Question Number: 30184

Law 5 - The Referee 3/8/2016

RE: Rec

Pam Smith of Edmonton, Alberta Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30089

All of your answers were helpful, however wouldn't it make more sense if pre-whistle shots resulted in a forfeited turn? Then the whistle would mean even more, and it would remove any leeway on the players' part, and it would make it perfectly clear for the refs, and everyone involved. I am curious as to why the Law developed the way it did.
Thanks again,
Pam

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Pam,

I agree wholeheartedly that referee's should be able to considering something similar to advantage, and that if the shot is taken before the whistle but is kicked straight out then that's the shot.

Unfortunately the laws are quite clear that this is not the case. So even if the laws seem unfair, and even if we disagree with the laws, we are bound by them - applying what we think is 'fair' in contradiction to the laws can open up the possibility of an appeal against the match result or other problems.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Pam,
certainly worth writing FIFA and propose such a change to the LOTG so when the IFAB meet it can be put forth! You could still have the odd whistle from the referee in the match next door or a fan whistle that might fool the odd kicker but as I said in 40 years never had it happen even once. Follow sound mechanics it helps inattentive players from making an hair brained mistake.
I do know prior to referees using a whistle to signal PKs a wave or nod or go ahead verbal or non verbal caused issues which is why the whistle signal, which clearly gets everyone attention, was implemented.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Pam
The Laws and previous iterations have been around for a very long time, over 150 years to 1863. At one time there was no whistles just flags and there were two umpires from each team with a referee to decide disputes who refereed the early games
Joseph Hudson, of Birmingham in England, is credited as having come up with the first whistle which was first used in a match by a football referee in 1868. Before this, referees used handkerchiefs to the same effect much like the flags in US Football.
Obviously with the use of the whistle everyone knows the exact moment it sounds so the conceding team can and do contest that they stopped for the whistle. There is an old saying in the game which says that one *plays to the whistle *. So no whistle means that play continues while a whistle stops the game.
In respect of these examples I believe that it is such an outlier situation that the law makers did not want to complicate matters with referee latitude about very rare situations that rarely if ever come up in games.
As I mentioned I once blew a whistle too early in such a situation in my early career and a goal was scored instantly. I was faced with awarding a penalty and sending off the goalkeeper. The conceding team said to me that they were go0d with the goal being awarded so I went with that. Had they contested the whistle timing then I would have gone with a penalty and a dismissal which is what is required under the Laws. As it was I stepped outside the law knowing that it was not likely to be contested. That is a risk and while maybe sensible is not supported in Law.
I would also say that the Law makes no provision for referee errors that stop the game other than a dropped ball restart. What we do know is that the law on the whistle is enforceable, it is totally precise and in general accords with all in the game. Once a game is stopped with the whistle that is that and while unfair in certain circumstances it is understood as being the Law. Look at it another way. The referee having to make a leeway decision may not be able to factor in fairly all the reasons in coming to a decision. The GK who says that he stopped for the whistle rather than making an attempt to save could perhaps have had no chance, little chance or every chance depending on an opinion.