Thierry Henry of Arsenal has done it again. He has created controversy for a Premiership referee by his quick thinking.
Last year it was Mark Halsey in the game against Aston Villa and now it is Graham Poll in Arsenal's table topping clash with Chelsea.
On both occasions Henry scored with a free kick
from just outside the penalty area, while the opposing team was still trying to organise its defence. Like Aston Villa before them, Chelsea were unhappy to say the least. Their goalkeeper, Petr Cech, was reported to have made defamatory remarks about Graham Poll, although he later claimed this was the result of poor translation from his native tongue.
Other football supporters were also unhappy, some said to me that it didn't seem fair. One argument was that it was supposed to be a free kick. Exactly. A free kick should be what it says. A kick free from hindrance by the opposing team, who are after all, the offenders.
We have just completed two courses locally for prospective referees and there are now thirty-seven new referees in the area. To pass their examinations they have to learn the Laws of the Game. But now, when they are out there with the whistle, they have another book to help them. This is called 'Advice on the Application of the Laws'.
For example, the law says that at a free kick, all opposing players should be at least ten yards from the ball. However the advice given is that 'the referee has discretion to disregard this requirement, to enable a free kick to be taken quickly'. Even more, it says 'under the spirit of the law, referees are reminded that there must be no undue delay in allowing the non-offending side to take the free kick'.
When free kicks are taken quickly in the middle of the field of play, no one, players or spectators, are too concerned that opposition players have not got into position. The difference with the Arsenal free kicks was that they were in front of goal, within scoring range. What has happened is that everyone has got used to the idea that for free kicks just outside the penalty area, we have to go through a ritual. The ceremonial free kick.
It is deemed acceptable that the team who have committed the offence, can delay the taking of the kick to enable them to get their 'wall' in position. The attacking side will be expected to have at least one player, who will try and 'bend it like Beckham' around the wall. But of course it is all nonsense. There is no difference as far as referees are concerned, where the kick has been awarded. The advice they receive is that 'the requirement under the Law for players to be at least ten yards, does not justify a referee allowing a defending side the opportunity to consolidate its defence'.
Or to put it another way, the referee is under no obligation to allow the offending team to organise its defensive wall.
Some people are concerned that allowing quick free kicks in these circumstances, will only encourage defenders to take actions to prevent them. But of course this is already covered in the Laws and in the advice on their application. If players intentionally prevent a free kick being taken quickly, the law says it is an offence punishable by a caution.
If a referee allows a quick free kick, he is advised that 'it does not absolve him from taking action against players who offend in this way'. Referee do sometimes have a kick retaken but this is because it is from the wrong place, or the ball is moving, or the referee himself is not ready. Never because the defence is not ready, which Thierry Henry has been quick to learn.