Chapter 18. Play to the Whistle

In many walks of life there are more people ready and willing to give advice than there are people ready to take it. Above all this applies to football. There are so many folk eager to tell the player, or the manager, or even the Football Association what should be done for the good of the game. There are so many deaf ears turned to the advice. Analysis of much of the advice given brings one to the conclusion that it is just as well, in the general interest, that most of it falls on deaf ears.

Among the bits of advice given to footballers by every manager, every trainer, every coach, and even by directors, is in the simple phrase: 'Play to the whistle'. Every player knows he should do it. In theory he is ready to do it, too. In actual play he doesn't. So it is really important that the advice should be repeated. The referee is the man who decides when play shall stop, or whether play shall continue. He is the boss; his whistle counts. Players still overlook that fact. One of these days somebody may reckon up how many really important matches are lost because the players this or that team stop playing in the expectation that the whistle will sound. It doesn't. The total, even in first-class games, must be large. If it were possible to calculate the number of minor matches which go wrong because of the failure to wait for the whistle, the figure might be so appalling that the lesson would be taken to heart and remembered for all time by everybody concerned.

That hasn't happened yet, however, hence do I stress the point here. In the course of a Third Division (North) match last season a defender, quite certain in his own mind that the ball had been over the line, caught it as it was crossed towards his goal. The referee, who had not previously sounded the whistle, had no alternative but to award a penalty-kick to the other side. That penalty-kick duly produced a goal, which set the team on the way to their first defeat of the season. Not an isolated case, either, but a simple and outstanding example of the necessity of keeping on playing until the play is officially stopped.

How many times, in the course of each season, do we see in the newspapers this sort of sentence: '… scored while their opponents were standing still, being under the impression that one of the opposing players was offside'. In a Gup Final between Arsenal and Newcastle United, the Arsenal defenders were convinced that the ball had been over the line before the Newcastle player chasing it sent it across to the middle. The full-backs ceased to give their undivided attention to the course of the play. A goal was scored. It was duly allowed, and by the odd goal Newcastle United won the Cup.

Chelsea would have gone down to the Second Division at the end of the 1950-51 season if their opponents, Wolverhampton Wanderers, had played to the whistle in a match the result of which was vital to Chelsea. Most people present, including the Wolverhampton players, thought Ken Armstrong had handled the ball in the penalty area. He may have done so. The whistle didn't go, however. Armstrong sent the ball into the net with Bert Williams not even making a serious attempt to stop it. Chelsea won the game, got the points, and avoided relegation. These instances are mentioned - and they could be multiplied many times over - to emphasize the point that even first-class players forget the lectures given on this topic.

It must be agreed that it is very natural for a player to stop playing if he feels confident that something has happened against the laws of the game which will induce the referee to sound the whistle for the cease-fire. But until the whistle goes the really wise player carries on.

There are occasions, too, when the player who stops, or hesitates, because he is confident that the whistle will be blown, can be forgiven. I have a feeling that we have by no means reached the ideal in the matter of control of play. The referee has a linesman on each side of the field. Those linesmen are put there for the purpose of helping him control the match in accord with the rules. From time to time it happens that one or the other of the men patrolling the line sees something which he thinks justifies him in raising the flag. When that flag is duly raised - and noticed by the players - it follows almost as certainly as night follows day that the players stop. They shouldn't. The referee may not agree that a breach of the laws has occurred, or he may be looking somewhere else when the flag is waved. Maybe it is just as well that there is only one supreme controller among the three officials on duty at any game. But it does seem - and is certainly a subject for argument - that if a linesman raises a flag such action should mean something. But according to present regulations, only the referee's whistle actually brings the play to a stop.

Even the lawmakers themselves stress the importance of carrying on. It is laid down in the rules that neither by word or action shall a player show dissent from a decision given by the man in control.

To show dissent - according to the lawmakers - from the decision of a referee is to lay oneself open to being found guilty of ungentlemanly conduct. I am afraid that few of us who have played much football could conscientiously plead not guilty to such a charge. It's difficult not to raise an eyebrow - or something even more expostulatory - when the referee fails to notice some breach of the law which is obvious to the player himself. But when the protest threatens to deprive the referee of his coat - or sometimes even of his trousers - that is going too far indeed. Not very gentlemanly.

