Today I want to have a look at what playing laws need to be re-visited, at least at the elite level of the game. There’s been far too much inertia on this issue. It’s time for a thorough review. Other team games such as cricket, rugby league, ice hockey, rugby union, baseball, Australian Rules football, Gaelic games (Gaelic football and hurling), American and Canadian football (close cousins) and basketball have all moved with the times. So has tennis. A lot of those sports don’t have close to the resources available to football at the elite level.
Let’s start with time-keeping. The International Football Association Board has already breached its alleged principal of keeping the playing laws and regulations uniform at all levels by having a board displayed with the minimum number of minutes to be added for stoppages in play at the end of each half. This only happens at the top of the game, or at least only down to semi-professional level.
One incident always comes to mind when I think of time-keeping, a game in the group stages of the 1978 World Cup between Brazil and Sweden at Mar del Plata. My countryman Clive Thomas of Wales was in charge of the match. There was a corner to Brazil right at the end of the game. Thomas whistled full-time as the ball was in flight. Brazil “scored” with a header but Thomas disallowed the goal as he’d blown up with the ball in flight. This was Brazil’s first group game and turned out to be important. They only drew 1-1 instead of winning 2-1 and ended up finishing second in the group to Austria on goals scored, both being equal on four points and a goal difference of plus one.
This put Brazil into the second group stage with hosts Argentina. The rest is history. Brazil was eliminated, Argentina going on to win the whole thing against the Netherlands in the final whilst Brazil finished third, beating Italy in the bronze medal play-off.
Most referees will either blow up before a corner is taken in such a situation or wait for the result of the corner before whistling half or full-time. Thomas said time had run out on his watch and that was that. Brazil was to say the least, less than impressed. You can sort of see why.
If elite competitions that have the resources were allowed to employ an off-field time-keeper with the referee signalling for the clock to be stopped exactly in line with the laws as they are at the moment, injuries, substitutions, time-wasting, etc with time being displayed on stadium clocks then everybody would know exactly where they were. The timekeeper (the most obvious candidate being the fourth official controlling the clock by radio remote control under the referee’s direction) would remove a burden from the referee would give an unmissable sound signal at the expiry of the 45 minutes of play in each half, with the clock stopping and starting again under the direction of the referee. There would be a fail-safe procedure for the fourth official to keep time on a stop-watch if the stadium timing system failed.
Such a system, common in many sports would remove a burden from the referee without changing the nature of the game. All that would be needed would be the timing “kit” which no doubt sponsors could be found to cover and two additional clear signals for the referee to signal for the clock to be stopped and started. Bosh. Easy. Job done. Everybody’s a winner. The only exception would be to allow the non-offending team to take a penalty awarded before time in the relevant half expired.
We’d still see “time” substitutions designed to disrupt the flow of a team trying to get back in a game late on, but at least the team behind would know that they’d suffer no lost playing time as the opposition tried to waste more than the thirty seconds generally added on for a tactical substitution. I’d keep the option to book a substituted player dragging their feet leaving the field to provide a disincentive to teams dragging out the substitution process.
I’d even consider a secondary clock running for thirty seconds from the moment the substitution is signalled during which the substitution must be made. If the team making the change fails to do so then play would be re-started with a direct free-kick anywhere on the field that the non-offending team wishes to take it. That’d ensure substitutions were made promptly, especially if the offending team had to wait until the next break in play to make its change. The less radical alternative would a yellow card caution both the player leaving and entering for failing to make the substitution within the thirty second time limit. There’s no excuse for taking longer with a substitution in the case of walking wounded and tactical changes. A substitution for a more serious injury would have the clock stopped anyway. The thirty second rule would apply from the team indicating it was going to replace the injured player.
There would probably have to be a longer time to allow a goalkeeper to replace an outfield player where a goalie has been sent off. A minute should do. It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of IFAB to develop regulations for neutral time-keepers in approved competitions. If the fourth official were to be used then it wouldn’t mean using additional officials who could be taking games lower down in national competitions.
