Some years ago I wrote a book entitled 'So you carry the sponge'. It was written in conjunction with another well-known local referee, Terry Gibbs, who was also an experienced first aider. The book was aimed at the many 'trainers' in junior football who had never had any first aid training.
It covered only those accidents and injuries that are likely to occur on the football field. Our contention was that sometimes ignorance of the right action to take could lead to injuries being made worse and, at the more extreme, lack of knowledge of what to do could lead to failure to save a life.
The book sold very well, in fact in some areas local leagues bought in bulk to distribute to ail member clubs. After a review in the Football Referee magazine it was also purchased by referees up and down the country. I was with a referee from Cheshire only recently who told me he had a copy.
Another referee who read it, wrote to the Referees Association suggesting that it be made available through their Supplies Division. He pointed out that junior football clubs often had no-one who knew what to do in cases of serious injury and that, if referees had the necessary knowledge, they might prevent further harm coming to a player.
The answer from the Publications Committee of the Association astounded me. It was said that they wouldn't stock it because if a referee gave assistance based on the book and it didn't turn out right, the player might sue the referee and the Association. Basically, they were saying that the risk of litigation outweighed the possibility that someone's life may be saved by the correct initial treatment
This fear of litigation has become ingrained, not only in modem life today but also in football. Regular readers will remember earlier this season I reported
how a league in Kent had banned the wearing of bladed boots which they
considered dangerous, as they felt that injured players might sue them and the referee. Well, referees shouldn't have any worry on that score. I have had yet another letter from the FA pointing out
1) they are satisfied the boots are not dangerous.
2) it is at the sole discretion of the referee what can or cannot
be worn and
3) in the Laws of die Game it states that 'a referee is not held liable for any kind of injury suffered by a player . . . which may include a decision to allow certain apparel or equipment'
This clause giving referees immunity also covers them making a decision that a pitch is suitable for play. Yet I know of referees who, at the end of last season, when leagues were desperate to get matches played, refused to pass pitches as playable because they feared possible legal action if anything went wrong.
In our training classes for new referees the first thing we tell them is that their over-riding duty is the safety of the players. For instance, at this time of the year frost is the usual reason that a pitch is dangerous, as was obviously the case in the Reading cancelled match at Brighton last Friday evening. We recommend to referees that they test the conditions like a player. They should put on their boots and take a ball out and run round the field of play. In this way they would soon learn whether it was feasible to play.
What referees should be thinking about when it comes to pitches, including the goalposts and crossbars which have caused injury even death, or boots, or stopping play for players' injuries, is not whether he or she may be sued. The sole consideration should be the safety of the players. Which, I might add, was the whole purpose of my book.
Dick Sawdon Smith