In my last column I wrote for the third time about hoop and roquet. Since there's been no feedback, we can assume the message came out right this time. That leads to a discussion of how easy it is to get things wrong, even when we don't intend to and even when we really do know the laws. Three aspects worth discussing: simple language, source of authority, and how a good referee gets it right and educates players.
Simple language
Everybody wants laws written in simple language. Unfortunately, late last year I wrote about hoop and roquet, intending to clarify and emphasise a point, and in trying to keep it brief and simple it was left open to other interpretations. To be clear, that misinterpretation is the writer's fault, not the reader's. It's just unfortunate that simplifying the language and discussion leaves it open to other interpretations.
When referees discuss the laws, when all players discuss them, they simplify, because that's how we build understanding and apply it to the case at hand. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem is when that understanding is applied to a new, slightly different problem, where the nuances and complexities may mean a different part of the law actually applies.
The dangers of simplifying the laws are there for all to see. As referees and players we must refer to the laws book and the official guidance (ORLC and the Referees Manual, both available online) as the authority, not rely on memory. Our memory does play tricks, and please don't think you're different to everyone else. The advice is simple: read the laws book.
Source of authority
This isn't a discussion of on-lawn referee decision making and player etiquette. On the lawn, a referee is trained to make a decision and communicate it, and as players we accept that and get on with the game. That's right and proper. But afterwards, in discussion of why a decision was made, a good referee will show players where the law sits in the laws book, and explain why it applies that way.
This is the "source of authority" in decisions on the laws. A referee, through training and experience, is better placed than a non-referee player to interpret the laws and advise which apply. But the statement "I've been a referee for a large number of years" is never sufficient on its own to establish the validity of a laws interpretation.
I recently observed a clubhouse discussion on a point of law, not involving any on-lawn decision. The referee who said "this is the law because I've been a referee for a long time" was, in fact, incorrect on the point being discussed. Another referee pulled out the law book, and the discussion was over, quickly and simply. Using the law book made it impersonal, with no egos to defend: just a technical discussion, and everyone went away knowing more about the laws.
Making the mistake isn't a sign of a poor referee. Getting the book out and reading about it is a sign of a good one. We're all victims of our own selected experience, so don't get caught out by it.
How a good referee gets it right
First, a good referee refers to the laws book, the ORLC and the Referees Manual. The laws book is the authority, not any one person's opinion; the other two documents guide interpretation, but the laws book remains the authority. Second, a good referee keeps an open mind: they know their stuff, but they still refer to the laws book to educate others and confirm their own knowledge.
Conclusion
The way to read the laws book is to get out onto the lawn, put balls down, and work through it. Our laws are fairly straightforward, contrary to some views. Working through an example on the lawn makes the laws clear, and all the ifs, buts and otherwises fall into place for that example.
*Greg Whymark, State Director AC*