You probably saw on the television news
or in your national paper, the incident at a non-league game,
when a male streaker rushed onto the field and tried to head a
goal. One of the attacking side chased after him and tried to
bring him down.
As the streaker made his way hastily off
the field, the referee called the player to him and sent him
off. The player's club were incensed by the sending off, apart
from anything else because he was a star player and they felt
that had he remained on the field they may have won the cup
tie.
A great deal was made of the fact that
the sent-off player was a policeman, and it was suggested that
he was trying to arrest the streaker.
From the referee's point of view I don't
think he could take that into consideration. I've refereed
police teams many times and they are no angels and always
stretched my control to the limit.
The newspapers were also very critical
of the referee's decision. I don't have any sympathy with
streakers at sporting events, they are just an unnecessary
distraction, even more so this one who actually interfered
with play. But was the referee wrong to show the player who
attacked him, the red card?
The newspapers were incorrect on a
couple of counts I feel. They said that the player tried to
tackle the streaker and from that you might suppose that it
was a rugby type tackle. What the television camera showed
however, was that whatever his intention, the player actually
kicked the streaker. He was a little slow and the streaker
escaped. Secondly the newspapers said the referee sent the
player off for 'bringing the game into disrepute'.
There are seven offences for which a
referee can send off a player, but bringing the game into
disrepute is not
one of them. It just doesn't exist. Obviously I haven't seen
the referee's report but what it would have stated as the
offence, was 'violent conduct'.
Many people are not clear what the
difference is between 'serious foul play' and 'violent
conduct' and this incident illustrates it quite clearly.
Serious foul play can only be committed
when there is a challenge for the ball and the ball is in
play, and only against an opponent. Violent conduct can take
place at any time and against anyone and I do mean anyone. It
can be against an opponent. Take the case of a player beaten
in a tackle and the ball goes out of
play. The player unhappy with the opponent's tackle, decides
to extract his own punishment by kicking or perhaps striking
the opponent. It is not a challenge for
the ball which is out of play anyway, so this is not serious
foul play but violent conduct.
Earlier this season I sent off two
players of the same team, for fighting one another. Serious
foul play can only be against an opponent so that was violent
conduct.
Royals supporters will no doubt remember
an incident a few years ago, in a match at the Madejski
Stadium against Bristol City. A foul was given against a City
player Gerard Lavin in front of the East Stand. The Reading
supporters in that area so incensed the Bristol player with
their jeering that he picked up the ball and kicked it with
considerable force into the stand, injuring a
spectator. The referee had no hesitation about sending him off
for violent conduct.
Is there any difference between that
incident and the one with the streaker? The policemen/player
was obviously incensed about the actions of the streaker when
he chased after him.
Different referees may have acted
differently, but if
the referee at the game did not see his intervention as a
tackle but as a kick at the streaker, surely that was violent
conduct?
Dick Sawdon Smith