Understanding Law 18

SunFlash 9 years ago

USA 19 3260

I have thought about making this thread for awhile, and after some discussions in the chatbox when supporters of various teams disagreed about referring decisions, I realized that this is a topic that really isn't understood by the vast majority of those who watch this sport.

I'll do my best to make this as clear as I can, hopefully it will prevent situations such as the ones I am referencing in the future, or at the very least offer some perspective as to why the referee made a game-changing call.

What is Law 18?

In the rulebook from FIFA, there are 17 laws that cover pretty much everything you need to know about the rules of the game. However, as is blatantly obvious to anyone who's ever watched a game, not all fouls get called, even when in full view of the ref. Why is that? The answer is Law 18.

Law 18 overrules all other laws. Unlike the other 17 rule categories, Law 18 does not deal in abstract. It deals in two fields, often referred to as "Spirit of the Game" and "Common Sense."

The main goal of a match official is to let the game be decided by the players. Law 18's spirit of the game field is what allows for this to happen.

The secondary goal is to make the game flow as well as possible. Law 18's common sense field covers this goal.

To sum it all up, Law 18 is the opinion that the spirit of the game and common sense are ALWAYS more important than the rulebook itself.

What Does Law 18 Really Mean?

In practice, Law 18 means something different to almost every official. It is not uncommon to observe games - even at a professional level - where the players are feeling out the referee for the first ten or so minutes, attempting to get a feel for this individual referee's specific interpretation of Law 18.

A topic of discussion which has gone criminally unnoticed by the futbol community at large is attempts by leagues and organizations to limit Law 18. In my opinion, this is a terrible mistake. I'll give you guys a real example:

The contrast of refereeing in international play and the BPL (since most of you watch that league).

In recent years, the BPL has limited Law 18 across the entire pitch with the exception the penalty area. This explains much of the "light" fouls. Without Law 18, there is no soft foul, a foul is a foul. (Luckily this has not extended to cards, I'll touch on that later).

However, in international play, Law 18 still holds sway. The difference between the officiating in league play and international play is noticeable even to the untrained eye. The game flows much better, challenges in midfield are not default fouls, and defenders are allowed to actually defend.

Why is any of this important?

Your team is on the attack early in the game. They play a cross into the box and it strikes a defender smack on the hand. Clear penalty.

A studs up challenge in the midfield that didn't do any damage, and was not violent, but was studs up nonetheless. Clear foul and red card. (Time of the incident is irrelevant).

In both these situations, according to the laws of the game, a drastic, game-altering action would take place. In one instance, a penalty (that will probably be scored), and in the other, a sending-off. How does Law 18 work in these scenarios?

The simple answer is that it's different for every referee, but most would go with the two following decisions:

Wave off the PK
Give a foul, maybe a yellow card depending on contact of studs

Now, to a fan of the team that had this call go against the rulebook on them, this is pretty tough to swallow. Even to a neutral it can seem confusing, to a fan of the team that got off easy, lucky.

But it's not.

Law 18 ensures that the rulebook (and by extension, the referee) DOES NOT make game-altering decisions. It should be up to the PLAYERS, not the REFS as to who wins and loses a game. As the saying goes, "if you needed the ref to win, you probably shouldn't have won."

Cards

You would not believe the amount of people I have spoken to who think that yellow cards are punishments. Yellow cards are not punishments, they are deterrents. Players get a yellow card to prevent them from keeping on doing what they are doing, or to send a message to everyone else, so to keep the game under the control of the official. The best example I can give of this is the Champions League final between Athletico and Real last year. One of the first fouls of the match went the way of Real, and Sergio Ramos rushes over the referee, probably to tell him that the foul deserved a card (you know how Ramos is). Before Ramos even gets a word out, he has a yellow card in his face.

This is a perfect example of Law 18. What was the result? The situation dissipated, and the referee's authority was not challenged for the rest of the match.

Now understand that I am not suggesting a referee should give a yellow card to every player that attempts to converse with him or her. But the circumstances had to be taken into account:

Derby match
Champions League final
Teams hate each other
Match already feels chippy, will only get worse with no referee involvement
Sergio Ramos will chirp about every call for the rest of the game if he is let off the hook the first time

Is a yellow card a correct call then? Absolutely.

Just an extra note, I am not a fan of the suspension after x amount of yellow cards is acquired over several games. In my opinion, it fails to take into consideration how the cards were acquired and instead blindly follows a rulebook, which is exactly the opposite of Law 18, which may by extension be the opposite of why the player received the card in the first place.

Red cards fall into a slightly different realm. While a referee will pull out yellows left right and centre, it is the goal of the match official to not make game-altering decisions. A red card absolutely falls into that category. In my opinion, the red card isn't really a punishment to the player that receives it, it's a punishment to the team. Unlike yellow cards, which simply tell players to stop being stupid, a red card negatively affects the team that receives it in a profound way. I'm too lazy to look up a correlation between red cards and losses, but you guys are smart, you get it.

Because of this fact, red cards are carefully followed in accordance with Law 18, so I have no real complaints. An example of when Law 18 wasn't used, was in a Newcastle game earlier this season, where Mitrovic (sp?) was sent off after about 15 minutes for a clearly accidental stomp on another player in the midfield in a 50/50 challenge. Law 18 probably wouldn't even give a yellow, and yet the official in that game gave Mitrovic a red, and Newcastle went on to get hammered. (Although in the ref's defence, they were probably going to lose regardless).

In this example, the rulebook was followed to the letter, and the game was negatively impacted.

To conclude, the rulebook is important, and rules should be followed. But when they aren't, it isn't the referee's job to blow his or her whistle every thirty or so seconds. If the game is flowing smoothly, it was a soft foul, and the game won't turn on its head because of it, let the sucker go.

The TL:DR

When a call doesn't go your club's way, stop getting pissed off, and instead support your players to win you the game, not the official, because it isn't his bloody job.