I was at a football match recently where the referee cautioned two players, one on either side, for not retreating ten yards or 9.15 metres as it says in the book, when a free kick had been awarded to their opponents. The first, against an away team player, was greeted with acclaim by the home fans. The player cautioned had run in front of the kick and was struck by the ball. The referee had little option but to get out the yellow card.
The crowd's reaction was not surprisingly somewhat different, when one of the home players was cautioned for the same offence later in the game, although he was not actually hit by the ball. I heard one spectator shout for instance 'Come on ref, get on with the game'. The irony is of course that it was the players who were seeking to slow down the game, and the referee's action was designed to stop players taking this spoiling action.
In 1997 two new cautionable offences were introduced into the Laws. These said: 'A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he delays the restart of play or fails to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick or free kick'.
These laws were an attempt, like many other new laws over the past decade or two, to overcome the determined efforts by coaches to reduce the game as a spectacle. They simply want to win at all costs or at least stop the opponents winning.
A free kick is meant to be what it says, uninhibited by opposing players. That's why ten yards was chosen as a reasonable space for the kick to be freely taken. Years ago it created little difficulty but players, aided, instructed and abetted by their coaches started to stand in front of the ball. This prevented the kick being
quickly and fairly taken. Frustration for the kicker and the benefit of allowing the offending team to reorganise before the ball could be put back in play. Just observe any professional football match today and you will still see players run to the ball when a free kick has been awarded against their team. The law has some effect in that they tend to walk slowly away but they have achieved their objective of slowing the kick down. Another tactic has been to have a rota of players who will stand in front of the ball. Coaches know that referees, who dislike having to caution players for technical offences such as this, will often warn a player first that any repetition will lead to a caution. The next time, another player takes his place in front of the ball.
Of course it is not all cut and dried. A kicker may decide to take the kick quickly before opponents have had time to retreat the full ten yards. If the ball then hits an opponent the referee will probably allow play to continue. It is the kicker's decision and not the opponents' action that has created the situation. I have also seen players deliberately try to get an opponent cautioned by kicking the ball against him before he has been able to get away. And these are professional 'sportsmen'.
Look at the time wasted by the so called 'ceremonial' free kick near goal. The wall has to be ordered back the required distance and other delaying tactics are employed. That's not down to the referee but to the players and their coaching.
Spectators, like our man at the match, quite rightly want to see free-flowing football. What they should know is that referees and the Law-makers are on their side when it comes to 'getting on with the game'. Even though sometimes they may have to stop it to make the point.
Dick Sawdon Smith