Football Laws
What would warrant a red card?
A red card in football would be violent conduct against opponents, a fellow player, a spectator or a referee. That would constitute kicking or attempt to kick them; striking or attempting; head-butting; spitting at someone; serious foul play, perhaps deliberately going in over the ball and attacking a player as an example; denying a goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately committing an offence on a player - that is a sending-off offence itself. If you have two cautions in a football game - if you caution somebody and then they make a second offence, that's a send-off in a game. Also, foul, abusive or offensive language or action towards a referee warrants a red card.
What would warrant a yellow card?
A yellow card can be shown in football for showing dissent about actions of the referee. Not retreating ten yards by the opposing side can warrant a yellow card under football law, as can standing on the ball and deliberately preventing the free kick from being taken. A bad tackle or late tackle is a caution in itself. Unsporting behaviour, kicking the ball away to prevent someone from taking a free kick, requires a yellow card or caution, as does time wasting. There are numerous offences and unsporting behaviour that constitute a caution, a yellow card.
Should TV technology be used to help referees?
I think, personally, there are only two or three areas where I think technology would help football. The first is deciding when the ball has crossed the line for a goal. The game is all about fact not opinion: is it a goal or isn't it? So I think we need technology to decide when that ball has crossed the line as it's a major, major decision in a football game. Secondly, I think technology could help if the referee has decided to award a free kick, but he's not quite sure whether the offence took place inside or outside the penalty area. He could just ask, very quickly, whether it inside or outside. You must leave the judgment to the match official. You're not slowing the game down by using technology here, because you can get a quick response to say it's inside, therefore it's a penalty, or it's outside. You're not killing the game, you're not stopping the game, you're not slowing the game down. The other use of technology in football I would encourage is, when a ball is played through, if the assistant is not sure if the player who has received the ball was in an offside position at the time that the ball was played. If he was allowed to let it go, and if a goal occurred or a corner, which means something positive for the attacking side, as the ball is out of play then, he then could just check it - "I'm not sure, he might have been offside, I wasn't sure." Because by the time he's checked it, you've got to restart the game anyway. And if he says that the player was offside, you can go back and restart from the offside. If he says there's no problem, you can just restart from the centre if it's goal, or a corner kick. If the keeper saves it and collects the ball or if it goes out for a goal kick, you don't need to bother about it. And that way you're not stopping the football game. I think technology would encourage assistants to gamble if they're not sure, because when players cross over defence coming out of the attack, it's very difficult, but you're encouraging that assistant to take a risk knowing that they can always fallback and just make sure it was right at the time. Those three uses of technology in football in no way would stop the game. They wouldn't delay the game or interfere with the flow of the game. I think it would all be a benefit to the game.
Can you explain the offside rule?
I can give you the offside law. The offside law is if a player is nearer to his opponent's goal line than the ball. There is an offside position first before you talk about whether you decide he is offside. To be in an offside position, a player has to be nearer to the opponent's goal line than the ball unless there are two or more players level with him or between him and the goal line, or he is in his own half of his field of play. It is as simple as that. That is if a player is in an offside position. It only becomes an offense for a free kick to be awarded when the ball is played by a player of his own side, he is in that position and he actively interferes with the guy, he plays the ball, stops a defender perhaps coming across to get the ball or interferes with the goal keeper's judgement or vision. That is deemed by the referee to be actively interfering or having gained an advantage from being in an offside position at the time the ball was played: then it will be given offside. I am sorry to say it is complicated. At one stage, it used to be if in the opinion of the referee, a football player was seeking to gain an advantage, interfering with player opponents, then you could give him an offside. Now he has got to actively have interfered or gained an advantage.
How can a player not be active?
Pass. As Bill Shankley used to say, you shouldn't be on the field of play if you're not actively interfering with the game. But it's the powers that be that determine this and, by what logic, I do not know.
Should players who dive be punished more severely?
If you're absolutely positive they have intentionally tried to deceive you or simulate a foul, as they say, then I think the football player has got to be cautioned. I think if they're cautioned that's fair enough. As long as they are cautioned. Because next time they dive they can be sent off.
If you could change a football law which would it be?
The one football law that springs to mind is the ten yard law, where if players don't retreat, or a player commits dissent against a referee, he shouldn't have to caution the player or anything like that. He just automatically takes the ball up to ten yards. That would cut out a lot of dissent, a lot of arguing, because captains would duly sort them out and managers would sort them out. I think that would help a lot of dissent. I think there's too much dissent in the football game. Players don't do it in the top rugby games. You don't see five players around the referee if he's given a decision or if he's taken a player off. I think it's only because of players' own discipline, or they've been coached to do it. But I think if they do it that way, it would stop people back-chatting and showing dissent towards a referee.
Why do referees fail to punish players who verbally abuse them?
I'll pass on that one, because all they are doing is making the job harder for everybody else by not punishing abuse, and making their life difficult for the next referee. I think they do it because the Football Association is going to back them, and back them strongly; if we have a month of three players being sent off in a game, after that month there'll be a few chairmen, if not managers saying, "We're paying these blokes to play, what are they doing sitting on the bench, picking up the wages because they can't control their tongues?" I think that's the only way we'll get back to more credible games, in terms of that respect, is if the Football Association starts punishing players severely, and referees then feel confidence in taking the action because they know they will get the support.
Is there a danger of football becoming a non contact sport?
I don't think there is a danger of football becoming a non-contact sport. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think there is. You have to cut the violent tackles out but you don't have to cut the hard tackles out; there's nothing wrong with a hard tackle if it's legitimate, from the front or round the side. But if you allow people to go through the back of player's legs, that's completely got to be stopped because it is dangerous. Some people that are saying football should be a non-contact sport. I think some referees are more fussy than others, but I just think to see a great tackle is part of the game, so I hope for goodness' sake, it doesn't become a non-contact sport because I think the game goes then, doesn't it?
Why don't referees add on all the time that is wasted?
That's a good question; I don't know, because I watch football games and some referees don't add on all the stoppage time. As a spectator, I still carry a stopwatch. I've checked some referees doing substitutions, etc., and they definitely haven't added the time. They haven't stopped the watch and started the watch. I think this has been brought to the attention of the people who appoint the primary referees, so perhaps we might see in next season that there is a change, but I definitely don't think they do in all the games.
