There was a report and photograph in last week’s Evening Post
of the footballers’ reunion held in Reading. This is a unique evening for it’s not just a get-together of past Reading
FC. footballers. It is also attended by many leading players and administrators from Reading local leagues in years gone by, as well as many who played in senior football locally. I always feel privileged that in the ten years that the reunion has taken place I'm the only referee who has ever been invited.
All the talk is of course about football and as there are very few ladies present we can do so without feeling guilty.
One of the people I talked to was David Downs who I mentioned in this column a couple of weeks ago. David took me slightly to task over my comments that he ran Reading Schools football for many years. 'It sounds' he said 'as if I had now given up but in fact I am still running the Reading Schools’ Primary team'.
Taking up my point about the behaviour of parents David pointed out that since he took over the reins in 1966, the team has played 1128 games. In that time they have never had a player sent off or even cautioned. He believed that the credit for this was due not just to the players but also to the parents and supporters who encouraged the lads to play in the right spirit. I'm sure that this was brought about by the guidelines that David laid down.
He also wished to thank the referees who have shown empathy with the attitude of young players and helped by controlling the games with a common sense interpretation of the Laws of the Game.
I always wince slightly when people talk about referees using common sense. It can be used at all levels of the game of course and it is often called the eighteenth Law. It's just that I worry some referees may use it as an excuse for not knowing the other seventeen well enough.
However, having refereed a good amount of school football myself (but not for Reading Primary I might add), I appreciate that you do need to approach these games with a slightly different outlook, or ‘empathy’ as David calls it. These are the players of the future and, although at this age they are probably not looking to foul opponents, they need to understand what they can and can't do. So it doesn't mean that referees can overlook any misconduct. It is the way that it is dealt with that makes the difference.
But are there times even at this age, when the referee has to impose the full sanction of the Laws? A fellow referee spoke to me recently about a game in which he sent off an twelve year old player. 'People have reviled me,' he said 'for sending off someone so young', and apparently even other referees had questioned his judgement. He was obviously very concerned about it.
The story as he told me, was that the player concerned pulled down an opponent who was through to goal. The law is quite clear on this offence. 'A player is sent oft' it says, 'if he denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal, by an offence punishable by a free kick'. It might be said that the player was too young to know this but what is the best way of ensuring he understood it for the future? A ticking off or a sending off?
Child care experts tell us that the best way to punish children and improve their behaviour is to deny them privileges. It seems to me that the referee was right to take this extreme measure and had no option but to deny the young player the privilege of taking part in the rest of the game.
Dick Sawdon Smith