The Lost Art of Hesitating Before Deciding: Sounders versus Celtic

    For more than thirty years I have been teaching linesmen, and subsequently assistant referees, to hesitate a moment or two before raising the flag to indicate an offside infringement.  Only by hesitating, I taught, could you be sure that the offside player did indeed become involved and therefore commit an infringement of law 11.  And only by hesitating could you find out if it were possible to make a better decision than the obvious one of simply blowing the whistle even though you saw that the offside player did indeed interfere with play.  Later, when the law was revised (to match what we were already teaching in the US in the seventies), hesitating became even more important, as it is today.

     But hesitating before making any decision is also a valuable technique.  I learned this from a visiting FIFA referee, Bob Matthewson of England who came over to referee in the North American Soccer League.  This was before the advantage clause was revised a few years ago to give us "two bites at the apple" if we saw that the advantage we imagined did not materialize, allowing us to blow for the original free kick.  Matthewson however, would hesitate at almost every decision, to look around and pick his options to make not just a good decision, but a better one, better FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.  Take the case of the penalty-kick and the red card in the thirtieth minute of the game between Seattle Sounders and Glasgow Celtic last weekend . .

    From the Seattle Times:    "The crucial moment came in the 30th minute of a scoreless game, when Celtic's Georgios Samaras broke in behind the Seattle defense. As he approached the goal, the lanky midfielder was knocked to the ground by a challenge from goalkeeper Terry Boss, but Samaras managed to kick the ball into the empty net from his backside for an apparent goal."  

    In the referee's mind, the goalkeeper had fouled the forward behind the last defenders as he was approaching the goal.  A clear DOOGSO, no?  With no other defenders near enough to clear away the ball, is there any need for a rushed decision?  No!  The referee can afford to wait a second or two (or three) to see what transpires.  Nothing about the foul is going to change, is it?  So the referee hesitates.   In that moment's hesitation, he sees the attacker on the ground, he sees the player swing his leg at the ball, and he thinks: "Let's see what happens."   

    What he sees, of course, is the forward hit the ball and propel it into the goal.  Now is the time for a decision!  Blow the whistle and give the goal.  If your whistle sounded before the ball had entered the goal, so what?  Keep blowing until the ball nestles in the net.  If the player missed the goal with his on-the-ground attempt, blow the whistle and give the penalty and the red card.  Hesitation makes for a perfect call, which no one can challenge.   

    Now, I know there will be some literalists who will insist that the moment the whistle sounded, play must stop.  But if no one was distracted by the whistle, and no one could have had a chance to intercept the ball, so what?  What are the important facts here?  A forward breaks through, is going to score, but the goalkeeper brings him down.  Or tries to, but the forward recovers and still scores.  Is that not the perfect justice?  Absolutely, yes!   

    So, dear readers, learn from Bob Matthewson, FIFA referee of decades ago.  I did, and I have taught hundreds of referees the art of hesitation before making a decision.  And if any of the Canadian readers know the email of FIFA official Paul Ward, who did this match in Seattle, send him a note referring him to this blog, so that he too, may learn from Bob Matthewson.  He needs a good mentor, even if the mentor is from thirty years' past.

   

   

   

Comments

[Grumpy]

Great example of what delaying a call can do. The only point I would like to offer is that there are games in which a PK and an ejection for DOGSO could be better for the game than a goal and a caution for USB.

[Can you give an example? Cheers, RE]

[Deniz]

I totally agree, just award the goal after having happened to whistle, who cares about the absolute timing of the whistle if there is no impact... it's a bad judgement anyhow to whistle prematurely, at least get the outcome right...

[Snedecor]

I'm not a referee and I'm not sure about that, but I think I've heard that advantage clause can't be used in cases of penalty, because it's supposed that there's no greater advantage than a penalty kick. Maybe it's true when there are a lot of people inside the box, but in this case we're talking about a 1x1 situation in which the forward can reach the ball and score. It's always the same problem, common sense against following the rules as an automaton, without understanding the game.

[There is no law that says you can't apply advantage in the penalty-area. RE]

And, in case Mr Ward had conceded the goal, should he have sent the GK off anyway? 'Cause if you allow advantage, you can book the infractor later... should you punish that "DOGSO fail" or is allowing the goal enough punishment for the action?

[In my opinion, a caution and a goal is all you need. RE]

[ChuckStuart]

Same situation as the Arsenal-Barcelona CL final a few years back. Early in the match, Lehman fouled the Barca forward and the ball rolled to Guily who put in into the open net. But, the referee had already whistled - free kick outside the box, red card for Lehman. A little hesitation would have saved the match.

[Hey, Chuck! I haven't forgotten about you. I'll write soon. Cheers, Bob.]

[OMG not again]

DOGSO
Does not the wording include "Denies", The relevant point as you say is to wait. If the ball enters the net then that fact changes the words and the goal is scored. If not then issue the card (RED) and award the PK.
It has long been my perspective that the best advantage you can give is a goal. Every thing else is subjective to that.
As always excellent teaching points.
Wait, see and act. Retreat if needed. Run away if you can. LMAO

[Rich Villalobos]

We had a similar situation on a State Cup match where the referee hesitated on a potential DOGSO which materialized into a goal. However, the referee still issued the red for DOGSO, and the state assessor explained that it was a proper send-off. In your scenario, I would conclude that the goalkeeper should have been sent-off. I'm having difficulty wrapping me head around it, but who am I to disagree with an assessor who decides my fate? What is your position on this call?