Ref justice

The more different sports I watch as I travel around the world the more clear it becomes that the problems both with the refereeing and the rules in soccer is the exception rather than the rule. Whereas other sports have set out to protect their referees and make their jobs easier the Tweedledum and Tweedledee approach of UEFA and FIFA seems determined to make their job as hard as possible and seem all too happy to allow their referees be cast as a pantomime villain for one half or the other of the viewing public. To do his job a referee needs respect. A referee needs to be able to make bold decisions that are going to affect the game one way or another. And he needs to know that when he does make these decisions he can do so without the fear of firstly being intimidated by the players but also to know that he is not going to be slandered by the managers and press afterwards as they attempt to whip up a frenzy of rage in the aftermath of the game.

In the last few years there have been 2 high profile instances of good referees who received death threats. In 2005 Anders Frisk, who was considered by Pierluigi Colina to be the only other referee qualified to ref the 2002 World Cup final, was forced to retire from refereeing due to death threats from Chelsea fans. Now you could argue that there is not a lot that the authorities could do about this except that these death threats were a direct result of the lies about Frisk which Jose Mourinho spread after the first leg of the Chelsea Barcelona champions league tie where he claimed to have seen Frisk invite the Barcelona manager into his dressing room at half time. Mourinho later admitted that he had not in fact witnessed this. Now in most sports you would expect that the governing body would take a stern line against this sort of behavior. After all bringing the game into disrepute and forcing one of the worlds top referees to resign due his slander are pretty serious charges. The UEFA referee's chief, Volker Roth, labelled Mourinho an "enemy of football" in the aftermath of this incident. However UEFA´s official response was a paltry fine and a 2 match touchline ban. To put that in perspective that is a similar punishment to the one given to Steve Staunton for kicking a water bottle (at nobody) in frustration during an Ireland Germany European championship qualifier. Not exactly what you would call cracking down hard on bringing the game into disrepute. When you compare this to the 2 year bans handed out to all those involved in the Harlequins ´bloodgate´ scandal recently it kind of puts things in perspective.

Then last year in the Champions League semi-final Chelsea were at it again when they got knocked out by Barcelona after what was admittedly a bad performance from Tom Ovrebo the referee. Drogba who wasn´t even on the pitch at the final whistle stormed onto the pitch to abuse the referee before shouting ít´s a fucking disgrace´ directly into the camera. Jose Bosingwa also seemed to suggest that the referee had been bought in his post match comments. UEFA´s reaction to this was to ban them 3 and 2 games respectively (after appeal), this after they had made a public spectacle of the game at the second biggest game of the year. Every so often UEFA will comment on their ¨Respect¨ campaign to protect referees when in reality their clamp down on dissent makes the Irish regulator look like an authoritarian despot.

Now people will argue that it is only natural for players to get annoyed and aggressive when the referee makes bad decisions, but part of the reason for the referee is making bad decisions in the first place is the intimidation he experiences from the players. It is impossible to imagine that having 8 or 9 players crowding around you abusing you every time you make a call against them cannot effect all but the best referees. It is hard to believe that a rule similar to that in rugby where only the captain can approach the referee would not reduce the pressure on referees and improve their performances, however given that the footballing authorities would be loathe to start handing out suspensions to players like Wayne Rooney for showing ´passion´ for the game maybe they need to look at the introduction of a video ref if they want to clean up footballs image. Although in fairness when dealing with a sport where the constant questioning of the referees parentage and nocturnal activities is considered passion for the game maybe the problem runs a lot deeper than just the players on the pitch.

Almost every big money sport you can think of now has introduced a TV match official which players can appeal to in the event that they think the referee has made a mistake. From NFL to cricket this technology has been introduced with no major problems. In most cases each team has a set number of challenges it can make and for each challenge they make where the referee on the field is not overruled they lose one challenge. This leaves the referee on the field free to make marginal calls secure in the knowledge that if the players know that they have been wronged they can easily appeal the decision and have it overturned. This allows the referee to make what would be controversial decisions knowing that those decision can then be verified by the TV official. The main argument put forward against this technology is that it would cause excessive delays in the game, however when you consider the amount of time that normally elapses in a premiership game between a penalty being given and the penalty being taken due to players surrounding the referee to protest it is hard to imagine that an official in the stands watching 2 or 3 replays of the incident would take any longer.

Compare this to the benefits to the game from introducing this technology:
Firstly you immediately cut out the hounding of the referee by players. If the players are that convinced they have been wronged they will now need to run to their manager instead to get him to issue a challenge to the decision.
Secondly you end up with a fairer game where a teams entire season doesn't end up being decided by the human error of a referee. The cliche that all these decisions even themselves out over the course of a season is patent nonsense. Being denied a legitimate penalty in tight champions league tie cannot be offset by getting an undeserved penalty when you are already 2 0 up and cruising against some cannon fodder team that is fighting relegation.
Thirdly it cuts down on diving as now the referee should be more willing to give cards for diving as the player always has recourse to the video ref. It also cuts down on diving by forcing the manager of the team to decide which decisions to challenge and which not to challenge. If a player is constantly throwing themselves to the ground but even their own manager refused to call for a free it would soon make a mockery of certain managers claims that their players do not dive.
Fourthly it will allow the media to actually concentrate on the football rather than spending much of their post match analysis criticising the referees performance.
Finally it will actually require managers to justify their performance and not allow them to hide behind the permanent persecution complex some of them seem to have as regards decisions made against their teams. I have no doubt that in the past poor refereeing decisions has made the difference for some managers between keeping their jobs or not, at least this way it separates ability from bad luck.

Unfortunately the footballing authorities seem content to stick their heads in the sand and continue to allow footballers act however they wish while entire seasons are decided by arbitrary decision and football continues to grab the headlines for the wrong reasons.