Question Number: 26197

Law 5 - The Referee 4/17/2012

RE: Adult

Laurence salmon of Cambridge, Herts Uk asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26182

Your referee Jason Wright is exactly why referees get a bad name. If a player is receiving a leg stretch by his team mate while we are waiting to take a throw in, why should the referee allow him and his team mates the time to rest? This takes away the advantage from the fitter, better prepared team. What referees must also understand is that players, coaches and amateur football clubs spend a great deal of time, money and dedication organising and coaching their teams. If they pay a referee on a Saturday they should be within their right to question his ability to follow the laws of the game. I'm not saying swearing and abuse is correct but to simply ask the question is surely reasonable? I referee myself on Sunday's and know the difficulties faced, but refs are to keen to follow their own agenda instead of what is laid down in print. Many thanks for the first balanced response I got to my initial question. Rgds, Laurence.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Laurence
Isn't the real issue the lack of fair play and respect that team show to each other that creates these situations. The game unfortunately has developed this win at all cost mentality which includes legal 'misuse' of the laws to seek advantage. Referees unfortunately then have to become the sole arbitrator of these unsavoury situations which leads them straight into conflict with one side or another. In the 'injury' situation the team that has a player down will berate the referee for ignoring that with the opponents applauding the decision. If play is halted to deal with the 'injury' the opponents are up in arms calling for play to continue with the referee not doing his job properly.
The referee has to make the best call he can make in the circumstances and sometimes we will not agree with it. Good disciplined teams only deal with the matters under their control. Refereeing decisions are outside a team's control and good teams know that they are better served using the opportunity to its advantage such as taking on more liquids, communicating tactics, encouraging each other.
Having said all that I think that there are many aspects of the game that could do with an overhaul rather than an approach that currently exists in many Laws of the game that are patently not working and that are causing issues for everyone including the officials.
From my perspective I believe that the game could take advice from our colleagues in rugby where its rules allow for treatment during play in certain situations. The relevant IRB rules state that the referee may allow play to continue while a medically trained person treats an injured player in the playing area or the player may go to the touchline for treatment.
So unless the treatment is in the way of play I see no reason why play has to be stopped in soccer on every single occasion which would put an end to this current problem.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Oh, dear. I fear you only respect answers that you like.

Questioning the referee's ability is dissent, and the laws forbid it. It is unsporting conduct for a player, and irresponsible behavior for a team official. Surely, the framers of the laws know that referees make mistakes. The perfect referee has yet to be born. There is no right to question the ability of the referee.

What is necessary, IMO, is for referees to understand that the amateur game belongs to the players. They invest a lot, expect a lot, and deserve a lot from the referee. In that, we agree. The referee needs also need to serve the Game, and that means the primary obligation is to ensure the match is safe, fair and enjoyable. In that, we apparently disagree.

Your team would be fortunate to have more referees like Ref Wright. It is a shame that you have rejected the opportunity to learn from him. My late father was fond of saying, 'You don't have to accept my answer, but if you didn't want to hear it, why did you ask the question?'

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

One wonders why you assert referees (this paints all refs with one very broad brush) are 'keen to follow their own agenda instead of what is laid down in print.' As an occasional referee, is this the way you perform or just what you perceive the particular referee(s) in question do?

The hard part to support about that position is it assumes all is laid down in print. Frankly it is not, and that is generally a good thing. While the Laws address when the referee should stop play to deal with a serious injury (there being some wiggle room in what is considered to be 'serious'), they are silent on whether the referee must allow play to restart quickly when a player for whom play was stopped needs attention. This is up to the common sense of the referee.

I would note that an injury in a professional game versus an injury in a weekend warrior game or youth game merits different appraisals as far as what is serious. Similarly, if a player goes down and appears injured, the referee must decide quickly if this is a 'serious' injury in this league, this day and choose to stop the match or not. I'm not sure how one faults the referee for being on the side of safety.

I can sympathize with your argument about advantage for one team being lost or delayed - but on a throw-in? Statistically, those go to the other team 50% of the time, so an argument that your team is disadvantaged hasn't much weight.

What the referee can/should do, having stopped the match only to discover that it was for a cramp, which unless it involves the heart muscle is rarely 'serious', is to direct the player to the touchline, giving him permission to leave the field to have it attended by team personnel or by a player teammate (this of course does require permission to re-enter). It is not required to hold up the restart except perhaps to remove the suffering player from harm's way. This does two things at least: 1) it deals with the possibility that a serious injury has occurred humanely and 2) it gets the player either off the field or out of trouble quickly allowing the game to resume, which pressures a player who really was just buying time to put up or shut up.

