More Power to the Referee (Just don't tell Sepp!)

In a previous blog I argued for two small rule changes that would have a significant positive impact in football: Solving Two of Football's Problems in One. This blog takes the previous concept, and gives the referee, that most maligned of people on the pitch, something else to use in their armoury.  I propose giving the referee something greater than just two coloured cards and a whistle. I suggest giving them something far more important. I suggest they are given something I suspect doesn't currently exist outside of Sepp Blatter's office.

Ladies and gentleman, I suggest giving them some power!

In my previous blog I referred to the numerous incidents of players arguing with the referees, the stoppages in the game that consequently occur and the general back chat that players give to officials. Anyone who's watched or played football knows that the ref or other official is likely to be questioned by a player constantly, whether or not the player has given away a foul or been awarded a free kick. 

A few years ago we had the a law introduced where a free kick could be moved forward 10 yards if a player either argued with the referee or prevented the free kick being taken. Now I liked this rule, because I thought it was the start of a concerted campaign by the football authorities to deal with problem of arguing with match offcials. It finally gave the referee a sanction to use against misbehaving footballers. Unfortunately it was over as quickly as Manchester City's Champions League campaign.

I think now is the time to see it make a comeback. But don't just give the referee this one option. Reintroduce the 10 yard law as part of a series of progressive sanctions against a player or team for persistent ill discipline. 

I suggest the following:

1. Give the referee the power to overturn a free kick or throw in, by awarding the decision to the opposition, if a player uses foul and abusive language towards any official.
2. If a player does not retreat 10 yards for a free kick, uses foul and abusive language towards an official, or prevents a player taking a quick free kick, then the play is moved forward 10 yards. If this happens immediately again, the ball is moved forward another 10 yards. If a third (and final) time, a direct free kick is awarded 22 yards from goal (the distance the top of the D is from the goal line) in alignment with where the offence took place (using the same principle as where a rugby conversion kick is taken from).
3. Where an offence takes place in advance of this (as described in 2 above), then a corner is awarded.
4. I also think there is an opportunity to look at the referee being able to award a penalty for serious offences which are likely to lead to a clear goalscoring opportunity, outside of the 18 yard box. The obvious choice for this sanction would be the example where a forward player is on a clear one on one opportunity with the goalkeeper, and the defender chases back and cynically hacks down the centre forward, to prevent a probable goal, by giving away a free kick in their own half, even though it (usually) results in their own sending off.

With these simple measures, teams will curb their behaviour towards the match officials, because there would be real tangible and immediate consequences if they did not. You will note I use the term official, because I think these laws could also apply to the managers, coaches, substitutes and others on each of the benches. In other sports, such as basketball, technical offences can be awarded against a team's bench. It's a bit controversial, but let's make everyone behave! 

Retrospective punishments, such as fines and points deductions may have their place, but I argue that bringing players to account immediately for their actions, sends a far stronger message. It would also improve things sooner by the influence of team mates and managers. 

The current laws of the game and the support given to referees is not enough. I want to see a game with a full complement of players, rather than officials brandishing yellow and red cards, which is their only option at the moment.

I want players to take responsibility for their actions. 

Conversely I want to see officials understand the responsibility that they could be given: that they could have the power to influence the result of the match. If footballers realise that they are not the most important people of the pitch, then surely they'd finally behave themselves?

Racism in Parks Football

The main reason for me setting up this blog is to examine and give my response to the numerous incidents of racism in football, especially on Twitter, that have emerged in recent months. The following blog entry is based on my own experience and shows that racism in football is out there and it's not going away.

Until a couple of seasons ago I managed an amateur football team. Nothing fancy, just a local district league team: the type you see on parks across the UK any Saturday afternoon. I was different to a lot of the players. I'm not from the area, I have a funny accent (Lancastrian, if you're interested) and I set up home here when I left university several years ago. Crucially, when I saw or heard something that was unacceptable I challenged it. What I heard most were racist comments. Each and every time I challenged these players. The response I got was not an apology, it was bemusement at best.

