I have recently had a letter from Mr Frank Viner of Henley who is not only a regular reader of this column but also, I gather from his letter, a keen supporter of the Royals. His query related to an incident during a match at the Madejski Stadium earlier in the season.
It seems that when Sammy Igoe had a free kick awarded against him, he stood over the ball to prevent the kick being taken quickly. Quite rightly the referee cautioned him and after showing the yellow card moved the kick forward by ten yards.
Shortly afterwards another Reading player committed an offence on the edge of his own penalty area. The Reading players were slow to withdraw the required distance but the referee took no further disciplinary action. If he had done so, Mr Viner wants to know, would the kick have then been moved into the Reading penalty area?
The first point I ought to make is that this advancement of a free kick is not part of the Laws of the Game. It is still officially an experiment being carried out, with the sanction of the International FA Board, in the Premiership, the Football League and other selected leagues. We are told that there are no plans to extend the experiment to other competitions, but the Board has agreed to allow those where it has been introduced, to trial it for one more year. This means that it does not apply in local football and the suggestion is that it never will.
It is something that works wonderfully well in rugby union from where the idea came. The difference in football is that, before the referee can advance the kick, he must first caution the erring player. As referees we would like the ability to move the kick forward without a caution.
In the incident Mr Viner described the referee had the choice of two offences:
under Law 12 to caution Sammy Igoe. A player can be cautioned if he delays the restart of play. However, this really refers to situations where players deliberately waste time in the taking of kicks or throw-ins which have been awarded to them. I'm sure we have all seen it.
It is more likely that the referee cautioned Sammy lgoe under the offence of 'failing to respect the required distance when play is resumed with a free kick or corner kick'. Having issued the caution, the referee could then move the kick forward.
In the second instance the referee chose not to issue a caution to any of the defenders, although they had 'failed to respect the required distance'. It is difficult when the wall takes time retreating the full distance, often only achieved after the referee paces out the ten yards. Who do you caution? The nearest player? Or the whole wall? There is nothing to stop a referee doing this, of course - I remember John Yates putting the whole of the Chelsea wall in his book - but it is not something done lightly.
To the final point Mr Viner made. If there had been a caution, would the kick have been moved into the penalty area? Last year the answer would have been 'yes', but it would still have only been a direct free kick and not a penalty. This meant that opponents could stand between the ball and the goal.
The answer this season is 'no' - the referee must now cease the advancement at the edge of the penalty area. The reason given for the change is 'to allow for the skill factor of specialist free kick takers (like David Beckham and Darren Caskey) and to relieve the pressure on referees conducting free kicks close to the goal line'. In other words, a kick in a crowded penalty area makes it more difficult for a player to score and a referee to control.
Dick Sawdon Smith