If you saw Middlesborough
beat the once mighty Lazio in the UEFA cup on Channel 5
recently, you will have seen Ray Parlour being verbally abused
and jostled by the Lazio players. What was the cause of their
anger? Very simply that Parlour had continued with an attack
on the Lazio goal despite a Lazio player lying down injured.
Whether Ray Parlour did
appreciate that the player was down, he was not in the
vicinity of the action, or thought why should I let this good
goal-scoring opportunity go to waste, I don't know but ,to be
honest, the fallen opponent was not his problem, it was the
referee's.
When a player becomes injured,
the onus, under the laws of the game, is clearly on the
referee. The law says, 'the referee will stop the game if in
his opinion a player has been seriously injured. If the player
is slightly injured, the game shall not be stopped until the
ball has ceased to be in play".
So where do players get all
this nonsense about kicking the ball out? I had two or three
occasions last season, similar to the Parlour incident, where
players got irate, either because the ball wasn't kicked out,
or I failed to stop the game. On one occasion, seeing the
defenders stand still expecting their opponents to put the
ball out of play, I shouted 'play is not stopped', at the top
of my voice. They woke up and raced back but too late to
prevent a goal being scored.
The defending team were of
course upset, but when I explained that there is no
requirement for the ball to be kicked out they calmed down,
especially when I pointed out the injured player, now on his
feet and showing no sign of any injury. To be fair I don't
think the player laid down with any thought of gaining an
advantage. In another incident I am not so sure.
From a skirmish in the penalty
area the ball came out to an attacker, with a clear view of
goal. However, on the opposite side of the penalty area, an
opponent was lying down holding his head. 'Head injury'
screamed one of his team mates. The attacker's shot at goal
missed by a mile. The defender chased after me in high dudgeon
asking if he had scored, would I have allowed the goal. When I
said yes, he retorted that it was an head injury and therefore
I was bound to stop the game immediately.
He was quite right in one
thing, referees should always treat head injuries as serious
and stop the game. But there had been no clash of heads which
is usually the cause of head injuries and as soon as the play
stopped the player regained his feet, rubbed his face and ran
away refusing any offer of medical attention. Given that it
was not a serious injury, there is nothing to say I should
deny the attacking team, the opportunity to score. It all
comes down to what is serious injury.
Last season I had a team put
the ball out of play for an 'injured' player, who had mud in
his eye which I knew all along. Is mud in the eye a serious
injury?
Very few referees have had
medical training but it is usually obvious quite quickly when
a player is seriously injured. In any case we are always
taught to err on the safe side. I don't think it would be
considered controversial if I said that players tend to go
down very easily these days. I'm sure everyone would be better
off, if the decision whether to stop play or not, was left to
the referee. And players like Ray Parlour would not be hassled
for carrying on with the game, as the laws intend.
Dick
Sawdon Smith