Have you noticed how words that you have understood perfectly clearly,
often get changed these days for others that don't actually mean the same.
For example I saw a van in the street that said 'Hanson Logistics'. Logistics
is a form of mathematics or something you might use when faced with a
very complex plan. This vehicle was picking up goods from one point and
taking them to another. What logistics? it was a delivery van for goodness
sake.
The same thing happened when they re-wrote the laws of football in 1997.
Words or phrases that were used for years, were replaced with others that I
don't think have helped clarify the law and which in some case aren't even
strictly accurate.
I thought of this two or three weeks ago,
when Premiership referee Mark Halsey was the centre of a little controversy in the Aston
Villa-Arsenal match. You may remember the situation. He gave a free kick
to Arsenal just outside the Aston Villa penalty area. While the Villa defence
was trying to sort itself out, Thierry Henry took the kick and the ball was in
the back of the net.
Villa complained that the referee hadn't allowed them
time to organise a wall or given a signal for the free kick to be taken. Mark
Halsey appeared on television to explain that he had asked the Arsenal
players whether they wanted to take a quick free kick. When they replied
'yes', he said OK and stood out of the way for Henry to take the kick. This is
what we as referees, are encouraged to do. We are told that to comply with
the spirit of the law, there must be no undue delay in allowing the non-
offending side to take the kick.
Although Law 13 (Free Kicks) says
opposing players must be at least ten yards from the ball, referees have the
discretion to disregard this requirement, to enable a free kick to be taken
quickly. So a referee cannot justify, allowing the offending side an
opportunity to consolidate its defence. If the quick free-kick is taken but hits
an opponent who has not had time to retreat the ten yards, play would be
allowed to continue, unless the opponent had deliberately stopped the ball.
In that case the opponent would be cautioned and the kick re-taken.
I had a somewhat similar incident a couple of weeks ago, when a
goalkeeper picked up the ball direct from team mate's throw-in (yes, they
still forget sometimes). I awarded an indirect free-kick and before the
goalkeeper could get back on his line or I could get into position, a quick
thinking attacker kicked the ball sideways to a colleague for a shot at an
open goal. If I had stopped the kick, it would have given an advantage to the
offending team. Fortunately for the defending side the opponent was a rotten
shot and from twelve yards out, missed the goal by two yards.
'What about a signal?' is the question always demanded. This is where I
get back to the wording of the law being changed. For decades it read 'The
referee shall signal for the recommencement of the game after all
stoppages'. Perfectly clear I think you will agree. After the re-write it now
says, 'The referee re-starts the match after it has been stopped'.
What does that mean? It obviously can't be taken literally. At a free-kick for instance,
the law says 'the game is re-started after the ball has been kicked and
moves'. As the referee can't take the kick, he can't re-start play, so it seems
to me that the wording is meaningless. What most referees take it to mean,
is to signal when it is necessary but always try to get the game re-started as
soon as possible, within the laws and spirit of the game.
Dick Sawdon Smith