I suppose few people would disagree that one of the
most important parts of refereeing is getting the decisions right. Sounds easy but in reality
it's much more
difficult.
The truth is that as referees we don't see everything. But of course in
senior football the referee does have assistance to get the decisions correct from
the ears and eyes of his assistant referees. Those who follow non-league football in the
Evening Post will have read of a rather chaotic ending to the game at Reading Town a couple of weeks ago.
Briefly, what happened was that as the referee blew his whistle for full time the
assistant referee was flagging for a Reading player being brought down in the
penalty area. Everyone, particularly the opposition, thought that the referee had
signaled the end of the game but, after consulting his assistant, he pointed
instead to the penalty mark, giving Reading Town the chance of a two-one
victory. We must assume that the referee was convinced by his assistant referee
that the offence had been committed before he blew his whistle.
This gives rise to the question 'can a referee change his mind?' The referee first blew for full
time but changed it to a penalty. The law is quite clear on this subject and the
limitation it places on the referee. It says 'The referee may only change a
decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, after advice from
his assistant referee, providing [and this is an important
part] he has not restarted play'.
There are times when as a referee you realise you have dropped a
clanger. I can remember, for instance, giving offside in the middle of the half,
only to discover a defender standing alongside the goalkeeper on the goal line.
Clearly an error, so the only thing I could do was to give a drop ball and try and
do better next time. At the Reading Town game, the referee accepted the advice
of his assistant referee and changed his decision.
As I've pointed out in this
column before, assistant referees in senior football are all referees themselves,
albeit refereeing at the level below. However there was another change of decision recently that I am not so sure
about. At the Stockport-
Bournemouth match, a Stockport player rounded the
goalkeeper and scored. The players had lined up to restart, when the fourth
official alerted the referee with the buzzer that officials in the top levels of the
game are now equipped with. When the referee consulted him he said he had
seen the Stockport player nudge the ball past the goalkeeper with his hand
before scoring. The referee took his word for it, cancelled the goal, cautioned
the Stockport player and awarded a free-kick to Bournemouth.
We have already seen that the referee can, at his discretion, take advice from his assistant referees
but I can't help wondering whether a fourth official should get involved in
decisions on the field. The law book says 'The fourth official assists the referee
at all times. He must indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned
because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off, having been seen
to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of view of the
referee'. No mention about advising him of any other offences being committed.
Being close at hand, team managers already subject fourth officials to
protestations and demands. If they thought that they could influence them to call
the referees attention to imagined or real offences, they could make the fourth
officials life intolerable. But my own reservations go deeper than that. We all
want decisions to be as correct as possible, but is it better to accept that some
will not be, rather than have yet another voice to be heard?
Dick Sawdon Smith