Impossible Decisions
There will be many occasions in every game, where it will be impossible for the Referee to make a correct decision.
For example, when the unsighted Referee is 60 yards away, and the ball quickly ricochets out of a ruck of players and goes out for a throw-in. Throw-in to the attacking team, or throw-in to the defending team?
Another example, following a challenge for the ball between an attacker and a defender on the edge of the penalty area, the ball was seen to squirm off one of the players and deflects towards a second attacker who is standing in
an offside position near the penalty spot.
Both of the players were taking a kick at the ball at the same time whilst making the challenge. In reality the defender made the last contact with the ball, a fraction of a second after the attacker. The Referee who is still catching up with play and is on the halfway line (50 yards away) does not have a clear view of the incident, but nevertheless needs to make a decision to either allow play to continue, or to stop play for offside.
Should the Referee allow play to continue, or should he penalize the offside attacker for being in an offside position when the ball was deflected (touched) to him buy a colleague? (This question assumes that the Assistant Referee
or Club Linesman is unable to help the Referee.)
When a Refereeing decision is required during a game - making a bad decision is better than making an unsure decision - and making a bad decision is certainly better than making no decision at all.
There will also be moments in every game when both teams are equally entitled to the decision. For example,
whilst making a tackle to gain possession of the ball near the goal line - both the attacker and the defender touch
the ball simultaneously before it crosses the goal line.
Goal kick or corner kick?
During on-the-field impossible decision type incidents, when the Referee believes that both sets of players are as ‘guilty’ as each other, the option of a 'dropped ball' is usually an accepted method - so long as the dropped ball is
not too near one of the goals or involves a goalkeeper in his own penalty area - in this case, the Referee would be better off giving the decision one way or another - (Referees usually give the benefit of the doubt to the defending team in situations of this nature).
There is much useful advice given to Referees to "keep up with play" - "make sure you are as fit as possible" - "try and attain a sideways view of play at all times" - "learn the Laws inside-out" etc. etc. The advice given here, is not
to countermine such useful advice, but to provide the Referee with an additional structured psychological method
that allows him to make an instant decision, when all the previous advice methods have failed.
This allows the Referee to feel confident with his judgment making - and completely rids his performance of those wavering decision making incidents, where players are very quick to criticize the slightest indecision. Players are certainly more receptive to decisive strong Refereeing (even when they know that some of the Referee's decisions were wrong), than they are too weak indecisive Refereeing.
The secret of impossible decision making is to remember the following key phrases:
Be firm:
Be quick.
Be positive:
Stand erect.
Signal clearly.
Do not waver.
Do not be influenced.
Make honest decisions.
Your decision counts and nobody else's.
You are right even if you are really wrong!
Don't worry if everybody else thinks you are wrong – you’re right!
Making impossible decisions depends on the individual Referee's perception, and his Default Automatic Method Navigator (D.A.M.N.) because you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't!). The Referee needs to
agree with himself before each game, how to deal with the impossible. He needs to 'psyche himself up' to prepare
for his impossible decision making role. It does not matter what name you call it (I have called it the D.A.M.N. method for ease of reference) but the players will look to the Referee to make all the decisions in a game - the
easy decisions, the hard decisions and especially the impossible decisions.
A Referee who prepares himself with a standard method for dealing with impossible decisions, will eventually find that although impossible decisions are the hardest to make, they are probably the easiest to make - because he makes them consistently, quickly, without worrying and makes them automatically. This may seem like a contradiction - but let me explain. Firstly, the Referee must recognize that there will be many times during each game, where it is impossible to make the correct decision.
This is due to a number of factors.
The speed of play:
The distance between the incident and the Referee:
The fitness of the Referee:
Whether there are players in the Referee's line of sight:
The shielding of the ball by the players' body:
Whether there are any Assistant Referees or not:
- and dare I say it "the Referee's eyesight"!
In situations of this type, the Referee can give the decision to the attacking team or he can give it to the defending team (or he can sometimes award a dropped ball). Some Referees automatically give 'unsure' decisions to the defending team - this is how it has been sportingly done historically in the past. For example, during an unsure throw-in, the Referee will give the benefit to the defending team, and award the throw-in to them.
Some modern Referees give 'unsure' decisions to the attacking team, thus embodying a modern movement to give the attackers the advantage, therefore increasing the chances of a goal being scored - which in turn will increase
the enjoyment of the spectators. For example, if a Referee or an Assistant Referee is unsure whether an attacker is level or not with the second last defender during an offside judgment, then the benefit of the doubt normally goes to the attacker.
Other Referees will use a combination of the two paragraphs above, and give the benefit of the doubt during offsides to the attacking team, but conversely, give the benefit of the doubt during throw-ins to the defending team – this combination method is the most widely used.
