The Luke Shaw Incident: is 110% 10% too much?

Now that the dust has settled, it’s probably worth considering whether any lessons have been learnt from Hector Moreno’s challenge on Luke Shaw in the PSV versus Manchester United Champions League game. It resulted in the England defender sustaining a double fracture of his right leg.

It could perhaps be seen as the end member of an established trend in the game, whereby the huge rewards, constantly stalked by the summarily dispensed penalties for failure, require incredibly high levels of physical and mental commitment. Professional football is a different game from even a few years ago. With such commitment allied to increased levels of fitness, the aim seems to be an immediate challenge on any opponent in possession of the ball, on any part of the pitch, for the full ninety minutes, in every game. It could be seen that many, if not the majority, of these challenges involve a push, a nudge, a shirt pull or an obstruction, with players constantly probing what referees will tolerate, to sail as close to the wind as possible to gain any advantage. It was probably Wimbledon’s manager Dave Bassett, before his team’s remarkable rise, who first wondered what would happen if the effort and commitment expended by minnows in beating the league’s elite in cup competitions, could be maintained for every game of the season. These days, every professional team attempts to do this.

But thankfully the vast majority of challenges are not made to injure an opponent, and players generally stop short of endangering a fellow professional’s career even in desperate situations. So it’s very important that when a line is crossed and challenges are so reckless as to put careers at risk, or result in long-term injuries, there should be much stronger disincentives in place.

It’s not that Moreno necessarily meant to hurt Luke Shaw, more that he was oblivious in his sole aim of stopping Shaw by any means. Claims of an accident by Moreno were as empty as the similar claims of a driver travelling at 90mph in a city centre and hitting a pedestrian. As Shaw burst into the penalty area, Moreno, the last outfield defender, was forward of Shaw and to his right, and could just about make contact with a lunge of his right foot. Because Moreno’s left foot was initially planted on the ground, his right foot was off the ground and at about the level of Shaw’s shins. Moreno didn’t make contact with the ball with his boot during the challenge, but the ball came off of Shaw’s left boot onto Moreno’s shin. As Shaw began to fall over Moreno’s right leg, the latter’s left trailing foot, having come round behind Shaw as Moreno fell, made contact low on Shaw’s right leg, with the impact breaking it and lifting Shaw high into the air, rotating his body and ensuring a heavy fall, with his centre of gravity well forward. This could be seen as cynical insurance in case Moreno’s initial right-footed lunge either failed to get the ball, or failed to stop Shaw’s run.

The situation was that Moreno was caught out of position: too near and too stationary to attempt a typical sliding tackle, and too far away for a block tackle. Moreno had to make a challenge to try and stop Shaw and in the candid words of TV pundit and ex-footballer Lee Dixon “there would have been questions asked if he didn’t (challenge Shaw)”. The initial lunge was understandable; the upending was dangerous and totally unnecessary. Despite there being a number of reasons why Moreno should have been sent off and a penalty awarded, the Italian referee, Nicola Rizzoli, didn’t regard the challenge as a foul. Moreno, with the irony that seems to characterise such events, went on to score and PSV won 2-1.

There are a number of reasons why we’re left with this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Firstly the challenge was early on in the game. Referees, particularly in the bigger games, seem reluctant to make potentially game-changing decisions in the early stages of a game. Secondly, the incident occurred in the penalty area and perhaps for the same game-changing reasons, there seems to have developed different criteria for what constitutes a foul by a defender inside the penalty area, and a foul by any player outside the penalty area. Challenges outside the penalty area that would have unhesitatingly been deemed a foul by referees, aren’t necessarily given against defenders in the penalty area. The penalty area must be seen as just another part of the pitch by referees. When they start doing this, so will the players.

Also when serious injuries occur from challenges that are clearly reckless – and of course in a physical game there are accidents where no one’s at fault – even if the referee didn’t award a foul at the time, there should be a review by the football authorities. There should also be a new charge of “reckless to the point of endangering a fellow professional’s career” and if found guilty, a six month ban should follow. It seems ludicrous that a ban for spitting can be much longer than for a ban for trying to end a player’s career.

Failure to award a foul at the time for a challenge later deemed “reckless to the point of endangering a fellow professional’s career” should also involve a ban for the referee. It’s the job of the referee to protect players and how will players react in future games refereed by Nicola Rizzoli? Will they think twice about running with the ball into an opponent’s penalty area knowing his rather lax attitude as to what constitutes a foul? Or an assault?