Welcome to this week's edition of Don't Fight The Laws, in which I combine my years of being a referee with my years of being a smartass to provide my answers to your questions about the Laws of the Game, controversial decisions and other odds and ends relating to referees and what they do.
Got a question? Send it over to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com. But for this week, we have the following...
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
About how much time does a referee allow for an elaborate, choreographed celebration before s/he starts thinking about booking someone for time-wasting? As an example, would you have let the Senegalese players get through their celebration against France in '02? – usafan12
C'mon man, are you gonna step in and deny these guys their moment of glory, having scored the first goal in their nation's World Cup history, against not only the reigning champions, but their former colonizers? I sure as hell ain't.
Now, as for how much time the ref should allow for this sort of thing... as with many other aspects of the game, it comes down to the ref's gut feeling, based on the specific circumstances. The Laws instruct refs to "exercise common sense in dealing with the celebration of a goal" -- however, they also say that "the practice of choreographed celebrations is not to be encouraged when it results in excessive time-wasting." So if the ref had jumped into that circle dance himself, fun as it would have been, he'd have gotten a stern talking-to from the match assessor.
But to me, "common sense" would say that the Senegalese team deserved a moment like this, on the sport's grandest stage, considering how much that goal meant.
In other situations, however...
Yeah, meaningless Icelandic league games don't really have the same weight to 'em, and the ref should be a little more proactive in putting his foot down on pre-planned nonsense like this (as hilarious and YouTube-friendly as it may be).
For what it's worth, the Laws state that celebrations shouldn't be "excessive" (a subjective determination, of course) and that players must be cautioned if they remove their jersey, cover their face with a mask or similar item, climb a perimeter fence or make gestures that are "provocative, derisory or inflammatory."
So beyond cautioning Bouba Diop for the shirt removal (which actually may not have been in the Laws in 2002), I'm cool with him and his teammates celebrating as they did. Hell, I used that dance for most of the summer of 2002, so I'd be a hypocrite to decry them for it now.
What (do you think) about the recent trend of yellows for meaningless handling of the ball that occur at midfield? I'm assuming they're applying Law 12, perhaps ITRO, the player may have handled to deliberately break up an opponent's attack or to prevent the opponent from obtaining possession of the ball. I know I've never seen it called as often as it has this year, particularly in the EPL. Perhaps under direction from the FA? – Some Unidentified Person
Thank you, unregistered comment-leaver, for taking the bait I dangled in the last edition of Don’t Fight The Laws.
The recent trend of tossing out yellow cards for handballs bugs the living shit out of me, not only in and of itself, but in relation to another disturbing trend, which I’ll get to in a moment.
The Laws lay out two situations in which a player is to be cautioned for handling the ball: for attempting their own Hand of God (as opposed to a Hand of Suarez, which calls for a red card), or for "deliberately and blatantly (handling) the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession."
Now, I've always interpreted this rule to cover situations where a player cynically sticks their arm out to prevent the passage of a nice through ball, or swats away what's going to be a cross into a dangerous area. But these days, you hear uninformed commentators (on both sides of the pond) crowing about players "obviously" deserving a yellow because their handling of the ball was "intentional", regardless of where it was on the field, and regardless of whether anyone else was around.
No. Stop it.
A handball being "intentional" (or deliberate) is not the minimum standard for a yellow card to be dished out -- it's the minimum standard for a foul being called at all! If a ball hits a player's hand or arm, and it's deemed not to be deliberate, it's not a foul at all. Play continues. If it is deemed deliberate, the referee's recourse is to award a direct free kick. Only in exceptional circumstances should a yellow or red card be shown.
I remember hearing about the USSF instructing MLS refs to "crack down" on handballs last season, and it's possible the FA has given similar instructions to its officials (though I haven't heard of any such directive -- has anyone else?) Either way, such a crackdown is beyond idiotic in light of the other disturbing trend to which I alluded earlier.
Did anyone watch Manchester United play Arsenal on Monday? Remember when Darren Fletcher got pissed off about something (possibly about being forced to live with an ill-formed jawbone)? And remember when he dashed after referee Howard Webb (evoking memories of Michael Ballack chasing after that poor Norwegian sap in the Champions League) and essentially shoved him, demanding an explanation?
I've seen players sent off for less. And yet Fletcher escaped sanction altogether despite the fact that he physically accosted the match referee.
Now, I don't bring this up over concern for Webb. Were he so inclined, he could snap Fletcher in half, so it's not his physical safety I'm worried about. It's the physical safety of referees at all lower levels, who need to officiate players that see this sort of behaviour take place week in, week out in the world's top leagues. Players yelling, screaming, swearing at officials, crowding around them in bunches to protest calls... and what do the refs do? They shoo them away with their hands and maybe, maybe, maybe if someone barks for too long, they might show a yellow card. Maybe.
