Antonio Rattín and the Birth of Yellow and Red Cards

To many people watching football today, the game cannot be imagined without yellow and red cards. Fans discuss the seriousness of offences by reference to the colour of card that they warrant; bookmakers offer odds on who will be the first to see yellow or red in any given match. It may come as some surprise, then, that the cards system is not even fifty years old.

The system of sanctions in football stretches much further back than fifty years, to the inception of the game as we know it today. For any kind of formalised sport to exist at all, there must be rules and an imposition of punishment for infringement. The ‘mob football’ of the Middle Ages had few such rules, and shared little with its modern-day descendant other than the name; unlimited numbers of players from opposing towns sought to convey a pig’s bladder to the markers at opposite ends of the settlement in which the game was being played. By some accounts, any method short of murder and manslaughter was allowable – one can only imagine that Tony Pulis would have thrived in such an era! It took until the mid-1800s for formal codification efforts to commence. In 1863, the various attempts were unified under one code and adopted as the official rules by the newly-created Football Association: this is generally considered the birth of the modern game.

It is the cards themselves that are a surprisingly recent addition – it was not until the 1970 World Cup, 107 years after the rules first spelled out offences that would warrant cautions and sendings-off, that these coloured cards were introduced in competitive football. The English game did not adopt the system until six years later. Before this, referees would have to make their meanings plain to the players through their words and actions alone. This caused a few problems on the international stage, where officials would frequently have to resort to exaggerated charades to overcome the language barrier, but anyone who has witnessed Mike Dean playing an advantage knows that the art of performative refereeing is very much alive today. For the most part, the lack of a visual representation of each degree of punishment did not pose much of an issue.

How, then, did the now-familiar cards end up getting adopted into the very fabric of the game? As is often the case, controversy was the catalyst for innovation. The 1966 World Cup is remembered primarily as England’s only major tournament success, but its legacy is even greater than that. The team that would go on to be champions came up against Argentina in the quarter-finals, and two separate incidents sparked a reform that would change how football was played.

The more high-profile of the two controversies was the sending-off of Argentinian captain Antonio Rattín. The physical number five had retained some of the attributes that would undoubtedly have been revered in players of mob football – to this day he is remembered as a legend at Boca Juniors for his combative qualities. It may seem unsurprising, therefore, that referee Rudolf Kreitlein ended up giving him his marching orders. However, the sending-off was not for a tackle or a fight. In fact, it didn’t appear to be for anything at all. The post-match report indicated that Rattín had been removed from the game for “violence of the tongue” towards the referee, but the German official didn’t speak a word of Spanish! A dirty look had got him removed from the World Cup quarter-final. Perhaps understandably, the Argentinian was reluctant to accept his fate. Once it had finally been successfully communicated to him that Kreitlein had sent him off, with the aid of head of tournament referees Ken Aston, he refused to go: policemen were eventually brought on to the pitch to escort him away. Still he would not go quietly – he sat down on the red carpet exclusively reserved for the Queen, and as a last act of defiance he wrinkled an English pennant as he was marched away.

This grabbed the headlines of the day, but in truth it was the less talked-about incident that truly gave rise to the idea of the cards system. Rattín did not initially realise he had been sent off, but the message got through to him eventually – he was evidently far from impressed with it, but this would have been true even if he had instantly been made aware of his dismissal. In contrast, the other controversy of the match was not settled until over thirty years later. Both of the Charlton brothers were playing for England; Jack was involved in a goalmouth tussle, and Bobby interceded on his behalf during the ensuing talk with Kreitlein, but the referee gave no indication that either of them had been cautioned. Certainly, neither of the two brothers were aware of it until reports in the next day’s newspapers suggested that both had received bookings: then-manager Alf Ramsey had to contact FIFA for clarification. It would appear that the response he received was far from conclusive, as in 1997 the matter was still playing on the mind of Bobby Charlton. In fairness, he had only ever received one other career booking, and the referee who gave that to him had since apologised for getting it wrong – he cannot be blamed for trying to get to the bottom of the only remaining blemish on an otherwise perfect disciplinary record. Nonetheless, when England came up against Argentina again in 1998, FIFA took the opportunity to confirm that they had examined their records at the request of Charlton the previous year, and found that both brothers had indeed been cautioned by Kreitlein.

Ken Aston, who had watched these incidents unfurl with horror before being called upon to try and persuade Rattín to leave the field, did not want to see a repeat. He had been a renowned referee himself, taking charge of the 1963 FA Cup Final in his final game before retirement. The previous year, he had also been given the honour of officiating at the opening game of the 1962 World Cup; he impressed so much that he was handed the task of presiding over Chile v Italy in a subsequent game. This was not something for which he was particularly thankful – he later described himself as “acting as an umpire in military manoeuvres” in the match that came to be known as ‘The Battle of Santiago’. Prior to the game, reports emerged in Chile that newspapers in their opponent’s country had been questioning the beauty and morals of Chilean women: tempers flared high, as both sides treated the occasion as a battle of honour as much as a football match. Aston broke up numerous fights, sent off two Italian players and had to work in conjunction with armed police to ensure that the match reached a conclusion. He was praised greatly for his handling of a highly volatile situation.