A little more tolerance and respect for the work of the referee would also be appreciated. The Code of Ethics does require us not to publicly disparage colleagues.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I don't need to answer for Jason other than to say I'm proud he's on our panel. You seem to think 'fit' teams don't get calf cramps and that calf cramps are not injuries. Not so!!

I used to run 2--3 marathons a year in addition to refereeing 100 games and running 5-10 10K races. I was the definition of 'fit'. During a marathon in 1997 my right calf cramped so badly I tore the muscle and was out of commission for 4 weeks. I can assure you a severe cramp is indeed a serious injury.

Instead of berating Jason, you should be thanking him for giving a damn about the safety of the players. Your throw-in was held up 30 seconds? Oh the horror!!! The world is ending because your team had a restart shortly delayed. Please!!

Referee Wright is following the agenda ALL referees should follow: player safety comes first. Yes, the referee is paid. No, you don't get to question his decisions. If you think you do, perhaps you would point out exactly where that is laid down in print

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

So applying the LOTG and considering player safety gives referees a bad name? Hmm, guess I've been doing something wrong all this time.

As my colleagues have pointed out, a calf cramp can be quite a nasty injury.

I'm not really sure what you want here. Do you honestly think that a referee should not only be able to decide, from simply glancing at a player, that he 'only' has a cramp and allow restarts in play to occur while he's still lying on the ground? Is that really what you want?

Because if you don't, then the only other option is for referees to allow an injury - any injury - to be attended to. Whether he stops play for this or simply holds up the next restart depends on a number of things.

Often a cramp will render the sufferer completely unable to walk until it is seen to. Sounds like the sort of injury that would require attention to me.

But hey, I have an idea - why not look at the FIFA Laws Of The Game?
(and no, FIFA aren't part of some worldwide scheme with a hidden agenda against your team, so please, drop the conspiracy theory idea)

Law 5 states:
The referee.....stops the match if, in his opinion, a player is seriously injured and ensures
that he is removed from the fi eld of play. An injured player may only return
to the fi eld of play after the match has restarted

Additional instructions (page 69 - you should look it up) to Law 5 - The Referee states that:
play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in the
opinion of the referee, only slightly injured
? play is stopped if, in the opinion of the referee, a player is seriously injured

So there you have it - all the justification under the LOTG for the referee to handle injuries how he believes is best. But, of course, the referee has no way of knowing that an injury is simply a cramp until after play is stopped, does he? I've seen plenty of players stay on the ground, not moving - or grabbing their leg with such agony on their face you'd think they had broken their ankle - only to find it's a cramp that just needed stretching of the initial seizure of the muscle.

Or would you prefer it if the referee didn't permit one of your injured players to seek attention?

On a final note, the field of play is not a town hall meeting, and you are most certainly NOT within your right to yell at the referee from the sideline to undermine his authority because you believe players should be forced to lie on the pitch in pain, for reasons known only to you.

The field of play is not a place for debate. The referee won't stand there and berate you if he believes you're making a tactical error, nor should you berate him if you believe he's making an error.

If you're so concerned over the fact that you're paying for the referee then use the available resources and complain to your local football authority. That is how you deal with officials who you think are refereeing poorly, not by yelling at them on the sideline.

However, before you do that, please do the referees and your own players a favour and read the laws of the game thoroughly. You may be surprised at what else you're wrong about.

Additionally, by yelling at the referee over his decisions you're almost certainly in breach of your own code of conduct. Funny how your response to somebody who you incorrectly think is doing the wrong thing is to do the wrong thing yourself.

So please, for the sake of your own players, drop the attitude and the 'you're all out to get me' theories, open your mind to the distinct possibility that you don't know all the ins and outs of the laws (after all, why would you even bother asking a question on here if you weren't interested in the answer?), and stick to doing your job as a coach.

And for the sake of your players, do the right thing and set an example for them on the field. As a youth coach your behaviour should be absolutely impeccable. To act in any other fashion is to do your own players a disservice, and one which I've seen harm many young players.

Teaching them to argue and yell over who-know-what is certainly a lot more harmful than giving their safety top priority.