Referees aren't all that bad 

Call me old-fashioned but I love a conspiracy theory. You know the thing: JFK was murdered by the CIA, the American government have UFO's in their possession, the Millennium Dome will benefit us all. But what about my new theory, that referees are doing a good job in the Premiership? 

I call this a conspiracy theory because this seaso
started off as the last one ended - with almost non-stop victimisation of referees on practically every game. Match of the Day could not resist a dig at almost every slightly controversial incident. The Sunday papers would mark referees as low as '0' and headlines would scream out that Mr So-and-So should be retired to non-league football. Not any more, or at least not until I am proven wrong this weekend. 

Two recent incidents

You see, I believe there is work going on behind the scenes to make sure that the heat is taken off of referees to allow some form of stability. The only problem is that two incidents within a week threatened to explode in the faces of those in charge of the conspiracy. 

Firstly, there was the incident between Matt Elliott of Leicester and ‘his assault’ (Alan Hansen's words, not mine) on Michael Owen. And secondly an incident with our old friend, David Beckham, in the European Cup, where he allegedly kicked out at a player. I say allegedly, not because I am afraid of lawsuits but because I did not see it. 

The whole point of my article is to raise the chestnut of ‘trial by television’. Up to now I have been an advocate of not using television images for the purposes of retribution after a match, but I am afraid my views are changing. 

I do not want to discuss the second incident as my views would be based on comments by the press, but the first incident in the match between Leicester and Liverpool is worth a few words. 

How could he have missed it?

Tucked away on page 59 of the Sun newspaper on Friday 24 September were 52 words saying how the referee has been asked to look again at the incident as he "will claim he simply could not see the challenge from his angle during Saturday's match". Now I find that very hard to believe. 

When Owen played the ball forward he was challenged by a forearm to the face with, in my opinion, absolutely no attempt to win the ball whatsoever. As the pundits on television said, it got worse every time you saw it. 

Now I am amazed that the referee, Uriah Rennie claimed not to have seen what happened. Not only was his view unobstructed, he was so close he had to jump over Michael Owen as he hit the ground. Sometimes in refereeing you can be too close to an incident to gat a proper view but I don’t see how that could have been the case here. 

Or maybe he didn't

In fact, I think there is evidence that the referee saw the incident because he actually started to go to his whistle for the foul but seemed to play an advantage. Now, I have always tried to let a game flow but never when I suspected a serious injury. Michael Owen appeared unconscious. How serious was that? 

If, and I say if, the referee did see it and played an advantage then he should, no must, take disciplinary action. That kind of challenge must be removed from our game. Yet this assault did not even receive an admonishment. 

TV evidence has to be used

This single foul has made me change my mind on using television for misconduct. If such an incident is clearly visible on television, then it must be used as evidence. Martin O'Neil the Leicester Manager didn't suggest it should not be used against his player, he just said ‘one rule for everyone’, and with that I agree. 

The media have been lenient in their treatment of the referee which brings me back to my theory. Have the press been told to ease off, or else risk alienating the match officials to such an extent they will damage the game from which they earn their megabucks?

John Moore 

© J. Moore 1999

Back To Contents