|
I strongly believe in the referee's mandate to bend the rules to accommodate the spirit of the game. However, as a former coach who's team (during 1998 provincial qualifying finals) had to replay 3 games, one of them almost twice and fight with arbitration boards on four other occasions based on referee's decision to alter the game to fit their brand of justice before we reached the final. It is important to try and not alter the law but apply the statement of "In the opinion of the referee" to the extreme
"1)If a goal keeper is 6'00" tall and his arms extend another 2 feet above his head AND he can jump another 2 feet in the air he can take a ball from about 10 feet. No forward can jump that high with his head and touch the ball. If he cant reasonably get the ball he isnt PLAYING The ball and is commiting a foul. This isnt givng the keeper any "special"considerations it is recognizing that a field player has
limitations that the keepers dont. They will tryy to limit them by fouling. If you arent looking for this you are missing a big part of the game."
The keeper is always at risk in 50 / 50 situations because of their desire and privilege to use their hands and go down in front of feet or leap high into the air where on rushing players are kicking or heading merrily away. Keepers rarely have an opportunity to jump straight up. Usually they are over the backside, at angle or blocked from a clear run to the ball, which is why they are trained to punch if they are not sure they can take a ball down with control. If I could be sure a referee would call every contact as a foul for a high air ball in favour of my keeper I would alter my keeper's tactics to take advantage of this. They are indeed vulnerable when jumping with arms outstretched but it is not an inalienable right for them to have any more protection than any player. Aggressive confident keepers are trained to protect themselves by raising the knee in front as they leap and screaming the word "Keeper!" as they challenge for air balls. A diminutive-attacking player can easily be intimidated or cleaned out by a hard challenging keeper. The fact that a keeper can use his hands are to his advantage. However a keeper has no more right of possession than any player in their struggle for the ball. Our job is to ensure all players safety not only the keepers. My attacking strikers are moving at top speeds trying to gain line of sight and head a ball travelling at times with terrific velocity will not always be able to gauge that a keeper has a better chance than they do or at what point the keeper might get his hands on the ball. They are taught to pursue and chase down everything in the very hope that the keeper might mishandle the ball. In my opinion, not all contact in these situations is necessarily foul. Once a keeper has possession with any part of the body over the ball all attackers should back off or divert their momentum by changing the angle of their runs or jumping over a fallen keeper to avoid contact.
In the instance of returning the ball to the keeper after play stoppage when the ball is in his /her possession.
" Of course the Laws don't say that both opponents must participate, it doesn't even say any players must participate. Just drop the ball."
To walk over to the keeper and turn your hand over to drop the ball if the defending player is not challenging for it provided it is near or at the spot where it was originally, does indeed comply with the law and the spirit of the game. I do not believe I have to blow my whistle or call out "drop ball" so the unsporting attacker can run up and participate. In addition, the game can be under way quickly with a minimum of fuss.
"But you can't leave out the opposing player if he/she wants to participate.
By dropping the ball without inviting both players to take part is wrong and against the spirit of the laws."
I am curious what inviting both players' means. Do you actually call out for a player from each team? Do you go to the spot and wait with ball in palm until both players appear before you?
If a player chooses not to respect the spirit of the game and is all ready present in the area when I wish to drop the ball and restart play I will look very closely for something that will allow me to achieve the result I believe the spirit of the game demands. However, I try just as hard not to change the law to suit my own brand of justice. I believe whistleblower's approach is similar to my own (particularly in youth games) in that I will state "Are you aware of the unwritten rule of fairplay and sportsmanship that applies in this situation?" (At the professional level it is so acknowledged to follow this fairplay conduct that in the EPL game that Greyhound mentioned the appeal by the losing team to nullify the goal was turned down by the governing board but on the insistence of the winning team which had been declared the victor the game was forfeited by request and later replayed.)
Depending on response, I have asked them directly, " Do you intend to play this ball now knowing that players of good conscience will step away or return the ball. I have not waved them away or told them not to participate and unless the player is so obtuse 90 times out of 100 they back off or return the ball. I acknowledge the sporting play with Tons of encouragement and positive comment.
Those of good conscience can not blindly follow rules if they believe them to violate the spirit of the game. It is at this point I take stock of just where and why the drop ball is taking place. If at mid field I drop the ball and off we go. The advantage lost or gained is minimal compared to a drop in the penalty area or on the goal area 6 yard line. I would be sure and have a word with the coach of the team whose players are not respecting the spirit of the game and ask why?
For a dropped ball in the penalty area for injury to the defending goalkeeper I would swing my arm from in front of me to a point beside the keeper thus placing myself between the two players, then I would release the ball ensuring the keeper of a returned possession. To argue the semantics whether its legal to do so is applicable only if you're being evaluated for technicality, morally it 100% right.
|