During
today's 1-1 draw between Swansea and Manchester United, Swans defender Ashley Williams drilled the ball into the back of Van Persie's head whilst he lay in
the box after being brought down on the edge. In light of on-pitch reactions and post-match comments, the event has sparked media debate. I will attempt to pick apart what happened and why what has followed it is not acceptable.
First things
first, let's review the incident. In this video, you can see a full speed
replay followed by a close up slow-mo, with each telling a slightly different tale.
From the
first reply footage, four things are apparent. a) There was very little time
between Van Persie falling to ground and Williams smacking the ball into his
head. He may not have heard the whistle and was simply playing on and clearing
his lines. b) Given the close proximity between the players, it does at first
sight look possible that it was intentional on Williams' behalf. c) Van Persie's reactions were
worthy of his subsequent yellow card, and he was flirting with red given he leans into Williams' face. Had he not
slipped over as he approached Williams, he could well have gone in harder with
his head. d) Van Persie was in no way seriously hurt.
It must be
noted that referee Michael Oliver witnessed the incident and booked both
Williams and Van Persie for his subsequent reaction. Williams has subsequently
denied intentionally kicking the ball at Van Persie. So the
remaining questions are: is it possible that Williams did it intentionally? Should he have
been sent off if so? And if not, should he even have been booked?
If you now
look at the slow motion footage (from 28 seconds in), you will see something
quite different. Firstly, Williams' eyes are only on the ball from the moment
it roles towards him. Secondly and most importantly, given Williams' body
position, had he not sliced the ball off the outside of his foot, the ball
would have sailed wide of RVP's head. Obviously, the referee does not have the privilege of such footage on the pitch.
My conclusion is therefore that it was either an act
of frustration at the foul or a simple clearance that cannoned by chance into
Van Persie. For me, there was no intent whatsoever (if intent was
obvious, a red card would have to be given in today's game). And if referee
Oliver shared this view of no intent, the yellow card offered to Williams seems
nothing more than an appeasement of sorts that could be deemed harsh. Williams
handled himself very well given Van Persie's aggressive reaction. Had Oliver
booked Van Persie and not Williams, the Man Utd players, fans and irascible
manager would have reacted even more ferociously than they already had done.
And referees don't tend to enjoy getting on the wrong side of such people when
possible.
But then
Alex Ferguson had to share his views with the world, and this is where the incident has been
elevated from nothing more than a fracas to a full blown media storm. This is
what Fergie said:
"The
whistle has gone, the game is stopped and he's done that right in front of the
referee. He could have really killed the lad. It's a disgraceful act. He should
be banned for a long, long time. Irrespective of him having a yellow card, he
ought to be banned for a long time because that's the most dangerous thing I've
seen on a football field for many, many years."
In response,
the game had barely stopped. The whistle may have gone a split-second
beforehand. Yes, he did it in front of the referee. Oliver saw it and
presumably judged there to be no malice involved. Now this is where it gets
ludicrous. For a manager to state that a player had committed an 'absolutely
deliberate' act that could have killed another player is a very serious
accusation. If this were true, a very lengthy ban would of course be
appropriate. But it is rubbish - the act was not malicious, and even if it were
there are many far more dangerous ways that players can injure one another
than by kicking a football into another's head. And to claim
that it is the most dangerous thing he has seen on the pitch for years is further
idiotic hyperbole. What about Fellaini's headbutt on Shawcross last week? Or Barton
studding Aguero in the thigh in the last game of last season? This is just to
name a couple.
Yes, these
comments were made in the heat of the moment. And yes, Fergie had a right to
air his opinion if he believed that Williams did this intentionally. It also offered him a simple method of covering up the fact that Utd put in a below-par performance in a game they should have won whilst their City rivals closed the gap at the top with a last-minute win against Reading yesterday. But to do
it in the manner he did is not appropriate nor acceptable. Before coming
out with such farcical and grave statements, he should have firstly listened to
what Williams' had to say and secondly review the TV footage of the incident.
He had clearly done neither of these. He
didn't think before he spoke. If you want an example of a calm, restrained,
sensible approach to post-match interviews, look no further than Laudrup's
response on hearing Fergie's accusation that Williams could have killed Van
Persie. He takes a deep breath, a moment to think, and delicately sidesteps saying what we were all thinking, 'What the hell is he on about?'
For a
manager, a knight of the Order, with over 25 years in charge of the one of the
world's top teams, it beggars belief that he can get away with such severe, ill-mannered
statements (and I refer here not only to his attack on Williams but also to
his open criticism of referee Oliver). I think Fergie owes them both an
apology. And, unfortunately, we all know it is an apology that will never come.
