Those who have read this column over the years will know that I often have to correct misinterpretations of the Laws of the Game that emanate from the so-called experts that populate the panels on televised football. Sometimes of course what the pundits say are purely matters of opinion and they even differ amongst themselves.
I got home from my own game a couple of Sundays ago to watch the live
FA Cup tie, Worcester v Huddersfield on BBC Match of the Day. The match was refereed by Reading RA's own Iain Williamson, in whose opinion, a Huddersfield player dived in order to deceive him into awarding a penalty. One panel member wasn't sure whether or not it was a dive, perhaps because it was a second caution. Another, a non-league manager, thought it was a penalty as there had been contact, whilst a third, agreed with me that it was the most blatant dive to try and win a penalty that you are likely to see. As I say, we are all entitled to our opinions.
The day before, another panel discussed an incident in the Bolton v Everton game. Andy Todd of Bolton was sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball. To be penalised, the handball must be deliberate and there was some dissension that this was the case.
Again, as I say everyone has their view, their opinion. What I found annoying was the fact that they constantly referred to the fact that the referee didn't see the handball and only took action on the advice of his assistant referee. But that is why assistant referees are there.
Law 5 says 'the referee controls the match in co-operation with the assistant referees'. Of course assistant referees indicate when the ball goes out of play and who they consider is entitled to the throw-in, or goal kick or corner if it goes over the goal line. Yes, one of their main duties is to signal when they think a player should be penalised for being in an offside position. But there is more to it than that.
Law 6 says that the seven duties of an assistant referee include 'to indicate when offences have been committed whenever the assistant is closer to the action than the referee and when misconduct or any other incident has occurred out of the view of the referee'.
Surely that's what it is all about, three pairs of eyes instead of just one, making sure that offences do not go undetected. Why should people think that it is a weakness of a referee to take the word of a qualified assistant when he has not been in a position to see the offence
himself? And why should people denigrate the penalising of an offence because it has been given on the flag of an assistant
referee?
We must never forget that at this level all assistant referees are themselves successful referees at the level below and so on, down the footballing pyramid. They will know the offences as well as the referee.
These duties are at the discretion of the referee and so when you get down to local leagues and the referee has to operate with assistant referees appointed (or cajoled) by the clubs concerned, referees will normally not ask them to flag for any offences other than offside. This does not mean that club assistant referees are not important to the control of any game.
Last Thursday I spent the evening discussing with Bracknell referees how to improve co-operation and assistance from club officials and on Sunday, I was part of a team showing local club assistants how they can be of greater assistance to referees. But where we have qualified referees on the line, it surely is not a matter of opinion that we make full use of their knowledge and experience.
Dick
Sawdon Smith