I can never understand why
many people in Reading are so anxious to associate the town
with Oscar Wilde. His only connection is that he was
incarcerated in the town prison where he wrote his famous
Ballad of Reading Gaol. However during his trial when he
queried some procedure, he was told 'that is the law Mr
Wilde*. He is reputed to have replied: "Then the law is
an ass*. This is exactly the sentiment expressed by many
people about the law in football where a player, having been
treated for injuries on the field of play, is made to go off
the field before the game is re-started, only to be waved on
again as soon as play has recommenced.
One of the difficulties
with this ruling is that it isn't as clear-cut as it might
sound. What the law says, and has said for many many years, is
that 'the referee stops play, if in his opinion, a player is
seriously injured, and ensures that he is removed from the
field of play'. What should happen therefore is the player
should be treated off the field of play, so the game can
continue. When he has recovered the referee will allow him to
come back on.
In truth what happens of
course, is that the player is treated on the field and seldom
on the touchline. Although referees stop their watch, the
International FA Board is concerned about the amount of time
lost over assessment and treatment of injuries so last season
made an addition to the law which read, 'An injured player may
only return to the field of play after the match has
re-started'. This was to confirm that if the player is treated
on the field for his injuries, he must still go off.
The problems with this law
have only been highlighted in recent years and that, I'm
afraid, is all down to gamesmanship. Players now go down for
the slightest knock in an attempt to disrupt the game. The law
also says 'the referee allows play to continue until the ball
is next out of play, if in his opinion, a player is only
slightly injured'. So often today players make tackles look
worse than they are in order to get a free kick or sometimes
to get opponents cautioned or even sent off. How many times do
you see a player apparently writhing in agony, only to get up
and walk away with no ill effects once the referee has stopped
play or made his decision?
The difficulty referees
face is that although the law says it is their opinion whether
a player is slightly or seriously injured, very few want to
take risks, as they have to consider the player's safety. And
if they don't take the easy way out and stop the game, it's
likely players will take it into their own hands and kick the
ball out of play. Another awkward aspect for referees is that
goalkeepers have special immunity when it comes to injuries.
They don't have to go off for treatment which, within bounds,
can take as long as is necessary, as Reading fans found out
last Wednesday when the Chelsea goalkeeper needed a head wound
bandaged.
What referees do with the
Law is to use it as a deterrent. They warn a player who has
gone down injured that if he wants to have any treatment, he
will have to go off afterwards. This often prevents stoppages
as players decide to get up and get on with the game. It also
removes the onus from the referee. This attempt to stop the
excess feigning of injuries is perhaps a little flawed, but I
think it can be seen that the law is not quite the 'ass' that
it at first appears.
Dick Sawdon Smith