A local referee in one of his matches
earlier this season had a defender handle the ball on the goal
line, intending to prevent the opposing team scoring. However,
the ball rebounded into play to an attacker, who put it in the
back of the net. The referee queried afterwards whether he
should have sent the defender off.
The law says 'A player is sent off if he
denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball.' But of course
in this case he hadn't denied the goal because the attacker
was able to score from his handball. So the referee was right
to only caution the defender for unsporting behaviour.
I was reminded of this when I watched
the highlights of the Birmingham City v Portsmouth on
television complete with the rantings of Birmingham Manager
Steve Bruce.
During the match the Birmingham
goalkeeper handled the ball outside his own penalty area which
resulted in a red card. First let me say that a handball by a
goalkeeper outside his area does not always mean he has to be
sent off.
I was watching a game the Sunday before
last on one of the local parks, when the goalkeeper dived on
the ball on the edge of his penalty area. A very wet day as
those out in it will recall and the goalkeeper slid along the
muddy ground, just managing to stop himself from going outside
the area with the ball still in his hands.
'He was lucky,' I heard one spectator
say, 'if he had gone outside, it would have been a sending
off.' No it wouldn't. It is only a sending off offence if it
is done deliberately to deny a goal or more likely a
goal-scoring opportunity. That, of course, is exactly what the
Birmingham goalkeeper did. The ball had been punted upfield
and was being chased by an attacker and a defender. The
goalkeeper rushed out of his area and, as the ball bounced
over his head, he tried to punch it clear.
The referee, caught out by the
breakaway, was some way behind play and seemingly did not see
the handball. However, it was spotted by his assistant referee
at that end, who flagged. The referee was clearly shown on
television, blowing his whistle when he saw the flag raised.
He probably wished that he had waited, for the ball was not
cleared by the handball. It dropped into the path of the
attacker who rounded the attending defender and put the ball
in the empty net.
Claiming that the loss of the keeper
cost them the game, Bruce said that the referee could have
shown a little common sense. Did he mean he should ignore the
law on sending off, or ignore the fact that he had blown his
whistle and allow the goal? He could then have allowed the
goalkeper to remain on the field, as in the earlier incident.
But once the referee has blown his whistle he can't use
'common sense' and go back on it. The goal hadn't been scored
when he blew and therefore the goalkeeper's action had denied
Portsmouth a goalscoring opportunity.
Rather than blaming the referee, why
didn't Bruce put the blame where it really lay? The goalkeeper
knew that what he was trying to do, was a sending-off offence.
If the referee had been slow with his whistle and allowed the
goal, that would have been pure luck. If he had punched it
properly, as I'm sure he intended, then it would have been a
sending-off offence without any question.
Of course, if the goalkeeper had left it
altogether, the Portsmouth forward might have scored, but he
would have remained on the field. Now that, it seems to me,
would have been using some common sense.
Dick Sawdon Smith