Well, while the Laws are a bit hazy on handballs and the like, they're pretty clear about one of the situations in which a player should be shown a yellow card: when they show dissent by word or action. I'm pretty sure the ridiculous shenanigans of Fletcher, Ballack, et al. more than meet that definition.
Before throwing more officials onto the field, as UEFA is trending towards, governing bodies should empower the ones who are already there. Ensure that the officials know they have the power of the Laws (and their bosses) behind them, to nip dissent in the bud before it gets out of hand. The first player who starts bitching in a game? Fuck you, yellow card. Keep your yap shut and play the game.
That will discourage further nonsense as the game goes along, rather than letting the whole thing snowball and become an utter farce, in which a dipshit like Fletcher gets away with something that, had he done it to Webb outside of a pub, would probably have resulted in severe trauma to his skull.
But that won't happen. In the contemporary world of soccer, you're more likely to see a player cautioned for swatting at a ball than swatting at the referee. Pathetic.
Extra time: I'd like to know how it's calculated. It seems so haphazard. Is there a formula they use? Like x number of substitutions = x number of minutes. Or is there just a guy with a stopwatch. Also, last year it seemed like there was an extraordinary amount of extra time awarded in EPL. Any reason for that? – Some Unidentified Person
Once the ref announces how much stoppage time there will be, they must play at least that amount (can be more, if necessary, but never less). As to how it's calculated to begin with, I believe the formula is:
Minutes of stoppage time = (D/25) + (C – 115) + (P / 1,000) x WGASIJWI,
Where D = Legitimate delays in play during the 90 minutes
C = Home crowd’s volume level, in decibels
P = Payoff from local authorities to allow time for a late equalizer, and, of course, the
Who Gives A Shit, I’ll Just Wing It factor.
In reality, sadly, as you suggest, it’s just a guy (or girl) with a stopwatch. If you want concrete proof that there’s no science to it, note that upwards of 10 or 15 seconds can be wasted on each restart (throw-in, free kick, etc.), not to mention the minutes that can be eaten away by injuries (legitimate and otherwise) and substitutions. All of this tomfoolery usually adds up to three minutes of actual stoppage time added.
But once you’re in stoppage time, well, if someone goes down and is clearly milking the clock, all of a sudden, their 45 seconds of theatrics result in an actual extra 45 additional seconds (or close to it) of play added on at the end of stoppage time. There’s no rule governing this. The ref just knows everyone will be counting the seconds at that juncture in the game, and he/she better be sure to take each nanosecond into account, lest the fans bring out their torches and pitchforks / batteries / urine bags.
As with the last question, I'll confess to having no knowledge of the inner workings of the English FA (I'm not sure why anyone reading this site would think I'd have such information, but I'm honoured, I guess), so if there was anything being mandated by the FA in this regard, it's news to me.
But I will concede the perceived preponderance of stoppage time in the Premiership, which we can boil this down to a phenomenon known as “Trafford Time”. Hold off on that angry email, you United goofballs, let me explain.
See, when a sport has an incomprehensibly idiotic and antiquated rule like "the referee gets to end the game whenever they feel like it", there are always going to be quirks. For instance, even if the game should be over, you'll rarely see a ref call for full time when one team is in the midst of a great scoring chance. I won't lie, I've added a few extra seconds to games if a team was about to get a shot on goal.
The psychology is confusing. At the time, my brain says "you've got to let them finish this chance, it wouldn't be fair if you cut it off right here"... but removed from the irrationality of the game, my brain corrects itself: "what you did was not only unfair to the defending team, but against the letter of the law."
Sure, I'm guessing top-flight refs can suppress their on-field irrationality a lot better than I can. But they're still human. They're still beholden to the atmosphere, the situation and, like anyone else, can be guilty of ball-watching sometimes.
Before people talk about technology like goal-line cameras and replay reviews, how about instituting technology that's already been in use in other sports for decades? Y'know, like, a clock?
How much can someone delay on a penalty kick? Some seem to stop dead when they run up, some do lots of stutters – what's allowed? What do the rules say? – Some Unidentified Person
I'm not only a ref, I'm also a goalkeeper, so few things annoy me more than the freakin' paradinha.
Thankfully, FIFA has -- just this year -- added a section to the Laws specifically to cover this phenomenon:
In other words, the stutter-step is OK, as long as the player is continuing to move forward. But the sort of trickery in that video -- where the player stops at the end of the run-up, waits for the keeper to react, and then shoots -- is not allowed, and is punishable by a yellow card. (Note that the above video was posted in 2009, before this rule came into place, which is why the goal stood.)Feinting in the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behaviour for which the player must be cautioned.
Don't mourn the paradinha. It wasn't all that effective anyway:
That's it for this week. Send me an email at canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com, and your query may turn up in the next edition of Don't Fight The Laws.