But does the punishment fit the crime?

It’s not only Gilbert and Sullivan who ask that question. We referees do.

The Laws of Association Football were designed during the last century to ensure, amongst other things, that the Corinthian sort of ‘gentlemanly conduct’ prevailed in the new code. This led to a scale of sanctions to deal with misdemeanours of different levels of seriousness, to act both as punishment and deterrent.

Some of our sanctions raise no controversy, e.g. the throw-in the other way after a foul throw, the indirect free kick for offside or accidental dangerous play, the more serious direct free kick (or penalty) for a deliberate trip. After that it all becomes less straightforward. And the well-intentioned FIFA mandatory instructions of recent years have in some ways complicated the problem for all of us.

Little disagreement

Few object in principle to a player being sent off for ‘denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity’ (but when its your player, it doesn’t always seem that obvious). Similarly ‘a tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent’ clearly merits a red card, that is until you wonder: ‘did it really endanger ...’?

Whatever the argument about the referee’s judgement in these cases, there is basic sympathy with the Law. A deliberate foul to stop a clear chance on goal and injury-threatening brutality both deserve harsh punishment. But what about other cases?

Technical and verbal offences

In my experience, it is the technical and verbal offences we all find it hardest to accept.

Players who fail to retreat the required 9.15 metres (10 yards) know perfectly well what they are doing and what the Law says, but still seem to be astonished if the referee shows the yellow card. A player who tackles over-vigorously and is rightly cautioned, may not like it, but he and the others can see the basic justice of it. But when a team-mate protests with a few obscenities in the heat of the moment and has to be sent off, the sense of justice evaporates, and the referee, who is simply doing his job, becomes the scapegoat.

Other sanctions possible

In both these cases the punishment is not perceived to fit the crime. And yet other sanctions are available. We referees have been asking as long as I can remember for the move-on-ten-yard sanction Rugby referees have in cases of protest or failure to retreat at a free kick. For dissent and ‘offensive, insulting or abusive language’, I personally would favour a ‘sin-bin’. Dissent has to be punished firmly because the referee has to be seen to be in charge - the alternative is worse. But a caution’s weakness is that it leaves the player on the field. Much better surely to remove the source of the dissent temporarily and give him time to cool down. Similar sanction for inappropriate language.

The attraction of the sin-bin is that the effect is immediate, both on the player and the team. The length of time can be varied too. Sin-bins are used in Germany, for example, and are considered highly effective.

So why don’t these changes happen? We can only surmise that the great and the good in football are unwilling to be seen to be influenced by another code or game. Meantime, please remember we referees didn’t write the laws ...

Brian Palmer

© B. Palmer 1999

Back To Contents