R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

By: Jim | November 21st, 2008

Barely four months after it has begun, the FA’s campaign to encourage football players and supporters to respect their match officials looks in danger of falling apart. Much-derided by managers in post-match interviews, upset at inconsistent decision-making (by which they mean the failure of referees to award 100% of the decisions to their own team), and by overpaid pundits in commentary boxes without the gumption or the ability to take up officiating themselves, there is now talk of summit meetings with ref supremo Keith Hackett and, bizarrely, a refusal to take to the pitch until moments before the kick-off. Meanwhile players, managers and supporters alike to continue to bemoan officials, with certain referees being subject to particularly nasty campaigns against them by heroic internet keyboard warriors.

Like any football supporter, from my seat above the halfway line I can see all the howlers the officials make: I wince knowingly as over-hasty yellow cards lead inevitably to the ref “losing control of the game” - “he’s made a rod for his own back”. Like every other supporter of every other team I am convinced there is some sort of conspiracy against Argyle as We Always Get Sh*t Refs. Readers of this blog will recall a heated rant of mine directed against Pat Miller recently, for his performance officiating in the Ipswich game.

However, my reaction, and that of the football world in general, to the standard of refereeing is manifestly unfair. The problem, if any there be, does not lie with the officials. Refereeing is a highly-skilled, high-pressure job which, in the main, is carried out to extraordinarily high standards. Referees come under more detailed, pin-point scrutiny than ever before - when decisions on incidents which happen in the blink of an eye are criticised on the basis of frame-by-frame analysis, as they frequently are on Sky, something is seriously wrong. Moreover, referees are having to work on continually shifting sands, as FIFA and UEFA issue directive after directive explaining how certain aspects of certain laws are to be interpreted, precisely which tackles are to be punished by straight red cards and so forth. Time after time, referees are criticised - by those who should know better - for merely acting on the instructions of the game’s governing bodies.

And the results are plain to see. Fewer and fewer people are offering themselves as referees. Qualified refs are resigning in droves - at all levels of the game. Incidents of violent physical abuse of referees are far from unusual, by players, coaches and fans: verbal abuse and intimidation normative. The ref is seen as fair game for anyone and everyone - no wonder hardly anyone wants to take up reffing. Neil Warnock, in his latest outburst, argued that the same old refs were appointed, assessed and promoted by the same old administrators and bemoaned the lack of former professionals refereeing. This may well be the case. But the truth is, unlike cricket, former professional footballers have little or no interest in refereeing. Whilst referees are now - rightly - full time professionals, the rewards offered bear little comparison with what can be earned on the punditry circuit, especially in this age of live critique from the studio in front of the laptop. Refereeing also requires a considerable sight more hard work - and ability - than simply mouthing off, with or without dramatic pauses a la Garth Crooks. If Neil Warnock wants to persuade his senior players that when they retire, what they should do is get into refereeing, good luck is all I can say.

There is also a more sinister agenda at play. Watch any live match now, especially on Sky, and notice how *desperate pundits and commentators are to highlight refereeing errors and raise controversy. Partly that can be explained by the need to tell viewers how dramatic and exciting the game is, regardless of the reality, in order to persuade them to continue to part with their monthly subscription. But listen also to the remedies proposed. Again and again, from pundits and commentators we hear the demand for video technology: either because it’s “fairer on the ref” or because “the game nowadays is just too important to be decided by human error”. Both these explanations are of course the highest cant: there is no way in the world that diminishing the referee’s authority, as video technology inevitably does, can be described as being fairer on him. And the notion that the game’s importance has increased because of the fantastical sums of money involved at the very highest end is proof positive that the so-called football industry has an unspeakably high and unrealistic view of its own importance. Human error is an essential - the most essential - part of the game. Without it, you have two teams of robots: artistic and skilful robots, assuredly, but robots nonetheless. No, the reason video technology is called for *so consistently by the Sky pundits is that, not content with paying the game’s wages, Sky now wish to decide the outcome of the games. Inevitably, it will be their technology that is used to call goal -line decisions, penalty decisions and the like. And I am far from comfortable with the idea that the results of games should lie, potentially, in the hands of Murdoch and in the hands of a company with *so much invested in the continued success of the Big Four.

At least with a human referee, you can be confident that, however poor the decision-making, there is no vested interest there. Unlike everyone else involved on a Saturday, the officials genuinely are neutral and genuinely are not cheating. And this, really, is the unfairest part of the criticism of referees of all. On a matchday afternoon, EVERYONE is to a greater or lesser extent, looking to cheat. Diving, shirt-tugging, holding, discreet and deliberate handballs - all part and parcel of the game and increasingly, sadly, accepted as such. The only people not cheating are the officials. And yet, whenever cheating occurs it is the referee, not the players, not the managers who encourage it, not the fans who demand it, but the referee who is castigate for failing to prevent it. Cheating has become so endemic in our game that we increaingly either turn a blind eye to it or actively praise those who cheat. Take Steven Gerrard, a habitual and egregious cheat - which of our sanguine and erudite pundits or commentators has EVER called him on it? Stevie G is beyond criticism - and yet he is a regular, cynical cheat. The England captain has built a career on the intimidation of referees - who calls him on it? He is brave, he is courageous - he is a dirty bullying cheat. How can players like Gerrard and Terry be the role models we claim they are? And if you think their behaviour does not matter or does not influence children, go and watch any junior game above about U13 level - you will see EXACTLY the same antics, despite, I should say, the efforts of the coaches. Neither Gerrard nor Terry nor any of the habitual cheaters should be anywhere near the England team - but of course their “marketability” demands we turn a blind eye to their antics. It is *so much easier to blame the referee.

Cheating - of all flavours - should be punished by an instant red card, a points deduction for subsequent offences - by a team, not a specific player - and bans at every level of the game the player is involved in should apply. I await the howls of protest - but until and unless cheating is as unacceptable as it is accepted now, nothing will change. Referees will continue to be hounded, they will continue to make mistakes and Andy Gray will continue to claim that video technology will solve all these problems at a stroke. He will be able to apply his expert knowledge from the comfort of the sofa and decide the outcome of the Merseyside derby at a stroke. Remind me - who did he play for?