And Another Thing...| Respect Campaign Must Work Both Ways

Has any Football Association campaign fallen so flat as the recent “Respect” initiative?

If one has, it is certainly hard to remember it. Imploring players and managers alike to show more reverence for their officials, the initiative aimed to highlight the difficult job the men in the middle do, and help to make it easier.

Unfortunately, it has only served to shine a spotlight on the many poor decisions referees make, and put them under even more intense pressure.

External factors haven’t helped. Last week’s ruling by Lord Griffiths that West Ham owe Sheffield United £30m—on the basic acceptance that Carlos Tevez single-handedly (and illegally) kept the Hammers in the Premiership—has only served to heighten the scrutiny on every errant refereeing decision, with each one potentially deciding final league positions.

But the referees haven’t done themselves any favours either. If Stuart Atwell’s infamous “phantom goal” (awarded to Reading against Watford in the Championship) last week wasn’t bad enough, Rob Styles’ terrible penalty decision this weekend, for Manchester United against Bolton, certainly was.

Styles’ decision to award Cristiano Ronaldo a penalty, after J’Lloyd Samuel had clearly won the ball, is not the first important mistake the man from Hampshire has made.

He was also responsible for the incredulous decision to award Florent Malouda a penalty at Anfield last season—after the Frenchman had jumped over the ball and into a non-plussed Steve Finnan—and also the spotkick given to Birmingham at St. Andrews—after Manchester City’s Sun Jihai had (fairly) won a 50-50 tussle with Gary McSheffrey.

Arguably, all three decisions had a critical impact on the outcome of their respective games.

The disappointing thing for Bolton fans is that Rob Styles will suffer no punishment for his error, and will be in charge of a Premiership game next week—the unfortunate sides being Hull and Tottenham.

The annoying thing for everyone else, however, is that even if Styles had been punished, it would have likely been with a simple one game demotion. Compared to the punishment for a player’s error in any game (a red card and three match ban, for example) and it hardly seems fair.

Compare it to a manager’s potential career implication after an unjust defeat, and it certainly isn’t.

If the FA really want respect for their referees, then there needs to be far more accountability. Tacit admissions of guilt, after the outcome has long been decided, are not enough.

One of many examples of this double standard happened in Everton’s recent clash at Stoke. During the game, Stoke defender Leon Cort clearly handled the ball in the box, under no obvious pressure.

Alan Wiley, official in charge of the match, initially awarded a penalty—then inexplicably changed his mind and gave a freekick on the edge of the box.

Replays conclusively proved that a penalty was the correct decision.

Incensed by this error, Everton manager David Moyes complained vociferously to the fourth official. For his—completely accurate—criticisms, he was sent to the stands.

Charged with improper conduct by the FA, the Scotsman will now face a large fine and, potentially, a touchline ban—despite being correct in his actions.

For his mistake, Wiley has faced no sanctions.

Something has to be changed. As Moyes said after the incident, “you've got to earn respect, it cannot just be given." When the potential punishments for managers and players are more severe, and handed out more frequently, than those for referees, it will never be easy to foster respect for the “Teflon” men who brandish the cards.

There are many ways to change things, to help referees earn the respect they so desperately require. Firstly, the recruitment process for referees could be overhauled.

Instead of getting referees who have worked themselves through the grassroots system, why not hire ex-professionals? They know the game best, and they understand the tricks and body language of their fellow players better than anybody else.

More importantly, if they have achieved anything in their career, they will command instant respect from their peers.

The problem may be financing it. Ex-professionals will naturally demand a higher fee, but with so much money swelling around the game—why cannot some of it be siphoned off for referees?

Many might argue that retired players will not want to keep treading the boards every Saturday—after all, that is why they retired in the first place—but the reality is that many of them sit on Sky Sports every Saturday, happy to take the couple hundred quid and opportunity to stay close to the game that such a job gives them.

Offer them tens of thousands of pounds and the opportunity to keep fit—would there not be at least enough takers to fulfill a league schedule?

At the very least, it is a path that the FA should seriously consider.

Or, to choose another path, perhaps the bigwigs at Soho Square could take a leaf out of the book of the biggest sport across the pond—the NFL.

In American football, coaches of the 32 professional teams have the opportunity to “challenge” any call made by the referee throughout the game, at which point the men in black (and white, as is the US idiosyncrasy) review video footage to see if the correct decision was made.

If it wasn’t, the original decision is revoked and replaced by the correct call. If the original decision was also the correct one, then the coach who “challenged” the play loses one of his three timeouts—tactical periods that can prove crucial when the game is on the line.

A similar system could easily be introduced to football, without too many amendments.

More importantly, it could work.

Like in the NFL, each Premiership manager could be given the option to challenge a referee’s decision, at which point the game would be stopped (the next time the ball went dead), and video footage could be consulted.

If the decision made was wrong, then it could be amended. If it was proved right, however, then the mistaken manager would lose one of his three tactical substitutions (however, if injury befell his team he could still make the change).

This would have a massive impact. First of all, managers and players would no longer be able to solely blame referees for poor results. As they would have the right to appeal any perceived error by the officials, excuses that involved the referees would no longer hold water.

As a result, managers and players would have to think more carefully about their complaints to officials. If the decision was so blatantly wrong—why didn’t they challenge it?

Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, such a rule would finally give the referees the opportunity for their decisions to be publically proved correct. With every incorrect challenge, managers would have to accept that the men in the middle actually know what they are doing, Equally, it would show that managers get it wrong just as often as their bête noirs.

Eventually, it would encourage respect.

Even correct decisions would lead to more respect for the officials, as they would be in a position to admit their mistake and retrospectively make the correct decision. The referees would still be serving to fairly treat the players and manager, but the system would now enable them to do that with much more effectiveness.

Whether introducing the opportunity to “challenge” decisions would improve officiating is hard to prove, but it is hard not to argue that something needs to change.  At the moment, too many referees are making too many frequent mistakes—that cost teams points, and managers’ jobs.

If Lord Griffiths can rule that one player conclusively changed the course of a season, then it logically follows that one referee can manage the same feat. While that remains the case, Rob Styles et al. need every aid possible to help them make the correct decisions.

For as long as they don’t, referees will never have the respect the FA so desperately want.

To read the previous And Another Thing, about the outstanding work of Gareth Southgate at Middlesbrough, click here.