Home Laws Advice Fitness SiteMap Links Set Pieces Discuss Search corshamref.org.uk   

Code of Signals for FIFA (by Stanley Lover)

'What's that for, Ref?

In a school match I was puzzled why the referee had called a foul against me, so I asked him, 'What was that for, Ref.?' I'm sure I was not impolite but the answer, 'Don't question my decisions; get on with the game or you'll be in my book', seemed unjust. I was not contesting but asking for information to know what I had done wrong so that I could avoid repeating the offence. After the match I asked the referee again, explaining why I wanted to know. He was more reasonable.

'You put your foot up close to an opponent's knee and I considered it to be Dangerous Play'. I thanked him, adding that I would try to be more careful in future. Then I thought, why didn't he show me at the moment by, say, raising one foot to knee height? I, and all present, would have understood immediately.

When Italy played France in the 2006 World Cup final before a global audience of billions, only one person, the Argentinean referee, Horacio Elizondo, knew the whole story of what went on in those highly emotional two hours of play. Most decisions for stopping the match were obvious, e.g., ball over boundary lines, but others were obscure. The world could only guess why a free-kick was awarded in the run of play. It could have been for any one of many offences listed in the official laws. 

Football is often called The People's Game but for over 140 years there have been almost studied conspiracies of silence to avoid helping the people understand their game better.

Do football people care? Well, I'm one of them and I do care. An experience in China showed me I'm not alone. In my book SOCCER RULES EXPLAINED I tell the story of a match in 1965 at The Workers Stadium, Peking before 40,000 excited fans. Most of the applause occurred when the game was stopped and after a man's voice broadcast an announcement. After several incidents I asked my interpreter for an explanation. He pointed to a person seated at a table close to the touchline.

'He is an international referee and is explaining why Doctor Wong, the man in the middle, had awarded a free-kick.' The people appreciated this insight into the game through the eyes of an expert and applauded the officials as much as the players.

The players want to know, the people want to know, and so do television commentators at the big games. As communicators any titbit of information eases their task of presenting the play, adding educational value to their words and, in turn, increasing the pleasure of the audience - as in that Peking (Beijing) match.

Other sports are way ahead of football in communication. Nearly all have an established code of signals to back their rules. Rugby, baseball, basketball, ice hockey, cricket and the rest, all help explain what goes on. Why not in football, the world's most popular sports spectacle? One reason is that the Game of Association Football was created for gentlemen players who imposed an impeccable code of fair play on themselves. The Referee was there only 'to decide disputed points' put to him by the players. Appeals of 'That was unfair, sir!' and the accused villain's response of 'No, I don't think so, sir', were resolved by the neutral official. It was unthinkable that gentlemen should 'show dissent, by word or action,' from any decision given by the Referee (the second of the seven yellow card offences in modern laws). The Referee has never been required to explain or justify decisions because of this gentlemanly ethic - hence, no code of signals. Tradition dies hard in football. 

Attempts to move away from obsolete traditions and into the 21st century have, so far, produced little change. Personal research, started in 1970 - involving two years study of referee communication - proves that officials want to be more informative. The only mandatory signal, which indicates that a free-kick is Indirect (Law 13), could apply to any one of a dozen offences - from offside to unsporting behaviour. To be helpful referees use other unofficial signals on average fourteen times per match. An analysis of six matches revealed twenty seven different signals, falling into two categories;

• Instinctive - natural gestures miming the offence, e.g., handling the ball, pushing, kicking an opponent, shirt holding, etc., and,
• Personalized - individual attempts to indicate offences difficult to mime, e.g., obstruction, offside, dangerous play, etc.

Understanding of the referee's message varied according to the clarity of his body language. Those who attempted to communicate appeared more decisive and efficient than those who made little effort. Negative reaction to a decision, by players and/or spectators, was often stifled when a clear, firm signal was seen.

Based on this research an unofficial experiment was tested in 1972 at a national youth competition final at Crystal Palace, near London. Players and spectators were given a leaflet with a few illustrations showing referee signals they might see and what they would mean. The test was announced over the public address system before the kick-off - it was as near as we could get to the situation in the Beijing match. The experiment was warmly received and created much interest. A typical and frequent comment was, 'Why can't we see this in every game?'

In the same year a paper, detailing the research and the experiment, was submitted to FIFA with recommendations for a basic Code of Signals for football. The Referees' Committee considered the document but shelved the idea. Three years later a memorandum, published in the 1977 FIFA Universal Guide for Referees noted; 

'It is not the duty of the referee nor is it a useful function to explain his decisions to the players or spectators. Any attempt to do so can lead to confusion, uncertainty and delay.' 

A slight change of attitude in 1991 led to a memorandum which repeats the fear of confusion etc., but states that, 

'There are times when a simple gesture ... can aid communication and assist towards greater understanding, and gaining more respect, to the mutual benefit of referees and players.' 

That note acknowledges the value of communication. However it made no attempt to help referees explain the many decisions for which only they know the reasoning - the decisions which baffle players and the millions who watch. They and the ever-growing numbers of newcomers attracted to football want to know more about their game. Much of the confusion, dissent and delay, ever-present in the modern game, can be reduced if referees are allowed to express obscure decisions via a simple code of signals.

Miming and other gestures which inform are no problem - referees act instinctively. However, their use might become more widespread if illustrated in a guide to confirm the intention of those frequently observed. The real value of a standard code would be to identify offences which are difficult to mime, Examples are;

A Code of Signals for Football

Offside: In my research referees attempted to indicate offside with differing gestures. Five signals, from a sweeping movement of one arm across the body to raising both hands above the head, were observed in as many matches. Just one universal gesture would avoid confusion. Fig.2 suggests both hands raised to shoulder height and moved apart and together with index fingers vertical.

Fig.2: Offside - suggesting a line across the field. Hands raised, touch and move apart.

Careless and reckless play; using excessive force: six Direct Free kick offences - pushing, tripping, holding, etc - are judged on these criteria. The current signal, pointing the direction of the kick, provides no clue as to reasoning. Players frequently claim to have tried to play the ball when an opponent is tackled without reasonable care. One simple gesture could cover all three degrees of foul play. In Fig.3 the referee indicates his decision by knocking clenched fists together in front of his chest.

Fig.3: Foul Play - clenched hands knocked together sharply in front of chest.

Dangerous play: all actions which unintentionally put an opponent in danger e.g., attempted kick at a head-high ball, can be covered by one signal - Fig.4 suggests an open hand raised vertically to head height (1) - and then confirmed by the existing one-arm raised signal informing all that the free kick is Indirect (2).

Fig.4: Dangerous play - one open hand raised vertical at chest level, followed by the Indirect Free Kick signal.

Denying a goal scoring opportunity: a complex judgement call, with severe consequences, merits a special signal. Fig.5 illustrates one possibility - arms crossed in front of the chest.

Fig.5: Goal scoring opportunity denied - clenched hands across the chest.

These five aspects of play are common to practically every football match. They are judged by the referee but others are mystified and irritated when his decisions are unclear. 

In discussions with referees at all levels and in various countries the idea of easing their task with a standard code of signals has always been welcomed with enthusiasm; they are keen to give it a try. The illustrated signals are not definitive; they are suggestions which could form the basis of an experimental code of signals to be tried and evaluated in a suitable competition.

FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB) can score a winning goal for all football people by encouraging referees to share their insight into the game.

Yours in sport,
Stanley Lover
©Stanley Lover 2008