On Tuesday evening, after Manchester United had equalled the Premier League’s record margin of victory, BT Sport spent most of their analysis on a penalty decision that Rio Ferdinand claimed had “ruined the game”.
Given that it came after 86 minutes with the score at 6-0, Southampton’s defenders probably shut that stable door as they bolted into dreadful second-minute challenges.
It is fun to imagine the same scrutiny received by referees applied to those who criticise them. “The thing is, Jake, the commentator has got two names mixed up. It might be an easy mistake to make but he’s paid good money to get it right.” “The thing is, Daniel Storey’s column was only readable because a sub-editor took out the waffle.”
Tim Sherwood described Tottenham midfielder Tanguy Ndombele as “a runner” last month; here’s the hot take: people aren’t perfect.
VAR may have been ostensibly introduced to assist referees, but beneath the thin facade most people predicted the indirect result. It simply added an extra layer of scrutiny and another excuse for outrage.
If VAR was ever intended to be the referee’s best friend, they fell out somewhere down the dotted offside line. It created a mania that broadcasters must have foreseen and have feasted upon. With every game now televised, referees are being shot at from more angles than a West Bromwich Albion goalkeeper.
Perhaps VAR is only partly to blame for the new era of refereeing witch-hunts. It was coincidentally introduced at the point that football’s tribalism reached its unpleasant peak and referees became Public Enemy No 1. Accusations of incompetence became accusations of crime, particularly on social media. Or, as one club blogger with over 90,000 Twitter followers put it: “F–k off [Referee A and B], you cheating w—ers.”
Indeed, although one suspects that if there was a cabal of officials colluding against multiple clubs every weekend they might have slightly higher aspirations than the odd questionable penalty.
To an extent, although it is not acceptable, those accusations are broadly harmless. They are tweeted in the heat of the moment by supporters who squeeze too much of their personality through the prism of their club support. But this week the nonsense stepped up a level.
According to the BBC, Southampton asked that Lee Mason and Mike Dean – the officials for their last two defeats – be taken off match duties involving their club. It is a lamentable, miserable thing to do, not least because it plays into the paranoia complex some fans now have as their natural state.
There are two theories here, and one must be true. The first is that referees are no less able than they were before. It’s not them that has changed, it’s us; decisions are more magnified, mistakes are remembered for longer and, in a climate of extreme tribalism, every decision becomes controversial because one set of supporters is destined to vehemently agree with it. Controversy inevitably becomes synonymous with incompetence. The old adage about referees is that the best are unnoticed; nothing and nobody can stay unnoticed now.
The second theory is that standards have slipped, and many subscribe to it. But then we must ask why that is? Players seek to gain an advantage from conning officials, the pressure is ramped up because everything is sold as mattering so damn much. And now clubs are performing their own false victim stunts. Is that conducive to better officiating?
One of the most bizarre aspects of this debate is that some seem to believe that there is a potentially brilliant collection of undiscovered referees locked in a cupboard somewhere by Mike Riley (with Jeff Winter presumably acting as guard). There aren’t; these are the best referees in the country.
And why on earth would there be? Starting at grassroots level after a County FA course, it takes around three years of matches, assessments and exams to get to Level 4, where you can finally hope to earn more than £30 per match. Another two years of assessments, exams, fitness tests and interviews and you might just get to League Two level and break through the £300-per-game barrier.
At Championship level, where you are recognised as one of the top 40 referees in the country, you earn £680 per match alongside a modest annual salary that allowed for professionalism as recently as 2016. It will have taken you 10 years and countless jumped hoops to get there.
And for what? To be one of the 60 per cent of amateur referees who reported severe verbal abuse. To be one of the 36 per cent who experienced physical threats or the 15 per cent who suffered physical abuse? And then, when you make it to the very top, to be accused of being a cheat, have your every decision overanalysed and be routinely abused on social media.
This is a crisis. Referees lack the incentive to aim for the top and the rewards come with baggage even for those who do. The mythical Narnia world where perfect referees wait to be called up to service is a fiction. Human error will always exist because human error has always existed.
And if we expect wanton tribalism from wilfully blind supporters, that only increases the responsibility of clubs and managers to rail against it. They do know better; they have just pretended not to for too long to use referees as a useful distraction from their own failings.
Daniel Storey’s i football column is published in print and online on Friday mornings. You can follow him on Twitter @danielstorey85
More from Daniel Storey
- The Premier League schedule is a mess that could have been avoided
- Giroud is his own worst enemy – too good and too nice for Chelsea to let go
- Project ‘Bigger’ Picture: An alternative vision for the future of English football
- Liverpool have become complacent and Klopp has to find the root cause
- The FA should punish Covid rule-breakers – apologies are not enough
from Football – inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/36JLHZE
Post a Comment