Exorcising phantom decisions

    It’s easy to look at videotape of controversial incidents and make the “right” decision, and the fact is (if we were honest), we enjoy looking at the Great and Famous in order to correct their errors.  But as an educational exercise, the staring at videotape is of limited value unless we use that viewing as a means to prevent ourselves from making the same error.  Can we use someone else’s screw-up to prevent our own future one?

    And that is the purpose of analyzing the “phantom goal” of last week in the Championship in England in the game between Watford and Reading.  The important point is the one Ed made so clearly: We can often use information from players to help us make a good refereeing decision.  We wrote about the technique in the book we published in 2001 (was it really that long ago?)

    Take the case of a simple throw-in.  The ball appears to come off two opponents at the same time, and neither you not your AR knows the one who played it last.  Now what?

    Time was (1973) when the LOTG advised us to “. . decide any disputed point.”  Why that phrase was removed from the laws that year I do not know, but I will do a little research into the discussion of the International Board to try and find out.  Whatever the reason, that advice was sound, as was the implication that we didn’t have to intervene if there was no dispute.  So in our hypothetical throw-in, the first thing to do was take a look at the players.  Are they disputing possession of the ball, or do they know who touched it last?

    If red picks up the ball, and blue does not dispute it, then that is the direction you give the throw.  But if both teams think they deserve the throw-in, then you have a to make some decision, you have to decide the disputed point.  So make the decision that will cause least damage to the game.  Give it to the defending side.

    You can use the same technique at goal-kick/corner kick, and even goal/no goal, when neither you nor your AR knows, just as in the Reading/Watford game.  How?

    The flag goes up as (in this case) the Reading forward tries to keep the ball in play.   Now surely we can think, can’t we, that he is not trying to stop the ball going into the net?!  Surely the action of the players, all of whom lined up for a goal-kick, tells us that everyone is OK with the ball never having entered the goal.  Since the referee must have been aware that the forward was trying to keep the ball in play, BECAUSE NO GOAL HAD BEEN SCORED, then the raised flag can mean only one thing.  THE BALL HAD PASSED OUT OF PLAY OFF THE LEG OF A DEFENDER, and therefore a corner kick is appropriate.

    What is essential is that the referee PAUSE at the flag, the pause giving him a chance to evaluate what the players are telling him.  The ball had crossed the line, no forwards appealed for a goal, so our decision is either goal—kick or corner-kick.  There’s our disputed point, the GK/CK.  The AR in the discussion may believe the ball went in the goal, but the players (all of whom were closer to the action and had more stake in what went on) are saying it did not.

    There is no need for the referee to overrule the players, no need to be stubborn as well as ignorant.  Swallow your pride, man, and do what the players know best in this situation!  You don’t have to go with the AR just because he has ten years’ more experience than you do.  His foolishness does not mean he has to be supported.  The players deserve better, and don’t need to know what went on in the discussion between the officials.

    Well, by now we know the consequences of this immaturity: a huge dispute; a confrontation; and eventually the expulsion of the coach ; a disciplinary hearing to investigate the behavior of the coach ; and (I hope) the demotion of both referee and assistant, with some coaching into the teaching I describe above.

    It rarely hurts to take a pause and reflect for a moment of two.  “The pause that refreshes” can be more than a mere slogan!

    Now the big question: Are any of our professional officials vulnerable to this kind of mistake?  Well, read tomorrow for my opinion . . .

Comments

[Dustin Edwards]

"..(I hope) the demotion of both referee and assistant,.."

Why would you wish this on them? I don't seem to understand why everyone thinks that referees need to be punished until they learn. Or are you hoping that good referees that haven't got a chance at the higher levels will be promoted in their stead and prove successful? I've been reading constant reports and commentators yelling for referees heads this past week. On ESPN the only understanding voice was from another international referee. This is getting to an "Us vs. Them" point, and it will only serve to injure soccer.

[K Teague]

I don't know why "...decide any disputed point" was removed from LOTG in 1973, but I can tell you why it won't work today. Case in point: last week a JC coach barked to her bench players (while I was AR1 standing at the halfline) on an "uncontested" throw in: "You see! That's what I'm talking about! The refere had no idea who's throw in it was! That's why we didn't get it!! I told you before, every ball out of bounds go pick it up like it's yours!! The ref will give you the call." Wow, nothing like coaching integrity or honesty and fair play being passed on to our next generation through such desirable leadership skills. So much for relying on the honesy of the players' actions.