A couple of photos in the Evening Post after Reading’s home game with Burnley, together with a comment made in the review of the match, made me realise yet again that people who should know better, are not properly conversant with the Laws of the Game, nor do they understand what the laws are attempting to do.
The first photograph showed Shane Long in the dying minutes of the game, running after the ball along the touch- line but the Burnley defender, Stephen Jordan, has grabbed his shirt by the collar, almost choking him but also preventing him from getting to the ball. It is an excellent photograph; congratulations are due to the Post cameraman. Had it been taken seconds later it would have shown Long sprawled across the turf.
The other picture showed Burnley manager, Owen Coyle, berating the fourth official because the referee decided that Jordan’s shirt pulling constituted a cautionable offence and, as he had already received an earlier yellow card, it meant he was sent off.
What do managers feel they will achieve by taking their feelings out on the fourth official, who
has nothing to do with the decision? Did Coyle think that he could coerce the fourth official into asking the referee to change his mind? Of course not, it was just a display of bad temper and ignorance. The player, instead of being chastised by his manager for stupidly committing a second cautionable offence was probably sympathised with, judging by his display in the technical area.
And those comments in the
Post review of the match? Moan of the Match said, ‘The decision to send off Jordan with seconds left on the clock seemed harsh. Long had wriggled free and Jordan picked up his second yellow card for a misguided challenge devoid of intent.’
Let’s take first the fact that it was in the dying moments of the game. Does it matter? Not a bit. First minute, last minute, a cautionable offence must be punished. If referees declare a truce at these times, players would feel free to do what they like. A challenge devoid of intent? To be honest it doesn’t matter. Except for handball, the question of intent doesn’t apply to direct free kick offences. However, if we look at the photo of the incident the intent of the player is quite clear. The ball had been played out of defence to Long, who, if he hadn’t been pulled back, would have had a free run on goal. The fact that he was on the touch line
near the half way line meant of course that it could not be classified as an
'obvious goal scoring opportunity' but Long would have been without doubt in a promising attacking position.
Holding, which is what shirt-pulling is in the
Laws, is not in itself a cautionable offence but in situations like this it becomes one. In the back of the
Laws of the Game are the ‘Interpretations and Guidelines for referees’. They contain two examples why this unsporting behaviour should be cautioned; ‘Commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack’ and ‘Holds an opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent away from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the ball.’
These interpretations are mandatory for referees, so referee Kevin Friend was absolutely correct in his decision but of course you may wonder why such harsh discipline is thought necessary. You then have to ask yourself, what type of football do you want? Do you want games where play is free-flowing or ones where players are happy to give away free kicks by spoiling tactics, knowing they have broken up a promising attack? Can there be any doubt what you want to see? That’s why the law-makers demand a further sanction.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2008