In the last couple of weeks, I have refereed my first matches where there has been a 'sin bin' in operation. Instead of a yellow card for cautions, I was given a blue card to denote when a player was to be penalised by a temporary timed suspension.
Let me hasten to point out, that these were at a small-a-side tournaments. The sin bin has still not been approved for 11-a-side football, although it has been proposed for years. The benefits it's advocates say, are that teams are immediately punished for their player's 'sins', as they are deprived of their services during the game in which they committed the offence. This also benefits the team that has been offended against. When a caution is issued in 11-a-side football, the player is fined but it takes a number of yellow cards before a player is actually suspended and then of course his club can still field a full team.
The arguments sound plausible, so why has it been resisted in the 11-a-side game? The main reason seems to be FIFAs overwhelming desire that the laws should be applied the same, where ever football is played, which means there should be no difference between the World Cup final and local park games.
The top echelon of the game has the ability to create an actual 'sin bin' where the player can sit out his time and there is a fourth official who can time the suspension. However on a local park, the offender would have to stand on the touchline unsupervised, possibly in close proximity of opposing supporters and the timing is another burden on the referee's watch. So why have they sanctioned it for small-sided football?
At a time when the 11-a-side game is declining, small-sided football has seen enormous growth and is now the largest form of the recreational game. Much of this growth has been fuelled by commercial organisations running leagues and tournaments all over the country. Every season I receive invitations to referee on competitions from such organisations. Although the fees are good, the referee is expected to carry out other duties such as collecting and banking the fees from the clubs.
The venue at which I refereed on the south coast, was not a sports centre but a modern warehouse, that has been adapted with two purpose built pitches alongside one another. Both were completely inside netting and had a surface like a large shagpile carpet. There was also an area for spectators and other facilities such as dressing rooms, a bar and a café. Soccer leagues take place every evening, seven days a week. With the sheer number of games played, if cautions were issued, FA disciplinary departments would be overwhelmed.
Earlier this season, I was given by the FA, the recommended laws for small-sided football. The reason they are only recommended is partly because the conditions can be different at such a great variety of venues. The law on sin bins for instance, should only be used where there is the facility to have a supervised area, which can be seen by the referee, who is responsible for the timing of the suspension. Another reason is that the FA has difficulty in enforcing these laws on all these organisations now working in the small-sided game and they look for their co-operation.
Later this month I have to attend a course to enable me to train referees for small-sided matches. Although these games can be refereed by fully qualified referees, there is a provision for other people to qualify to referee small-sided games only and they will wear a different coloured badge. All this is an attempt by the FA to gain some degree of control over what has become a very diverse form of the game.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2006
We have got used by now to television commentators, after viewing several replays, declaring that referees or their assistants have make a mistake. A different camera angle will show a view that the referees didn't have when he made his decision.
A new phenomenon however occurred on BBC Match of the Day2 with the Fulham v Chelsea Premiership match. The referee and his assistant were slated because the television replays showed their decision
was correct.
Let me recap what happened. Chelsea were losing by the odd goal and heading towards a rare defeat. The ball was played forward to Didier Drogba, who turned past the Fulham defender and ran through to put the ball in the goal. However the Fulham players protested that Drogba had handled the ball to control it. The referee consulted his assistant and then awarded a free kick to Fulham, indicating by sign language that it was for handball.
When they showed the replay on BBC Match of the Day 2 that night, everybody agreed that it was the right decision. So what else was there to say?
Another camera angle showed that, although the referee's was close to the action, Drogba had turned his back when the handball occurred so he couldn't have seen it. After the game, the referee explained that he had received a buzz from his assistant. Readers of this column last week will know that in the Football League and the Premiership, assistant referees have a buzzer on their flag handle, which activates a receiver on the referee's arm, alerting him that something has happened that he may have not seen.
However, the explanation was not good enough for the BBC Match of the Day team. Despite the fact that they hadn't got a camera angle of the assistant referee's view, they claimed he couldn't have seen it either. Alan Hanson, sat back with a superior air as if to say what am I doing here on a Sunday. 'The referee,' he said, 'made a decision earlier not to award a penalty to Fulham for a tackle by John Terry, so he evened things up: That's what referees do!'
How does Hanson know what referees do? Has he ever been a referee so he can speak from experience? The answer of course is no.That's not what referees do.
In all my years of refereeing I have never attempted to balance decisions in a match. Referees do not play the compensation game. Referees do make mistakes. Not as many as people think and they try and make as few as possible but they do happen. Mostly a referee will not realise he has made a mistake so will carry on regardless. Occasionally a referee may have doubts about a decision, but what he should do is forget about it?
What the referee mustn't do is to worry about it.
Dr Bob Rotela, who is a sports psychologist to some of the world's leading golfers, related how when Nick Price made a bad putt on the first hole, it would affect the rest of his game. He had to teach him to put it out of his mind. Exactly the same with referees, they can't dwell on any disputed incident otherwise it will influence the rest of their game. Not in the way that Alan Hanson suggests but it can affect their concentration. Referees at the top level are too experienced to allow that to happen.
After the game, any referee worth his salt will review the situation to see if they could have done better. But trying to make amends only happens in the prejudiced eyes of footballers and television commentators.
Dick
Sawdon Smith