Referees abusing soccer by slavish use of new rule

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31656, 17 April 1968, Page 9

Referees abusing soccer by slavish use of new rule

"VOT since the law governing off-side in soccer was changed in the 1920’s have administrators, players and spectators been so adamant in their opinions, as they are today on the fourstep rule governing the movements of goal-keep-ers. “It is ruining soccer’s spectator appeal”; “It was meant to speed up the game and it is resulting in slower play”: “It is causing farcical situations in the goalmouth”: these are only three of the condemnations of the new law which have been heard during almost every game played in Christchurch since the rule came into operation this season. Already, games have been influenced by its extravagant use. The two most recent examples were the southern league play-off between Shamrock and New Brighton, and the opening match of the competition between Western and RoslynWakari. Brighton’s goalkeeper was penalised early in the second half against Shamrock and from the resultant free-kick Shamrock equalised and went on to win 4-1. Two of Western’s goals in its 3-1 victory over Roslyn-Wakari came from infringements of the four-step rule.

Before the change of law, a goal-keeper had to bounce the ball after three steps. To prevent goal-keepers abusing the game, the rule was changed, forcing them to release the ball after only four steps. Undoubtedly, the time wasted by some goal-keep-ers bouncing the bail around their goal areas caused considerable unrest Rarely was the goal-keeper penalised, although time-wasting should have been interpreted as “ungentlemanly conduct.” A strong warning with the threat of a penalty the next time he infringed, would probably have nipped the transgressor in the bud. However, European Continental and South American referees were generally reluctant to take such a step, which, to put it mildly, would have been unpopular with the home team’s supporters. Nor did the opposing forwards in these parts of the world, as they did in Britain, make life a misery for the goal-keeper who delayed clearing the ball. Hence, the international association (F.1.F.A.) brought in the new rule to control time-wasting in countries where the disease was rife and inflicted it at the same time on countries

where the disease was seldom apparent. New Zealand was one of those countries where the new rule was not vitally necessary, but such is the slavish attitude of the national referees’ association to all rules, that it has allowed soccer referees no scope to use the discretionary powers they have always been given. It is the return of these discretionary powers that referees must demand from their national association. Referees, like players, seek the highest rewards from the game. They know that if they deliberately react against a ruling of the national association, it will be held against them when officials for major matches are appointed. In this context, it is not unexpected to find that some referees will stick to the letter of the law, even when the law is being made to look foolish. Instead of the four-step rule being introduced to prevent goal-keepers abusing the game, many referees are abusing goal-keepers by a too-strict enforcement of the law. And at English Park recently even one of the linesmen sought to get into the act, by waving his flag when he considered a

goal-keeper had taken half-a-step more than he should

have done. Certainly a referee might ask that if he does not penalise a goal-keeper after four steps, should he stop the game if the ’keeper takes five steps, or six, or seven? Where he might want to know, should he draw the line? The common-sense approach to the four-step rule, surely, should be that if the goal-keeper’s obvious intention is to clear the ball, he has not broken the spirit of the law if he releases the ball on his fifth, sixth, or seventh step. Only if a referee believes that the player is deliberately delaying his clearance should he step in swiftly and ruthlessly. It is even harder to understand why most referees have given no thought to warning a goal-keeper that he has transgressed the law, and that if he does so again he will be penalised. Refe-

rees have always known, and have always been expected to know, that a word at the right time and in the right place is far more likely to get results than a sudden, dramatic action. The latter usually leaves only a sour taste and is often responsible for more serious actions by quick-tempered players. It may be revealing that referees least expecting further honours in the game seem to have adopted a more liberal attitude to the four-step rule in matches played so far in Canterbury than those whose future hopes are to control major games. If this is the case, provincial referees’ associations should immediately take up the question with their national body. If referees were told they must adopt a more commonsense, less rigid application of the law, much of the present trouble would be avoided. In these circumstances, it would be the referee who makes himself a slave to the rule-book who would be least likely to gain further honours.