In point of fact, referees themselves often take a line of action which seems to encourage the protests. If, when a goal is scored about which members of the defending side are up in arms, the referee, who may have been in a much better position to see what happened than either of his linesmen, is often persuaded to consult one or other of those assistants. As the result of the consultation, the original decision is often reversed. This means, in effect, that it sometimes pays to argue, but the argument is an undignified business anyway, and there cannot be any question that in the all-round sense our enjoyment of the game would be greater if the arguments with the man with the whistle could be cut out entirely.

Of course referees make mistakes. The ideal, however - which I pass on to contemporary players rather than suggest that the old-time players lived up to - is to accept the decisions of the appointed controller and to get on with the game. Sad stories are told of this or that side being 'robbed' of some prize by a wrong decision. We must accept, however, that our referees, like our policemen, are really wonderful. The good ones are also splendidly neutral. That being so, it must follow that in the course of a season the wrong decisions, for or against any side, more or less balance themselves.

I just don't believe those sob-stories told by players to the effect that they had all the bad luck in relation to decisions given by the controlling officials. It is also beyond question, in my view, that the management of the big games has improved in our time. The diagonal system of control, a system by which the referee can, if he so desires, get much more help from the linesmen, has reduced the margin of error. That's the theory, and I would say that referees, given charge of matches with neutral linesmen on either side, are well advised to make use of those linesmen.

However, it is not part of my task here to tell referees how to do their job. What should be insisted upon is that it pays to play the game; even to give the referee the minimum amount of whistle-blowing. Making the other fellows regular presents of free-kicks is one reasonably good way of losing matches. Learn how to tackle fairly.

Recently, a very fine player - one who had been good enough to be chosen to play for his country - was mysteriously dropped from the first team of his club. He was put into the reserves, and told to report back to the manager after each match with the reserves how many free-kicks had been given against him. Steadily the reports made by this player showed that the total was being reduced in each match. And in due course he was able to report that he had gone right through a reserve game without one free-kick being given against him. The manager said: 'That's splendid. You're in the first team again next Saturday'.

I am not preaching perfection, or posing as the white-headed boy who never did anything wrong. Far from it. On one occasion I was dropped from the Arsenal team, the reason given to me, in direct language, being that I had lost the game on the previous Saturday. How had I lost it? By making an unfair tackle somewhere near the middle of the field. The free-kick led to our opponents scoring the goal by which the match was lost. Free-kicks presented on a plate to the other fellows do lose matches.

There are other sound reasons for playing the game fairly. The player who does this is likely to remain a player for a longer period, with fewer interruptions from injury. Footballers are human, with human failings and human repercussions. The player up against an opponent who insists on dealing with him unfairly becomes irritated, and consequently yields to the temptation to 'get his own back'. That leads to trouble for both.

It's nice to see two players, who have been in direct opposition during a match, each putting in everything, but doing it fairly, shake hands when the final whistle blows. There's no reason why that shouldn't happen after every match. The fellow who plays the game fairly is doing himself a good turn, and doing his side good turns as well. He's a better player.

That reminds me that footballers should know the rules of the game they are so anxious to play well. Elementary, my dear Watson. Of course! But experience with young and even with not so young players, tells us that it is no exaggeration to say that about two out of three players haven't read and studied the laws of the game. During last season a first-class player was upset - indeed was involved in such a heated argument with the referee that he was in danger of being sent off -because he thought he had scored a goal. He took a penalty-kick, banged the ball against the goalpost, and when it came back to him sent it into the net. 'But I couldn't have been offside', he said. Of course not! The goal was disallowed because he had played the ball twice without it being touched in the meantime by any other player. This lack of knowledge of the laws cost that player's side a goal. There was a colleague at hand who could have put the ball into the net if the original taker of the penalty kick had stood aside to allow him to take the ball on the rebound.

Learn the laws of the game and play to them! When twenty-two players do that, the twenty-third man also enjoys himself - the man with the whistle. The referee knows the laws. And his job is to interpret them, not make them.

'The offence wasn't a serious one. It didn't call for such drastic punishment as a penalty-kick'. If the pound notes I possess added up to the number of times I have read these words, I shouldn't work for my living. When a defender other than the goalkeeper deliberately handles the ball in the penalty area, or trips an opponent, the referee can't start an argument with himself as to whether a penalty-kick is too severe a punishment. The rules say he must award the penalty-kick. If the rules are wrong, that isn't the fault of the referee. Don't shoot him.

Many are the ways in which I think the laws of football could be altered for the better, but the lawmakers are wise people. They set forth the laws, the referees carry them out. What amazes me is that there so many fellows ready to qualify for the job with the whistle.