FA's New Initiative: Respect, What Respect?

Respect: re·spect, verb: to hold in esteem or honour or to show regard or consideration for. (Dictionary.com)

The Respect Campaign was introduced so that referees could manage proceedings on the pitch in a manner which was better than they way they did last season. The two definitions I've chosen from dictionary.com are so varied, that even I'm bemused (as Maire put it in her article) as to which aspect of respect the F.A. was referring to in the "Respect Campaign."

Of course, the first definition is what we understand respect to be. The players are expected to treat the referees "honourably" during a game—and that was something which could easily be interpreted from the words, Respect Campaign.

That said, the second definition seems a lot more apt. "To show regard or consideration for," is perhaps the best way to define the word "respect" in Respect Campaign. Last season, players seemed to be gathering around referees, who, at times seemed to be lost in games involving big decisions and a lot of controversy.

But the F.A. seems to have thought that the players don't even respect the referee's right to act as such. So, I suppose that the "respect" here was added so that the players respect the refeere's rights.

I suppose that the word "respect" served more than one purpose in that case then!

The simple fact is that this campaign has yet again taken the focus off the referees when they officiate. The focus has been further shifted onto the players, and their reactions to referees' decisions.

Rob Styles had a poor game at Old Trafford on Saturday. Why? He got the penalty decision horribly wrong, and that one mistake could have made all the difference in the match. Another referee who seems to only want to follow the rule book and use no common sense whatsoever, Steve Bennett, couldn't even apply the rules which he had in his head in the game which he officiated.

Mike Riley, who I still hold accountable for Arsenal losing that famous 49 game unbeaten streak, had an incredibly poor game at Stamford Bridge last week as well.

All in all, we've ended up talking about the refereeing decisions more than the games which have taken place.

I've not even mentioned until now, the "ghost goal" which was awarded to Reading against Watford, when the linesman awarded Reading a goal when the ball was clearly three to four yards away from the goal mouth.

How can anyone respect referees when they are so poor?

Of course, they are humans and human beings make mistakes. But Rob Styles was three yards away from the action when J'Lloyd Samuel tackled Cristiano Ronaldo and even Ronaldo didn't claim a penalty when he went down. It was an astounding decision which left me gobsmacked.

When a player from one of the teams you support makes a mistake, won't you be angry with him? Won't you hold him accountable for what has happened? When a manager loses four to five games in a row, or makes certain mistakes in tactics, isn't he held accountable?

Why aren't the referees being held responsible then?

This, like most streets, is a two-way street. You can't expect the players and managers alike to respect the role of a referee unless they come out and explain what went through their heads when they made the decision. Of course, that increases the pressure but don't the managers and players have to face the same press when they've made mistakes?

Jose Mourinho suggested this, and initially, was laughed at for doing so. Slowly and steadily though, referees seem to be becoming far too incompetent and their regulatory bodies seem to be going easy on them as well.

How can we expect a proper game of football when we can't even trust the arbiter?

It's high time for the F.A. to understand the real meaning of respect - because we're not respecting referee's rights to officiate a game here, we're trying to honour them for the job that they do and that is something that most fans are unable to do as of now.