There was a report last month expressing government concern
about examples of bad behaviour being shown on television. I'm
sure there has been a task force set up already to look into
it. Whether people are influenced or not by what they see on
television is a continuing debate. There are those,
particularly in the media , who claim it has no effect, but I have
incontrovertible evidence that people will imitate what they
see on television.
When something new, good or bad, happens at a
televised football match, we will see it on the local parks
within weeks if not days. Remember in the World Cup played in
America, when one team kicked the ball out of play because an
opponent was lying on the ground injured? The player taking
the throw-in then threw the ball deliberately back to his
opponents.
This was copied the next season at every level. There were
no instructions that it should happen. No one got together and
agreed that it was a good practice and should be continued. It
was pure imitation from the television. It seemed like a good
sporting idea at the time but has had its share of
difficulties. David Downs has written to me on this very
subject and he says that it has now led to confusion,
embarrassment and in some cases bad feeling.
I couldn't agree more. Remember Kanu and Overmars combining
to score after they were supposed to leave the ball to the
opposition, making history by forcing the FA to replay the
game? Match of the Day viewers last Saturday will have seen
the fracas at Southampton, started because Leeds had obviously
joined those clubs who now feel no obligation to throw the
ball back to their opponents if a player kicks it out so that
a teammate can receive attention.
In law of course the referee has no powers to intervene in
these situations.
Several referees, however, have adopted strategies to
encourage players to do the decent thing. Some will say:
'You're going to throw the ball back to the other team aren't
you?' I haven't heard of any instances where the thrower has
ignored this request, but a number of referees have said that
they would caution the thrower for unsporting behaviour.
David Downs' solution would be to draft a new law which
would say something like: 'Where the ball has been played into
touch so that an injured player can receive prompt attention,
the ball shall be returned to the goalkeeper of the team which
has played the ball into touch, who will place it for a goal
kick.'
It might be worth looking at what the law says at present
about injured players. 'A referee stops the match if, in his
opinion, a player is seriously injured and ensures that he is
removed from the field of play.' The game is restarted with a
dropped ball. If a player is, in his opinion, only slightly
injured, 'he allows play to continue until the ball is out of
play.'
In the first part the referee will drop the ball and this
is a situation that he can deal with much more easily. Nowhere
does the law say two players must contest for a dropped ball,
so he can drop it to suit the circumstances.
It is the second part, where a player is only slightly
injured, that has given rise to this problem. I appreciate
that this is a rare show of sportsmanship from players, but
why do they feel it necessary to kick the ball out of play? In
my opinion they should just leave it to the referee. After all
the injured player is not going to be left alone and abandoned
for long. Only until the next stoppage.
Dick Sawdon Smith