The team was located about 10 miles from one of Britain's major cities. The team and management were 100% white. Incredibly one of our players was known by the nickname "Coon"! No matter how many times I pointed out that you cannot say that word, that it is racist and offensive, players continued to use this nickname - outside of my earshot I should add. 

At the beginning of the season, the players were often joined by new lads from a nearby military base: players originally from all over the country who were looking for a runabout on a Saturday afternoon. Some of these players were black and Asian. The best I ever achieved was to (just about) make sure the lads did not use the offensive nickname when these players were there.

If we played against teams in the league who had an Asian or black player, no offensive comments were aired to my knowledge on the pitch. However at the half time team talk or back in the changing rooms opposing players would be referred to by their race every time, often using offensive and derogatory terms. In most cases the players did not think they were being offensive and found it difficult to understand that their choice of language was racist. I heard and witnessed similar statements with different teams I played with and against. This is a challenge our footballing authorities face.

I've recently come to the end of a 25 year period of both playing for and managing different football teams. I've played at a decent amateur level and have coached at all levels of the game. My experiences in football are probably replicated thousands of times by players and coaches across the country I suspect. During this time I only ever encountered the Kick It Out campaign (formally called the Kick Out Racism campaign,which is interesting in itself) when I went looking for the information for a youth project I worked on. I don't believe the campaign has any effect at this level of football, because it is never seen. These players make up a fair proportion of supporters and football fans in the community. 

This is why attitudes and language, as I've described above, are common place. There is an acknowledgement that footballing authorities need to work at grass roots level, but this is usually in relation to skills development or tactical awareness. Unless the Kick it Out campaign filters down and touches parks football then don't expect so see any change soon. 

Solving two of footballs' problems in one?

I'm a firm believer that, although I love the game of football at whatever level, I don't think the game is evolving. In fact, to be brutally honest, I think it's stagnating. Now I'm quite aware that this is a fairly controversial statement, and it's not a view shared by my friends or former football colleagues who counter argue with the increased money in the game, increased attendances at games, etc. However, I stand my view and I have some suggestions to haul the game out of this rut by introducing two simple developments to the game, both of which require no added investment. They do though require a change of behaviour. Fortunately this occurs with both by design.

The reason I think it's stagnating is because I believe there are a number of things wrong which I don't think the current laws of the game, or indeed the games' campaigns, are currently able to address.

Watch any game of football and at some point you will see the following occur:

1. Feigning of injury by a player to gain an advantage over the opposition.
2. Arguing with the match officials by players (including foul & abusive language).

Both are seemingly endemic within the game and although arguing with officials is seen to be "understandable" if an official has made a bad call, both are not permitted at all in many other field sports such as hockey or rugby. The feigning of injury one only seems to rear its Kraken-like head in major games or tournaments, such as Rivaldo in the 2002 World Cup or Drogba against Napoli in last season's Champions League, but it's there all the time in most games I've played in or managed.

I think incidents of these sort could be successfully eradicated from the game through the introduction of a couple of innovations.

Feigning of injury by a player to gain an advantage over the opposition

Football is a contact sport and injuries do occur that often require treatment by a physio, trainer or other medically trained professional on the sideline. Even in the amateur game, such as park football on Saturdays and Sundays, the respective FA's in the UK are all pushing for people to be present with Football First Aid training to provide necessary assistance. 

Currently an "injured" player waits for the Referee to assess their injury, before he or she allows treatment from the sideline - following which the injured party has to leave the pitch.  Referees already have enough to occupy their time during a game and I doubt they are trained medical professionals (in the strictest sense of the word) so why not let the game carry on while a player receives such treatment? Rugby is a prime example where a player often receives treatment to a superficial injury by a medical professional. I've heard people say "Yes, but what happens if the ball hits the physio when they are being treated on the pitch?" Well in rugby the team in possession are awarded a scrum, so why not award a indirect free kick to the team in possession? 

The reason why I think this would eradicate 99% of this behaviour is because when the game goes on around them, if the player's team are awarded a free kick or not, a feigned injury would mean they would be out of the game and playing no part in the game at that moment. This would be lead to an amount of what I shall call polite requests from team mates to get on with the game. I would imagine these requests would also carry more gravity if they were from the player's manager! I also suspect that there would not be that many times that a person leaves the sidelines to give treatment on the pitch if this were introduced if the injuries were 100% genuine. If the injury is serious then, as with rugby (or as currently happens) the game could be held up while this happens.

