AboutStephen Smith Expertise I can answer any questions relating to the laws of the game and their application at any level from local parks to professional and international level. Feel free to ask about a referee's decision you don't understand, a hypothetical scenario, or a situation in which you as a referee need help.
Experience As an active and conscientious referee, officiating at semi-professional level, I have an excellent knowledge of the laws of the game. I also like to use common sense and this helps me to appreciate what other referees, including the professionals, may be thinking and how they have reached their decision.
Organizations FAMOA, Referees' Association, Referees' Society
Publications
I edit (and write most of) the bi-monthly magazine of the local Referees' Society.
During the 2006 FIFA World Cup the Electric New Paper (Singapore's biggest-selling tabloid) published an article of mine which the Editor requested I write regarding refereeing decisions in the Italy v USA game.
In October 2007 I was interviewed by the BBC World Service for a radio programme about player discipline.
I have had letters on refereeing published in The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
Education/Credentials I have a BA (Hons) degree in Applied Social Sciences, and my interest in psychology and sociology is useful in controlling 22 burly men ready for battle! I have attended numerous national and regional conferences and seminars, and attend and contribute to weekly referees' training meetings.
Awards and Honors
Awarded a trophy in 2007 for services to the Referees' Society.
Numerous local and regional cup final and semi-final appointments.
Question This is perhaps more of a philosophical question regarding the intent of a rule, rather than a question of the proper application of a rule. As the father of a promising young goal keeper who 2 days ago suffered a full swing laces up strike across the forehead by an attacker (yes, the impotent foul was called), I often wonder why the rule for a foul against the goal keeper at BEST only gives the keeper a direct kick from the spot of the foul, in other words at their own end of the field. Why does the team whose keeper was fouled that was fouled not get a direct PK at the attacker's 6 yard line? My thinking is this: if an attacker knows that the worst that can happen (excluding a card) by fouling the keeper will be a direct kick far from the attacker's own goal, why should the attacker err on the side of caution? If the attacker continues and takes the risk of injuring the keeper, the reward might just be a goal.
Answer Hi Matt,
That's an interesting one!
You clearly appreciate what the law says about the scenario your son was involved in. From a philosophical point of view, I agree with the sentiment and reasoning of your suggestion but can't see it working in reality. If the result of a foul on the goalkeeper is a penalty at the other end, why shouldn't a penalty at the other end be given for a foul on any other player in that goalkeeper's penalty area, or on a goalkeeper outside his area? It also places a lot more pressure on the referee to call the foul correctly. As it stands he might rule out a goal, but to also award such a golden opportunity for a goal at the other end will be too much for a team to take, and for some (particularly young) referees to give.
It reminds me of the situation where the goalkeeper has the ball in his hands and a defender holds on to him in order to spin round. As a referee I might choose to stop the game to talk to the defender, and blow the whistle hard and run up to them both in order to prevent something flaring up. Having stopped the game like that, the law says it must restart with a free kick to the goalkeeper, but if he hadn't been fouled he'd have been able to kick it further from his hands. The answer is maybe to play on even after the blowing the whistle, but that could cause confusion.
Sometimes the law hinders the team it's trying to protect, but in some of those cases I think changing it would make the situation worse.
