Football may be the loser in a dirty war

WHEN all the players who have had red and yellow cards flourished at them during the course of the World Cup meet for their first reunion at Madison Square Garden next year, they may well reflect that they were in at the start of a revolution that could cleanse football of all bodily contact over the next 20 years.

Perhaps they can even be proud that future generations will look back to 1994 and see how the seeds of gentleness were sown in a game once ruled by cloggers who thought nothing of tackling a man from behind if they thought they could get the ball as a result. And the 220 or so players who have seen the card on the road to Damascus - where the next World Cup is likely to be held - will have played their part. Booked for a place in history, you might say.

As I tried to explain to a pub full of slavering incoherents who had backed Bulgaria at the attractive price of 5-2 against Mexico on Tuesday night, lynching Mr Jamal Al-Sharif, a referee from Syria, for giving Mexico a penalty for nothing and sending off the busy Bulgarian Emil Kremenliev for even less, would not solve anything. Jamal was just a tool. This they agreed to be true.

After all, what else is the World Cup for but to set standards and initiate trends? And where better than the United States to add a fresh new culture to an outmoded relic of the old world?

Being slow on the uptake, I have yet to decide whether Fifa would have fitted all their referees with hair-triggers if the tournament had been staged in a country more accustomed to the game's bruise-raising properties. Or are they so besotted with football's potential in the United States that they were determined to present a sterilised version?

This supposed American repugnance for any activity of a violent nature must be of recent origin. Certainly, their own brand of football leans very heavily on the deliberate destruction of the opposition. Despite the fact that they have several active arbiters on the field of play, there appear to be few cautions and expulsions are a rarity. Even something as dangerous as tugging at a face-mask carries a penalty of only five yards. If the head comes off with the helmet it can be as serious as 10 yards, but they seem to enjoy the ruggedness of the spectacle as, indeed, do a lot of us over here.

Fifa, maybe, sensed a change in American appetite. The custodians of the world game had earlier been prepared to consider enlarging the goals so that US citizens - who have the attention span of gnats when it comes to being absorbed by scoreless play - would have more bulging nets to amuse them. They also gave consideration to the idea of splitting the game into four quarters, the better to accommodate the television commercials. We were spared such atrocities, but not the decision to crack down on anything remotely resembling foul play.

I am not disallowing the possibility that Fifa might be bringing a far superior amount of brain power to bear on the future well-being of our wonderful game. Think how more beautiful it would be if the more skilful players could glide around the pitch without the inconvenience of being tackled, exhibiting a repertoire of dribbles, flicks and assorted tricks. It would be like basketball for the feet and high scores would abound, thereby becoming immensely attractive to the Americans but less so for the rest of us.

Of course, it may not be Fifa's fault entirely that defenders are becoming unsure of how wholeheartedly they can protect their territory. Referees have been known to embark on a little freelance crusading of their own and if power was a drug, Maradona would have more than a few refs with whom to swap addiction stories. But referees are never more fervent about their mission than when their cards are clearly marked and they sense the weight of the authorities at their elbow.

That Fifa are responsible for a clampdown that may have further yet to go is proved by the fact that their fiercest and most public retribution against a referee in the past three weeks has been for under-rather than over-zealousness. The card flashers may be quietly ignored for future appointments but the havoc they have wrought is not condemned, giving a signal to refs all over the world.

Previous World Cups have created far more refereeing problems than this one ever threatened. In the first tournament, held in Uruguay in 1930, the match between Argentina and France ended in a riot when the Brazilian ref blew for time after 84 minutes (anyone who has been watching the present competition knows that games should last at least 95 minutes). Police had to separate brawling players when Argentina played Chile. Argentina went on to beat the United States 6-1 but only after breaking the leg of the centre-half, crippling the goalkeeper and kicking the left-half in the face. The US trainer ran on and threw his medical kit at the referee.

The 1934 tournament was held in Italy under the baleful eye of Mussolini, who used it for political ends. Italy won, but their opponents left muttering about how local fanaticism had intimidated referees to give the home team the benefits of most doubts.

In the 1950 World Cup, India refused to play in the finals because Fifa would not let them play barefooted. It is worth mentioning in passing that if Fifa had made everyone play barefooted, the game might have developed more to their liking. In 1954 we had the 'Battle of Berne' in which the English referee Arthur Ellis sent three players off and had to be escorted from the pitch as both teams went off still throwing punches.

Every Englishman has fond memories of 1966, but it was a nightmare for Pele and the Brazilian team because of weak refereeing. Paradoxically, it was also the occasion for some admirably resolute behaviour by some of the officials. Rudolf Kreitlin, a bald-headed German who looked too small and inoffensive to be in charge of a big whistle became a hero when he sent off the Argentine captain, Rattin, during their match against England that earned them the title 'animals' from Alf Ramsey.

England's Jim Finney reacted similarly against the intimidating Uruguayans, sending off two players, including Troche, the captain. Would that Pele could have had the same protection. He was hacked down repeatedly in the first game against Hungary and missed Brazil's second match. He came back against Portugal only to be rapidly reduced to a limping passenger and Brazil made a first- round exit. Pele threatened never to play in another World Cup. He said: 'I don't want to finish my career as an invalid.'

After an experience like that, a tightening-up of discipline can be enthusiastically endorsed. But I suspect what we are seeing now is much more than a purge of undesirable elements. It feels more like a beginning of a change to the basic nature of the game - not an attempt to put it back on the right tracks, but a blueprint for some new tracks altogether.

HOW many Americans does it take to carry an injured player out of a World Cup match? The answer is five - two to wheel the stretcher and three to check his medical insurance.