It also leads on to my second point, and how my suggestion for a self-pass rule for all free kicks to be introduced into football - both direct and indirect - would make the feigning of injury a thing of the past!

Arguing with the match officials by players (including foul & abusive language)

As an ex-footballer I saw and heard players arguing with match officials constantly. As a manager I had to deal with the inevitable consequences of players arguing with referees: yellow and red cards (one often following the other). I do not believe any previous  intervention, scheme or variation of the current Respect Campaign has ever tackled this one successfully - or even made a dent in it. On last night's Match of the Day I counted at least three "F" words aimed at referees and I was hardly even looking.

The reason that players decide to argue with referees about a decision - leaving aside whether a referee's decision is right, wrong or indifferent - is because they have the time. Look at the TV next time a game's on. Referees receive the most arguments when the ball is not in play. So how about keeping the ball in play more?

Hockey is a sport which constantly looks at it's laws and consequently tweaks, changes or introduces new laws at the beginning of each season. This has two positive effects. Firstly players keep up to dates with the laws, something I know is not the case in the amateur football game and I suspect is sporadic at best in the professional environment, despite pre-season talks from Referees. Secondly it critically analyses itself and seeks to make the game of hockey better. One of the biggest innovations in recent years has been the introduction of the self-pass. If a player fouls another, then they take a free hit from where the infringement took place like in any sport. Except they can take the free hit to them self and the opposition cannot touch the ball for 5 meters. It's simple, effective and has made hockey more exciting for players and spectators alike. The culture of hockey is similar to rugby where the only player who could question a referee is the captain, something I would argue to introduce in tandem with this law in football. Where this happens, then the umpire stops the clock and talks to the captain and explains their decision.

If the self pass rule were introduced into football I believe that over the course of the first 90 minutes a player would have realised that there's no point arguing with a referee that they "Never touched him Ref!" because the free kick would have been taken, the ball, action and referee would have moved on to another phase of play. Also, as with my suggestions to remove the feigning of injury from the field of play, anyone bothering to complain to anyone within earshot about a decision, would again be politely requested by their team mates to get on with the game - as would their manager! I remember the impact when the back pass rule was introduced to football twenty years ago. I believe it's been one of the most significant positive innovations in football, like the introduction of nets, or allowing substitutions. Now I couldn't imagine being any other way.

These two suggestions would, at a sweep, improve football. They would tackle these two blights on our game. They would improve the sporting experience for spectators on TV or at the ground. Referees would not be facing arguments from players whose knowledge of the laws of football could fit on the back of a yellow card. A better example would be set to younger players from their role models. Swearing in football and bad behaviour would no longer be perceived to be the pernicious influence it is today. 

It simply wouldn't be there.

Why this blog is called "Andertons Hotel".

The reason for the title of this blog goes back to the nineteenth century. The Andertons Hotel in Fleet Street, London is the place where the English Football League was first discussed and debated, at a conference of football chairmen from existing clubs. 

The invitations came from Mr William McGregor the chairman of Aston Villa to attend an event held on 23 March 1888, to discuss the formation of (what he provisionally called) The Association Football Union. Although not all clubs accepted Mr McGregor's initial invitation, this historic event was the catalyst for a period of discussion and debate that led to the formation of The Football League. 

In choosing the name "Andertons Hotel" I am deliberately harking back to a time and a place (both metaphorically and spiritually) when the game was up for debate. Andertons Hotel 1888 was a point where the game looked at itself and decided how to go forward together. Andertons Hotel 2012 is a point for us to look at football and say how we want it to go forward.

Some might say this is being either being pretentious or I am suggesting we hark back to a period of antiquarian Victorian values. I disagree. I am using the Andertons Hotel as a virtual thinking ground. It is a metaphor. In 1888 it was a conference of chairmen. In 2012 it's a blog. In both it's a place of ideas.