Good article, but I have to take issue with the statement "Phil Dowd, the referee at Wembley, made an excellent call on Vidic's challenge".

In what way was it "excellent" the fact that he gave the clear cut penalty which was obvious to anyone watching? Or that he completely ignored the laws of the game and failed to send Vidic off (or even give him a yellow card) effectively giving him another couple of "free hits" at the Villa strikers?

Fair point. But there's refereeing by the book, and refereeing by 'feel'. To my mind, a penalty was fair punishment - it wasn't a vicious foul, just a bad tackle, with the question of intent arguable. A yellow would have been more than enough, and for one side to be down to ten men so early in the game would have been too harsh. It already takes courage for a ref to give a penalty against Man United in the fourth minute of a Wembley final, without adding a red card. I imagine Dowd was taking a bigger picture view of the game (didn't want to "ruin the spectacle" etc.), rather than applying the letter of the law.

I realise there are very strong counter-arguments to what I've just said, especially if you're a Villa fan. But I prefer to view refereeing as a human activity, not the work of a rules-fixated robot.

To the letter of the law Dowd was correct not to send him off as he wasn't heading directly to goal, but then what do refs know about the rules? Give Lawerenson a microphone that is rigged up to the stadium speakers, then he can officiate from the commentary box and stop all this nonsense of referees officiating who have been doing it all their lives.

"The offences that warrant a red card are defined in FIFA?s Laws of the Game

Being guilty of ?serious foul play? (for instance, a very dangerous tackle).
Violence.
Spitting at an opponent or other person.
Denying the other side an opportunity to score by handling the ball.
Denying the other side an opportunity to score by fouling a player.
Offensive or abusive language or gestures."

Where does it say anything about "heading directly to goal"?

Agbonlahor was inside the penalty area and preparing to shoot with only the goalkeeper to beat, if that doesn't constitute an "opportunity to score" then I don't know what does.

I don't see how anyone can claim that Dowd was correct not to send Vidic off, the arguments about "ruining the spectacle" are completely spurious.

I must admit though that I find the hypocrisy of pundits continually wanting referees to use "common sense" and then castigating them for not applying the laws consistently is annoying.

Law 12, a player is sent off if he denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving toward's the player's goal. The guidelines from FIFA complicate this by adding that the player must be heading directly towards goal. In Dowd's opinion he wasn't, and it appears he was not heading directly to goal. Obviously you missed that guideline being sent to you

Thanks for clearing that up, I'd missed out on that FIFA memo.

So if the player is not facing the goal (as an extreme example. he's just gone around the goalkeeper but has gone a bit wide and is about to turn and put the ball into the empty net) and the defender brings him down in the area then it's just a penalty?

Same here.
Probably not, but then that didn't happen here. The player was going straight ahead but not towards the goal and was brought down.

Interesting. I think the League Cup final was such an engaging game precisely because of the tactics adopted by both sides. For once, a high-profile game between two big English clubs saw both teams take to the field in a 4-4-2, with two proper wide midfielders (Young and Downing for Villa, Valencia and Park for United) and two central forwards (Agbonlahor/Heskey, Owen/Berbatov) on each side. The reason there was so much space to run into was largely because neither team made a priority of dominating the centre of midfield, which is what happens when teams line up in a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3.

This article highlights the lack of detail or understanding of tactics in England. The game was old fashioned , yes, always when Villa play and especially against United - two sides who like to stretch the pitch.

The problem in England is there is a lack of question - why is this happening.. and continuing asking the questions. Crouch scored two goals for England but many were still stuck in their pretentious views of his advantages and relative weaknesses that didn't quite relate to England's tactics.

Thankfully the last two posts got on topic. I think Ian is confusing 'tactics' with 'formation', assuming they are synonyms. 'Tactics' includes formation, but also HOW the game is played - tempo, pressing etc; indeed the examples described in the Cup Final. To say how the game was played was entirely dependent on the pitch, referee and players' "remit to express themselves" is disingenuous. Even Shawcross' challenge was part of a Stoke tactic you see week in week out - the tactic of stifling the more skillful opponents' creativity. My point is that this is all part of a manager's tactical template; it is not in spite of him. This is also the bread and butter of lively in-game discussion. In short, long may 'talking tactics' continue.