The respect he had garnered within the game was reflected in his appointment as head of referees at the 1966 tournament – his subsequent invention would ensure his legacy extended well beyond the end of his career. The story goes that he was sitting at a set of traffic lights on Kensington Road, dwelling upon how to avoid incidents such as those he had recently witnessed, when the idea came to him: yellow for take it easy, red for “stop, you’re off”.  The idea was as simple as it was brilliant: simultaneously, the issues of the language barrier and the uncommunicated caution were removed from the game.

Football has always been resistant to change, but even the governing bodies struggled to find a downside of the concept. FIFA trialled the concept at the next World Cup in 1970, to great success – the FA dragged their heels for six further years, but eventually also adopted the system that football fans around the world now treat as integral to the sport. This, however, would not prove to be the end of the story. After less than five years of using the cards, the English authorities felt that red cards had led to an upswing in “demonstrative referees” sending people off with too much regularity: the more serious of Aston’s two cards was duly removed from the domestic game following a decision of the FA Council in January 1981. Amazingly, red cards were not reintroduced into English football until 1987, and even then only at the insistence of the International Board – this is why footage of the first ever sending-off in an FA Cup final, in a clash between Everton and Manchester United in 1985, shows the referee taking Kevin Moran’s name and then gesturing him off the field, rather than showing him a red card. The cards system as we know it, then, has only been around as an essential part of the game for a little over thirty years.

Ken Aston cannot have known when sitting at those traffic lights that his idea would permanently change the way the sport he loved was played. Nor could Antonio Rattín have envisaged that his sit-down protest on the Queen’s red carpet would give rise to a system that helped bring clarity and transparency to on-field decisions, reducing the chances of anyone else being sent off for little more than a dirty look. In football as in life, progress can be driven in strange and unpredictable ways.

- Follow me on Twitter @JamesMartin013

Newcastle 2-2 Liverpool: Post-match Thoughts

On Saturday 19^th October, Liverpool travelled to St. James’ Park to face Newcastle United. They went into the game as favourites, but Newcastle were the better team for large spells of the match, and in the end Liverpool could only manage a 2-2 draw, despite Newcastle having a man sent off just before half time. Based on the two teams’ performances a draw was probably the fairest result, but Liverpool really should have been able to beat a 10 man Newcastle side.

From the very start of the game I started to get a feeling of unease. Liverpool usually come out strongly ad try to get an early goal, especially against weaker teams. However, in this game they just sat back, allowing Newcastle to mount some attacks. If the idea was to catch them on the counter-attack then it certainly didn’t work, as Suarez and Sturridge were not on top of their games and the few first half chances they did muster were not taken well. They were punished for their negative start to the match after 23 minutes, when Cabaye was given far too much space about 30 yards out. Admittedly it was a fantastic finish, but the defence should have known their man. Cabaye is well known for his long shots, and he should have been closed down. Mignolet was also at fault. He seemed to have a clear view of the ball from almost the moment it was struck, but he dived very late. Consequently he got nowhere near saving the shot, and Liverpool fell behind.

This was the wake-up call Liverpool needed; though still nowhere close to their best, the standard of attacking football did improve after they went behind. Suarez and Sturridge started linking up together fairly well, and it was this combination that led to the pivotal moment in the match- the penalty decision and sending off of Yanga-Mbiwa. Sturridge played a lovely lofted ball into the path of Suarez, who controlled it excellently. He looked set to slot it past the oncoming Krul, but before he got the chance he was pulled down by Mbiwa. It was a simple decision for the referee; Mbiwa, the last man, had prevented a clear goal-scoring opportunity. He was sent off, and Steven Gerrard converted the resulting penalty. This was notable in that it was his 100^th Premier League goal for Liverpool, a stunning achievement for any player, especially a midfielder. He is one of only 13 players to score 100 goals for a single Premier League club.

If Liverpool thought they would have it all their own way in the second half against the 10 men of Newcastle, they were woefully mistaken. At times it looked like Liverpool were the team who’d had a man sent off, as nobody could find any space. They struggled to create any chance that looked likely to result in a goal. Newcastle were defending extremely well, and got their reward in the 56^th minute. They were awarded a free kick in a seemingly innocuous position, which somehow resulted in a goal for defender Paul Dummet! Cabaye’s ball drifted over everyone, and Dummet stole in at the near post and curled the ball round Mignolet. It was somewhat against the run of play, but by failing to put the game to bed and by defending shoddily, Liverpool were asking for it.

