFAB ever. It’s not a question of years – it’s making the biggest decision ever in the way football is played,” he said on Saturday.
The flippancy of so many of the pro-technology crowd is potentially far more damaging to the game than a more reasoned and measured approach. The greatest threat posed by the increased use of video technology is another Law but not one of the Laws of the Game. It is the Law of Unintended Consequences that will be part and parcel of allowing the technology genie to escape the bottle.
One decision that was made by the IFAB and that should be implemented soon is a change to what has become known as the “triple-punishment” rule.
When adjudged to have committed a foul that denies the opposition an obvious goal scoring opportunity in the penalty box the perpetrator is given a red card and the player must miss at least the next game through suspension.
That accounts for double-punishment but there is also a resulting penalty kick that if scored produces a triple penance.
The IFAB agreed that the punishment is too harsh but final resolution has been punted to FIFA for ideas on how to maintain the principle of punishing players who commit “professional” fouls while not maintaining the punishment at the present draconian level.
My guess is that we will see the suspension waived unless the referee would have sent off the player anyway for an offense such as violent conduct or a second yellow card.
Finally, one of my pet peeves and it is one that I am continually surprised has not been dealt with before.
On Thursday last, as the final whistle went on the Besiktas versus Liverpool game in the Europa League the tie had yet to deliver a winner. With both teams winning the home leg 1-0 the way to break the tie became the penalty kick decider.
I may be in a minority but I enjoy penalty kick deciders (always have) and conceptually I see it is as good a way as any of deciding a game given the need to meet the ever mounting pressure head on.
What I cannot abide is the parroting of the commentators who even with readily available research to the contrary continue to describe penalty kick deciders as a lottery.
Does anyone tell us that when Steven Gerrard or Wayne Rooney strolls forward to take a penalty in regulation time that it is a lottery? So why does it become a lottery when used as a decider?
Anyone who utters such nonsense is not fit for the purpose of commentating and should be fired. Even better they should be fired while on the air!
But I digress as that is not the main source of my beef. It is far more basic than that.
Penalty kick deciders have been around for half a century now and the statistics consistently show that whichever team kicks first wins 60% of the time. Or in other words first up has a 50% better chance of winning than those going second.
So why do we continue to follow the pattern of Team A then Team B then Team A once again? Why not use the tennis tie breaker model and alternate on odd numbers?
Under the tennis system the team winning the toss would choose to take the first penalty followed by the opposition taking the next two and then returning to the first team to take kicks 4 and 5 and so one.
Alternatively, the team winning the toss could fore go the first kick and then pick it up for kicks 2 and 3.
A solution that is not as sexy as greater use of technology but one that might level the present weighted playing field of penalty kick deciders just a little more.
