Those pesky laws do get in the way, don't they?

    All that most players want is a good game of soccer, and it is one of our duties to make sure that they get it.  The former International Board Decision number eight of Law Five instructed us to make sure we didn't interfere with the pleasure of both spectators and players by constant whistling for imaginary or insignificant infractions.  Benign beat-cops are preferred over petty dictators.

    But we still have those pesky laws to follow.  We shouldn't over-enforce them, but neither can we ignore them, which means that we had better know them, and know them well.  Perhaps even more important is to know why the particular law came into being.  An unwitting referee is hardly the right person to adjudicate accurately is he/she?  Well, two examples from a few weeks ago show us how ignorance of the laws and their purpose could and can cause major problems . . .We'll start with the "can cause major problems".

    In an F.A. Youth cup match between Bath City academy team (England) and Newport County academy team (Wales), everything was going well until the twentieth minute, when the referee noticed that two of the Bath City players were wearing cycling shorts (one white; one black) underneath the red shorts of their team's colors.  That, as we all know, breaches the LOTG, and so he made the two miscreants go off the pitch to change their gear.  So the young players had to strip to their knickers in front of about one hundred and fifty spectators.

    Unfortunately while they were off, their opponents scored.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that the coach/manager of Bath City became a little irate and said a few words to the official, who by this time had noticed that one of the players who had changed also had white underwear beneath the cycle shorts.  The fastidious but foolish man took exception to this and ordered the player to change his skivvies!  But since this player had no suitable replacement he played the remainder of the game en dishabille, suspended if you like, even before the disciplinary hearing.

    The protests and comments only got worse, and before the match was over, the Bath City coach was dismissed, as were four of his players and a substitute.  The final score was 6-0.

    This incident is a classic example of going too far in applying the letter of the laws, and could have been taken care of before the match even began.  An inspection before the kick-off would have prevented any problem, and provided that the purpose of the law can be satisfied--clear separation of the uniform colors from one team and the other--the referee could waive the requirement, reminding the coach of HIS responsibilities as he does so.

    The second case is an example of inaccurate instructional material sent out to referees from administrative organizations like a state association or referees' association.  This is what came across the transom (and my screen) one day some weeks ago:

     If an indirect free kick offense (foul or misconduct) were to be committed within its penalty area by the defending team, the restart would be an indirect free kick and the defending team would have to remain at least ten yards from the spot of the kick, unless it was within the goal area.  

    Can you imagine the chaos that would result if a referee tried to apply that version of Law 13 during a match?  There'd be a goal scored every time from such an event.  The organization that published this inaccuracy said it came from Chicago . . .  We see every week that many referees in this country do not administer free kicks correctly (at all levels of the game), and so I trust someone has by now corrected this version of the law.  We need more, not fewer officials who understand the intent of Law 13.  More on that later.

Comments

[Brian Smith-White]

The obsession with following the LOTG attire rules isn't a characteristic of those referees moving through the midlevel ranks. At Borussia Dortmund vs Bayern Munich this past week the referee delayed the start because the Dortmund keeper had a layer underneath that was not quite blue enough to blend with the rest of the outfit.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/nov/21/bundesliga-bayern-munich-borussia-dortmund

BSW

[John Matthew]

When the laws and their "raison d'etre" are explained and instructions given on how to implement them, why is it that the "wording' of the Law is usually given emphasis rather the
why the heck the law was passed in the first place? I remember reading the 4 volume set of "Association Football" 1906(?) and what I remembered most was "why" the law was passed in the first place. I refereed for 18 years and most instructions were "understanding" the meaning of the law rather than "the purpose".

[Sandip Vyas]

More than likely, strict adherence to the letter of the law gets the official much unnecessary press with the scribes renewing their notorious epeolatry, http://bit.ly/vHNbNW - getting knickers in a twist, undercrackers, and early Bath, being just a few phrases.

Situations such as this wardrobe management call for proper and appropriate instructions from the powers that are, as time and again, the writeups here suggest, some referees cannot be trusted to use their bean.

Many referees also cannot be expected to understand the correct and required context of that match, which in case of these youth FA Cup teams, only affected the presentation of the player/s to the viewers, compromising neither their safety nor their skill, and with no team gaining any additional or unfair advantage.

It is likely they may have come up the ranks quicker than their seasoned and street-smart colleagues, who probably understand both, the historical evolution of the various laws, and when and how to apply them.