Regular readers of CSN might remember a kinda-regular feature I did last year, in which I combined my years of being a referee with my years of being a smart-ass to sorta-answer readers' questions about the Laws of the Game and their application in real-life situations. Well, hold onto your hats, because Don't Fight The Laws is kinda-sorta back!
In this edition, I'll be attending to some questions thrown my way in the months since the last edition of this column. But for the future, I'll turn to you fine folks to provide some pressing inquiries via email or the comments field below. Ready? No? Too bad, here we go anyway!
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgElEE_4uW0&feature=related
There's no specific question here, other than, what do I think about this infamous incident from late last year? A few folks have weighed in on Facebook, with one saying "the ref is stupid" and comparing the incident to the knife attack on tennis player Monica Seles, while another agrees that "there has got to be a degree of common sense."
Common sense? You guys know these rules are approved by FIFA, right?
First, regardless of one's position on this particular call, let's all agree on one thing: The goalkeeper should never have been put in the position where he needed to use his cleated ninja skills to fend off a pitch invader. Keepers should be equipped with miniature Tasers to pre-emptively deal with such dimwits, for the occasions when their drunken delusions and objective reality coalesce into one.
Second, it's worth noting that this sort of call is by no means unprecedented:
The Laws of the Game are quite clear when it comes to defining violent conduct: "(A player is) guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match official or any other person." I'd say that cracking a prone drunk across the back with your massive feet, or hurling a Borat-swimsuit-wearing streaker head-over-heels both qualify as "excessive force". The penalty for violent conduct? A red card. Simple as that.
Now, does it violate our fundamental sense of justice that a home supporter can physically threaten the visiting goalkeeper, and have him sent off for retaliating? It does. Perhaps the pitch invader contemplated this apparent paradox while recovering from his hangover in a jail cell. But ultimately, the referee in the original case did nothing wrong -- aside from, perhaps, his choice of haircut.
This incident, if nothing else, has exposed a potential flaw in the Laws, a loophole that needs to be fixed. And knowing how quickly and effectively FIFA responds to change, we can all sleep well tonight, knowing that justice will be done. While we're waiting for drunk-fan-booting to become acceptable, though, we should remind ourselves that there are fairer, and more hilarious, ways for goalkeepers to deal with pitch invasions:
I've heard it said that there doesn't need to be contact to an opponent to be a foul in some cases. Is this true? -- James Grossi
Well, I think any Manchester City fan can attest to the fact that there doesn't need to be contact with an opponent in order for a foul to be called... or a red card to be shown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeCLPHTTT2Y
Vincent Kompany's sending-off in the FA Cup this past weekend seems to be part of a movement to clamp down on so-called "scissor" tackles, the sort of challenges that have led to big trouble in El Clasico and Hatem Ben Arfa's leg. But how, you may be wondering, could Kompany be penalized when his opponent wasn't even horribly maimed? Where's the fun in that?
'Cause that's what the Laws say.
You're gifting the other team with a direct free kick if you trip or attempt to trip an opponent in a manner that the ref deems "careless, reckless or using excessive force." That's from Law 12, which also spells out what constitutes serious foul play: "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
That's a pretty comprehensive description. Where else would you challenge for the ball from? Above? Anyway, the penalty for serious foul play? A red card.
Those who feel the ref applied the Law too harshly in the FA Cup are wading into the murky waters of on-field subjectivity, which isn't somewhere I'm interested in swimming, lest I be angrily branded as having a bias toward one Manchester side or another. (For the record, I don't give half a damn about either of them.) But those who assert that the ref's decision had no basis whatsoever in the Laws of the Game, quite frankly, don't know what they're talking about.
Which is weird, because people arguing referee's decisions always totally know what they're talking about.
If you're curious (and even if you aren't), the distinction between violent conduct and serious foul play is usually loosely defined as such (in my own mind, anyway): serious foul play is an overly dirty or dangerous version of something that might regularly occur during the run of play (i.e. bad tackle), while violent conduct is what it sounds like: egregious physicality, usually occurring when the ball is out of play.
During the Vancouver Whitecaps Residency's opening game of the 2011 USL PDL season against the Kitsap Pumas, Kitsap head coach Peter Fewing made a habit of lambasting fourth official Bill McNaughton every time he got the chance: criticizing him for decisions made by the other three referees on the field, of course, but still keeping up a quite impolite running dialogue for almost the entire game. As a fourth official, where do you draw the line in taking criticism and even verbal abuse from coaches during a game? -- Ben Massey
Re-reading that question reminds me of how long it's been since I did one of these columns. It's also somewhat surprising, since I was sure that I put Ben's email address on my "spam" list. I'll check into that.
In the meantime, my attempt at a response. The main duties of the fourth official are, essentially, assisting with administrative duties (e.g. substitutions) before, during and after the match, and staying awake and mobile in the event one of the other officials becomes incapacitated. The fourth official also "has the authority to inform the referee of irresponsible behaviour by any occupant of the technical area"; however, the official in the middle "retains the authority to decide on all points connected with play."
The fourth official, when it comes to belligerent coaches, unfortunately doesn't have much recourse, other than to go tattletale to the referee. The ref can then decide to warn the coach, send them off or tell the fourth official to "suck it up, sunshine". Nowhere in the Laws does it cover the procedure surrounding a referee coup, though.
So presumably, the fourth official could talk to some drunken fan at halftime and convince them to attack the referee. Then, having improperly gained full power, the erstwhile fourth official could then banish the offending coach to hell for all eternity. It's doubtful that ref would ever be gainfully employed again, but at least he'd have a cool story to tell his cellmates.
Hell0 friend - I come to you with hope you can help me. I am Prince Tatuku and I am desiring you to assist in transfer of 2 500 000 euros out of my country. Please hastily send your creditcard information so your share may be allocated. -- ergb8y3gb24u9hq@hotmail.com
Yeah, I've really gotta check that spam filter.
That's it for this time! If you've got a question for a future edition of Don't Fight The Laws, send an email to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com, or leave a comment below.
.