From then onwards, Liverpool dominated the game. They finally seemed to click, and Newcastle suddenly looked vulnerable at the back. Finally they managed to bring the match level again in the 72^nd minute through Daniel Sturridge, who latched on to a Suarez cross and headed home. Minutes later, Suarez had the chance to give Liverpool the lead, but his shot was just too high, hitting the crossbar on its way over. Despite creating a couple more chances, most notably a free kick in a very good position deep into added time at the end of the half, Liverpool were unable to take the lead, and the game finished 2-2.

The result in itself is not too bad, as a draw keeps us at the right end of the table. However, if we genuinely want to challenge for a top 4 place then we have to win games like these. To have close to an hour against 10 men and not to win is extremely disappointing, and conceding against them is even worse. In the context of the season the two points dropped is not the end of the world, but it is certainly a warning sign to Liverpool that they will need to step it up if they have a chance of beating the likes of Tottenham to a Champions League place.

-James Martin

Follow me on Twitter @JamesMartin013

Why Always Us? Liverpool vs Manchester United Post-Match Analysis

On Sunday 23rd September, Liverpool lost 2-1 to Manchester United. Unlike some of our other defeats this season, this game certainly brings fans many valid reasons to complain. Things just never seem to slot into place for Liverpool at the moment, and the question that has to be asked (to mis-quote Mario Balotelli) is why always us?

Firstly, it has to be said that Liverpool were clearly the better side in the match. They played brilliantly, and Manchester United were underwhelming. So how did United come away from Anfield with all three points? I know people say this after every game, but this time I think it is fair to say we have a valid reason to blame the referee. LFC were totally dominant in the first half, with Manchester United seeing very little of possession. The passing style of Brendan Rodgers was working well, and United were not getting a look in. However, very near the end of the first half, referee Mark Halsey showed Jonjo Shelvey a red card. How Halsey reached the decision that Jonjo deserved red I shall never know, seeing as all he did was go in for a 50/50 ball. Both Shelvey and United defender Jonny Evans went in two-footed, and both got something of the ball. The only difference was that Evans started writhing about on the floor, whereas Shelvey got up and chased the ball, committed as ever to the cause.

Once Liverpool had been reduced to 10 men, they could hardly be expected to play fluid, passing football. With United’s one man advantage, it would have been almost impossible for LFC to maintain possession for long stretches at a time. However, I was hugely impressed with how Liverpool responded. They kept up the pressure until the end of the first half, and then came out just as attacking at the start of the second. Despite United having a man more than Liverpool, the majority of the meaningful attacks were still being mounted by LFC. Sure enough, this pressure paid off just minutes into the second half, with a great goal from Steven Gerrard. In a huge fixture such as this, it seems Liverpool can always rely on Steven Gerrard, who certainly gave all his doubters something to think about. It seemed Liverpool may triumph, despite the poor refereeing decision that had gone against them.

Unfortunately though, the captain’s goal seemed to kick-start United into action. They finally seemed to be able to make the most of their one man advantage, and began to see a lot more of possession. In fact, they hit back at Liverpool in just 3 minutes, through a lovely strike from defender Rafael. In all fairness to Man U, their build-up play was good and it was a very sweet finish. However, this did not seem to put out Liverpool’s fire, and Suarez twice came close in the coming minutes.

With Liverpool playing so well and United nowhere near their best, it seemed Liverpool were certain to get at last a point out of the game if not more, even though they had a man less than the visitors. However, Halsey once again intervened. Liverpool were trying to push forward again, when a wayward pass from youngster Suso allowed Valencia to sprint 40 yards up the pitch. In my opinion, Glen Johnson did absolutely brilliantly. He sprinted down the pitch and managed to get back at Valencia, throwing himself into a tackle to try and win the ball back. However, he didn’t get the ball, and neither did he touch Valencia. He slid to the side of both man and ball. However Valencia still went down (somewhat predictably), and Halsey, who seems to simply enjoy seeing Liverpool suffer, awarded a penalty. This was grossly unjust. It almost seemed that justice would be done when Reina made a brilliant attempt to save the Van Persie penalty, but in the end it was just too well placed. The fact that this penalty was given was made even more of a sore point given the fact that LFC had already had two or three legitimate penalty shouts turned down.

In conclusion, the fact that Liverpool got nothing out of this match was massively unfair, and almost entirely down to the referee. Firstly he put Liverpool at a massive disadvantage by sending off Shelvey, and then practically gifted United a goal by giving them a penalty. LFC can be extremely encouraged by their performance, and on any other day with any other ref (except perhaps Howard Webb!) they would certainly have taken all three points.