It was an explosive start to the Premiership season this year. No fewer than 124 goals in the first thirty-nine games with only two 0-0 draws. At the Arsenal they had the sort of explosion that I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted with their star midfield player Patrick Vieira sent off twice in the first two matches.
Many people have expressed sympathy with the French international, particularly as in the first game he was clearly offended against first. If you didn't see the incident or one of the innumerable replays on television, then let me illustrate what happened.
As Vieira was breaking away in the centre of the field, one of his opponents had several attempts at stopping him by illegally holding him. Frustrated by being pulled back he lashed out with his arm into the
opponent's face. The referee sent him off and then showed the opponent the yellow card.
The view has been expressed that the referee should have been more lenient as he had obviously realised that it was a retaliatory foul. The referee, however, does not have that option. Once he has decided that it is serious foul play (or violent conduct if play has already been stopped), he cannot give any other decision than the Law demands, whatever his own feelings.
A similar incident happened to me some years ago in a Reading and District League match at Binfield. The Binfield player won a tackle and was making his way towards the opposing goal when an opponent tried to bring him down. The Binfield player stayed on his feet and I shouted 'Advantage, Play On'.
However, he didn't want to play on and turned around and flattened his opponent. I felt sorry for the player because up to that time he had had an exemplary game. I even felt guilty, thinking that perhaps I could have prevented it if I had blown
the whistle instead of allowing the advantage. All referees review incidents to ask themselves could I have avoided trouble if I had acted differently. All my misgivings were academic however because, like Patrick Vieira, he had to go.
If referees started to apply discretion in cases of retaliation where would it lead us? What about those incidents where the referee doesn't see (or hear) the original offence? Does he take the word of the offending player that he has been sinned against? I say 'hear' because two seasons ago I blew for a foul in the centre of the field when two players, one white and one black, went down in a tackle. The offence was by the white player but, as they both got up from the ground, the black player turned to his opponent and laid him out with a right hook.
I couldn't understand why he should take such action as I had blown my whistle straight away and awarded him the free kick. Why did he still feel he had to exact retribution? When I told him he was being sent oft he complained that the opponent had called him a coon.
Although I was barely ten yards away, I had not heard the alleged remark, so I had no way of telling whether it was a valid story and of course the opponent vehemently denied it. If I had heard such a comment, the white player too would have been sent off. Racist remarks come under the red card heading 'abusive or insulting language'. That would still not have persuaded me to allow the black player to stay on the field.
If players were allowed to take the law into their own hands the result would be chaos. I know that it is sometimes hard for players with a volatile temperament but if when they see red they lash out, they must expect to see more red, on a card held high by the referee.
Dick Sawdon Smith