Football on television is a mixed blessing for referees.
Referees are first and foremost football fans and like all other fans they enjoy watching so many first class matches that otherwise they would never be able to see.
On the other hand television companies love to show referees' mistakes and supposed mistakes
again and again. I say 'supposed' because most commentators have very little knowledge or understanding of the laws of the game and therefore constantly make incorrect interpretations. How often I have longed for someone in the studio who could put a word in for the referee.
Last Saturday a player was sent off for a desperate lunge at an opponent in a televised match. From the replays he didn't appear to connect with the opponent's legs, which were obviously his target. This point was raised by both managers after the game. The player's own manager said that he would view the video before considering an appeal against the sending-off. The opposing manager also didn't think that contact had been made but 'I suppose', he added, 'it was the intent that led the referee to send him off.
One point of law that is seldom understood, is that in many cases attempting to commit an offence, is punishable with the same severity as if the attempt had succeeded. Law 12 which covers 'Fouls and Misconduct' says that a direct free kick is awarded if a player kicks
or attempts to kick an opponent, trips or attempts to trip an opponent, strikes
or attempts to strike an opponent. So quite clearly it can be no defence for a player to claim that he attempted to kick an opponent but missed.
The usual definition of the word 'kick' is to 'strike a blow with the
foot'. It therefore follows that when players lunge and catch opponent half way up the shin,
over the top as it is frequently called, they have struck a blow with the foot
and committed the offence of kicking.
It's the same with the tackle from behind and the studs in the back of the heel or ankle. But to lunge at an opponent and miss is, by the wording of the law, committing no less an offence and is punishable also by a direct free kick.
If I have now convinced you that a player doesn't have to make contact, you might say 'OK it's a foul penalised by a direct free kick, but how does it become a sending-off offence?'. In other words what is it that turns foul play into serious foul play, which is what is needed for a player to be shown the red card?
The opposing manager had it right. It is the intent of the player that has to be taken into consideration. Before pulling the red card out of his pocket, the referee has to be convinced of one of two things. First, was the foul committed with the intent to injure or hurt the opponent? Second, was it done using
excessive force so that, if connection is made, it will do just that, injure or hurt the opponent. That is what turns it into a sending-off offence.
Perhaps a classic case was earlier this season when Patrick Vieira of Arsenal received his second sending-off in two matches. The television commentators made great play of the fact that the opponent jumped over Vieira's flying feet. The umpteenth showing of the tackle still showed him missing the opponent. The commentators made no reference to the speed and ferocity of Vieira's
sliding lunge. They never mentioned that, had it connected, the opponent could have been carried from the field of play on a stretcher.
But without someone who knew the law thoroughly, they wouldn't would they?
Dick Sawdon Smith