If you watch much daytime television you will know that that the commercial breaks are dominated by three types of advertisers: those who want to loan you vast amounts of money which somehow gets you out of debt; the suppliers of mobility products which make life easier such as stair lifts, reclining seats and walk-in baths. And then there are those who are going to make you rich if you have had an accident. 'If there is blame, there must be a claim' is the cry. The Americans will sue at the drop of a hat and now it seems that we are going the same way. This predilection to take legal recourse sadly seems to be spreading to football.
Dave Bassett, manager of beleaguered Premiership side Leicester, was seething at the penalty that knocked his team out of the FA Cup earlier this season. He was adamant that a West Bromwich Albion player conned the referee into awarding a penalty by diving. 'That decision' said Bassett when talking about the possibility of suing, 'cost us a lot of money'.
Football at the top today is all about money and the loss of a game can cost substantial future revenue. I remember a Premiership referee recalling when he was at Newcastle at the end of the season some years ago. Sir John Hall, the Newcastle chairman, went into his dressing room prior to the start of the match and said, 'If we win tonight and Saturday we go into the Champions League and that's worth £10 million. But no pressure on you,' he added to the referee. You can see why clubs can get het up if decisions don't go their way.
But who would Bassett have sued? The referee?, the player who allegedly dived?, the FA?. If clubs play a game, surely they do so accepting that they are bound by the rules of that game. The Laws of Football say 'The decisions of the referee regarding the facts connected with play are final'. So if he was the only
one in the stadium who didn't see the player dive and gives a penalty, he is correct. His decision is final. A decision by the International FA Board contained within the laws also says that 'a referee is not liable for any loss suffered by any individual, club, company or association which may be due to any decision which he makes under the terms of the laws of the game'.
The contention that one single incident decides a game is very suspect anyway. Take the recent Worthington Cup Final. Some people, mainly Spurs supporters, thought that a penalty should have been awarded when Teddy Sherringham went headlong in the penalty area towards the end of the game. The penalty if converted would have equalled the score. However, the Spurs forwards had already squandered at least three clear goal scoring opportunities which would have won the game.
There is a most unusual law suit involving football going on at the moment. A referee in Bristol has received a letter from a solicitor acting on behalf of a 33 year old player he dismissed in a Bristol Sunday League game. The referee, who's been refereeing for 32 years, said in his report that he sent the player off for abusive language and that he continued to abuse him from the sidelines. The solicitor says that the player denies that he swore at the referee and that the suggestion he did in the official match report constitutes libel. The letter demands that the referee apologise or face legal action.
I suppose that if we are going to get into this type of situation, we referees will have to ask our solicitors what they can do for us. Thinking of all the names I've been called by spectators and players over the years, I'm sure I could sue someone for defamation of character.
Dick Sawdon Smith