There also needs to be, as I’ve said before, sensible, properly organised experiments organised by IFAB with “volunteer” competitions around the world to test the use of goal-line technology and video replays for incidents such as the Carlos Tevez offside goal against Mexico and the Frank Lampard over the line controversy against Germany.
Then there’s the Luis Suárez handling on the line incident against Ghana. As Harper, a regular poster on arsenalinsider.com says, too much has been made of this. Probably due to age, but also so due to some unconscious and not so unconscious xenophobia, Suárez has been branded a pantomime villain out of all proportion. Jackie Charlton has never been so condemned for committing exactly the same offence in the England v Portugal World Cup semi-final in 1966. He wasn’t even sent off!
The referee was absolutely correct in his dismissal of Suárez and the award of a penalty to Ghana. Much as I love Uruguay and its people Ghana was very hard done by. I’m sure I’d still be steaming if I was Ghanaian. I know exactly how it feels. I remember being at Anfield in 1977 for a World Cup qualifier (Ninian Park was under a ban due to crowd trouble at a previous game against Yugoslavia, the Football Association of Wales decided to move the Scotland game to Anfield to make more money at the gate rather than play it at Wrexham. Idiots) Wales against Scotland. The referee was the only person in the ground who didn’t see Joe Jordan rather than Wales defender David Jones handle the ball in the air from a long throw. Scotland was awarded a penalty.
Scotland scored the penalty, Kenny Daglish getting a second shortly afterwards as Welsh hearts broke yet again. Scotland went on to Argentina in 1978. We Welshmen stayed at home, yet again. Returning to the Suárez incident, IFAB needs to at least seriously consider whether the award of an automatic “penalty goal” should be awarded where it’s clear the ball would cross the line and goal be scored except for an outfield player handling it. I can see all sorts of problems with this, not the least that the decision would rest on the opinion of the referee rather than objective reality. It still needs to be looked at seriously though. Both rugby league and rugby union allow the referee to award a penalty try if in his opinion the attacking player or team would have crossed the line and touched down the ball but for foul play by the defending team. The games are very different of course but I still think it should be seriously considered.
The last change I’d look at would be “back to the future”. Decades ago the laws were changed to permit the goalkeeper to re-start play with a goal kick from either side of the goal. The idea was to speed play up and stop unnecessary delays. It’s had completely the opposite effect. We all watch with weary inevitability as the goalie of a team defending a lead walks as slowly as possible from one side of their goal area to the other to place the ball down to re-start play. Let’s go back to the goal kick having to be taking on the side of the goal area in which the ball went out of play. The law change hasn’t achieved the objective for which it was introduced. Let’s go back to the old law.
Generally I’m conservative about big changes to the game’s playing laws. I do think there is room for improvement though, as much in the application of the laws as in reforms to them. I’d love to see a determined, concerted worldwide crack-down on serious/dangerous foul play, tactical fouls such as holding in the box, diving and dissent. Back in the late 1970s rugby league in Australia had a plague of serious off the ball foul play undetected by the match officials. It resolved the problem by having the recording of each game reviewed afterwards. A few long bans for foul play that had gone undetected by the officials during the game soon sorted out the problem, allowing skilled players to thrive without having to look out for assassins. The National Rugby League in Australia also started using two referees as well as two touch judges for all domestic games Down Under, including the annual New South Wales v Queensland State of Origin series (which if you’ve never seen it you’ve GOT to catch on the box next year. It’s in the dictionary next to the word INTENSE).
Coming back to football, I’d give every referee, at least at the elite national and international levels a recording of the match they’d just officiated and have them review it, giving them the right include in their official report any incident they’d failed to spot or where they felt their on-field decision had been mistaken. No result would ever be undone by such reports; the result on the field has to stand. But miscreants who dive or otherwise seriously cheat undetected by the officials during the match would be warier if they knew they might face suspension.
Finally, a quick plug for the annual Football Fans’ Parliament organised by the Football Supporters’ Federation. This take place on Saturday week 24 July 2010 at Wembley Stadium from 10.00am-5.00pm. There will be lots of interesting debates and discussion. Further details of how to register (attendance is free, as is FSF membership)
Receive a digest of our best Arsenal content each week direct to your mailbox
