I Fought The Law And The Law Won

When I was young, certain things at which we now wouldn’t bat an eyelid, would have raised everybody’s eyebrows. President Mandela of South Africa. The end of the Soviet Union. “Tomorrow’s commentary from the Cricket World Cup will be Ireland versus Australia”…

And, the other Saturday, it looked like a whole episode of ‘Match of the Day’ would pass without a pundit or commentator displaying ignorance of the laws of football. Until, halfway through the Newcastle/Manchester City game, re-assurance arrived that some things are still too ludicrous to contemplate.

One of the Tony Gubba wannabees commented, after Scott Parker’s wrongly disallowed goal for Newcastle, that “maybe the offside law needs to favour the attacker in such situations.”

He was clearly too young to realise why football fans periodically shout “level’s ONside, ref!” The law has meant that for years, stating that a player is offside only if “any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponent’s goal.” Adding that “the arms are not included in this definition.” If only Gibb junior had read the laws, he’d have known how ‘favoured’ attackers are ‘in such situations.’

This happens on ‘Match of the Day’ more often than Gary Linker sarcasm. They seem to get it wrong on all the seventeen laws which require any thought (and I wouldn’t back Mark Lawrenson on the throw-in law). And then there’s the laws which they simply make up.

Take, for instance, the ‘last man.’ Was the centre-back (or the waft of thin air in Cristiano Ronaldo’s case) who sent the through-on-goal attacker flying through the air with the greatest of ease the ‘last man?’

Even when defenders protest their innocence, they point to any colleague in a nearby postcode as proof of said innocence. Even in the days when it was only Terry Butcher stood there.

Problem is, the words ‘last man’ aren’t in the relevant law, which states that a player should be red-carded when they deny “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free-kick or a penalty-kick.”

This means red cards are often correctly produced after tackles far more innocuous than the old ‘professional foul,’ which were sometimes rugby tackles (as in the 1974 World Cup semi-final between Holland’s ‘total footballers’ and a brutal, outplayed Brazilian side).

Yet, time upon time, ‘last man’ appears in the ‘Match of the Day’ transcript. Only Motson gets it nearly right – which is condemnation enough of the others – when he asks: “Is that THE denial of THE goalscoring opportunity?” Like there’s only ever going to be one – annoying even when he’s right, isn’t he? (Motson has no life – or recognition of life – outside such minutiae. When a points deduction hung over West Ham because of Carlos Tevez’s possible ineligibility, Motty was asked how Tevez could play in that day’s game if there’d previously been problems. His reply was another masterclass in missing the point: “Well, he’s just trained as usual and hasn’t let outside issues affect him.” Get him off!!).

Another pundit favourite is the flailing hand/arm/elbow, the sanction against which depends on the landing area, according to Alan Shearer. “Not high enough” was his reasoning for the absence of a card after one such incident. Although it must have surprised Shearer the pundit that there WERE sanctions against that sort of behaviour, so reluctant were referees to tell Shearer the player when the time(s) came.

And with all the confidence of a seasoned old hack, seasoned old hack Lawrenson declared “definite yellow there” after Rooney slapped an Andorran defender in the face, even though ‘violent conduct’ is a ‘definite red there.’ Maybe Lawrenson was commenting on Rooney’s cowardice. Or maybe he’s an idiot.

Meanwhile, back at offside: “In my day, offside were offside.” Lawrenson again. Wrong again. Offside law caveats have included ‘interfering with play’ or ‘gaining an advantage’ since long before days when…oooh, I dunno, Liverpool’s Sammy Lee was flat out in the penalty area (as flat out as Lee could be) in front of West Ham’s goalkeeper as Liverpool opened the scoring in the 1981 League Cup Final (Liverpool centre-half: M. Lawrenson).

The current law, adding the supposedly all-confusing ‘active play’, simply covers all eventualities. Making the law lengthy, unwieldy even. But that just means it takes more time – not intellect or expertise – to understand. And with the money WE’RE paying Lawrenson…

For instance, when Scott Parker ran in front of the goalkeeper AND over the ball he was offside. Some versions of the Laws of the Game even illustrate the law with this precise situation.

But still the debate raged in the studio. Shankly was attributed for the half-millionth time (you know the one: “If he’s not interfering with play, what’s he doing on the pitch?”). And we had less time to watch Watford. If we were on ITV - in case you think I’m just anti-BBC – we’d have had less time to listen to David Pleat mispronounce Spurs players’ names (MalBRANK? JAYnas??). Or declare, as once he did, that “there is no law of averages.”

Hang on, what point was I making?

The solution is simple. All commentators and pundits should have to pass an exam on the Laws of the Game before they’re allowed in the same time-zone as a microphone.

Exams permeate our lives from nappy-rash to retirement. All budding journalists have to pass them, including one on the foreign language that is tee-line shorthand (he says without the slightest bitterness). So why not pundits, journos themselves technically (though try picturing Garth Crooks when you say that)? It needn’t be complex. The Laws of the Game are but a pamphlet, after all.

Football pundits are easy targets. But that’s no reason not to aim (a firm belief of mine, as you may discover over the weeks). If an obvious problem’s obvious solution is not being applied, both bear repeating. Until we get the right result.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Terms & Conditions | Contact Us