Referees are advised before the game, to choose which of the (to the attacking team or to the defending team) D.A.M.N. methods to use when being unsure on which way to give a decision. Of course, the above advice also applies to the Assistant Referee, particularly when judging offside situations.
The Referee should not 'lose any sleep' worrying about whether he has made the correct decision or not during a game - so long as he has made an honest decision at that particular time. Even if the Referee (or Assistant
Referee) makes the wrong decision - it is the right decision as far as the match is concerned, because the
decisions of the Referee regarding facts connected with play are final. Impossible decision type incidents happen in a split second, and Referees have to make an instant judgment and continue onwards with the game. If a Referee shows any weakness or uncertainty when making decisions, the players, the crowd and the team's officials will certainly make the most of it! Be firm and positive and accept that you will make genuine honest mistakes, but that they are certainly not made on purpose.
Regardless of whether you decide to give the ‘benefit of doubt’ to the defending team or to the attacking team, or a combination of both, ALWAYS be consistent throughout each game.
When you have made a judgment on the field of play, even if in an instant you have the slightest doubt that you think you might have made the wrong decision, do not covey this to the players - be POSITIVE and do not change your initial decision.
| There will be many times when you, as a Referee, will have to make decisions that are correct in Law, but nonetheless, decisions that you don’t personally want to make. It has been noted that when Referees make these types of decisions, their head drops and their shoulders go forward. Stand upright with shoulders forward when making decisions – this will impart an authoritative confidence that will help you gain the co-operation of the players. |
There will of course, be the odd times when as soon as a Referee makes a decision, he suddenly realizes that he is woefully wrong. (Don't worry when this happens - I've done it on many occasions, and still do.) Honesty is the key word here. In situations where the Referee has made a genuine mistake, he can change his decision so long as
play has not restarted. Players are usually receptive to an honest mistake being rectified - the Referee just needs to admit that he was wrong in the first place.
Whether an impossibly made decision is really factually right or factually wrong does not matter. What does matter, is that the Referee always makes an honest decision - which in that fraction of a ‘decision making second’, seemed correct in his opinion, at that particular time.
Question: "When does play actually stop? Is it as soon as the Referee makes a decision to stop play in his mind? Or does play only stop at the precise moment when the Referee blows his whistle?
Answer: There will always be a delay between the Referee ‘making his mind up’ to stop play, and the act of physically blowing the whistle. This delay, is not an excuse for the Referee to change his mind should two separate (but not simultaneous) infringements occur in very quick succession. For example – Yellow player impedes Red player.
Referee decides in his mind to stop play and award an indirect free kick to the Red team. ("Law 12 – an indirect free kick (IFK) is awarded to the opposing team if a player impedes the progress of an opponent.") But before the Referee has actually blown his whistle to indicate a stoppage of play – the Red player violently kicks the ankle of the Yellow player. The Red player should be sent off for committing a (Law 12) ‘Violent Conduct’ offence.
Play should be restarted with an indirect free kick to the Red team, for the initial offence of impedance. It is very important to note, that Referees’ ‘honesty’ is paramount when making decisions of this nature. In other words – because the Referee had already agreed ‘with himself’ to stop play for the original impedance offence, he should NOT restart play with a (DFK) direct free kick (for the Violent Conduct offence) to the Yellow team. In cases where two offences are committed simultaneously by a player, Law 5 allows the Referee to punish the more serious offence. In cases where two offences occur in quick succession, the Referee is still obliged to issue the correct punishment. But he should not restart the game based on the second (DFK) incident, just because he was unable
to get the whistle to his mouth quick enough to stop play immediately at the first (IFK) incident.
The only exception to this, is if following the first incident of impedance of the Red player, play continues to the advantage of the Red team, and the Referee applies (in his mind or by signaling) the advantage clause. In this case, because the Referee had allowed play to CONTINUE following the impedance offence, if he subsequently stops play because the Red player kicks the Yellow player – the restart is a direct free kick to the Yellow team.
To summaries this scenario – if the Referee stops play (in his mind or by blowing his whistle) for the impedance, the restart is an indirect free kick to the team being impeded against (irrespective of what happens after the impedance.) If following the impedance offence, the Referee applies the advantage clause (in his mind or by signaling), play can be restarted in accordance with the nature of the subsequent, second offence (a direct free kick for Violent Conduct in this example.) Once the Referee has mastered the above methods for decision making, and gained more experience with his officiating - if a decision doesn't come naturally, then leave it - and allow play to continue.
The one factor that Referees have trouble with controlling when making rational decisions, is to make decisions independent of their physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual state in which they happen to find themselves before every game.
This can lead to Referees applying varying levels of tolerance towards players, and thinking to themselves: "You infringed the Law, but because I'm in a good mood today, and I like you, and the moon is in the correct position! – well maybe I’ll let it go this once". This is human nature, and what makes us all so very interesting - and is beyond any help that I can give you, except be fair, and above all be honest.
Courtesy Julian Carosi
