This article originally appeared in Issue 15 of the Football United Fanzine available to view here
When are we getting bark-chippings installed?
To the foot stomping outrage of some fans, there exists statistical evidence which points to the fact that United don’t concede less, or win more penalties at home than other clubs, so we can finally put the myth that refereeing decisions favour the big clubs to bed can’t we? The stats say so. Night, night, don’t let the bed bugs bite … *alarm clock*
From my own perspective what the endless, ‘yes they do’/’no they don’t’ repetitions in this particular line of discourse (discourse being a polite way of saying petulant bickering) fail to address, for the most part, is the actual problem (although I wouldn’t say that this failure is in any way exclusive to this debate in particular, unfortunately).
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘bigger clubs’ get preferential treatment, as, as a general rule, the bigger the club is perceived to be the more fans they will attract and have in attendance for their matches. Those fans in turn will make considerably more noise than those of the visiting ‘smaller club’ (or at least be in ownership of the potential to be louder, when called upon). Why would we imagine that in any given situation a borderline decision wouldn’t go in the favour of the majority, i.e. those who shout the loudest? Before you start picking holes (holes I’ve left there intentionally of course) that’s not my entire argument, and not even the real argument, so nerr.
The ‘bigger clubs’ also, by their very nature, attract the ‘biggest managers’. Those managers with the biggest reputations, biggest egos, biggest celebrity and therefore the biggest opportunity to sway opinion with choice words. Again, why would we imagine that in any given situation a fifty-fifty wouldn’t go in favour of Sir Alex and Manchester United; knowing full well that if it didn’t then SAF would make damned sure the world knew about it?
"Excuse me! I refuse to speak to Bifurcated.co.uk ever again."
Despite a curious public perception, referees aren’t autonomous, they are employed and trained by the footballing authorities. Referees are human beings like some of us, they’re someone’s son or daughter, their primary functions, wants and needs are similar to ours – some of them even have feelings. Imagine being trapped in an enclosed space with twenty four people who had no respect for you or what you represent. In addition, at least 80% of those people will be completely impetuous arseholes with a propensity towards violent acts. Just to make things a little trickier, why not imagine that all your exit points from this uncomfortable space are being guarded by 50,000 people, who not only empathise entirely with the arseholes, but encourage them.
I asked myself this (tongue in cheek) question a while back for another article, the working title of which was, ‘Why is the game still entirely at the mercy of the whim of a select few, often unhinged, unquestionably unfit, pathological egotists often found in excruciatingly tight black shorts (a subtle attempt by the manufacturers to remove them from the gene pool)?’ Although not overtly apparent from that particular sentence perhaps, my conclusion was that I absolutely feel that referees are the fall guys for the inadequacies of the governing body’s outdated and unedifying maneuverings (with no intention of insinuating that I’ve stumbled across some new revelation, which again is part of the problem).
Football bosses have not empowered referees, or supplied them with the correct tools to deal with football and all it’s nuances and intricacies. They show no support before, during, or after events, even washing their hands of flash points entirely on occasion. They just leave them firefighting, at the mercy of whoever wants to take a shot. With such a shocking display of abandonment of their duty of care to their employees, I’m surprised more referees don’t strike or even sue.
"I'm not listening, I've just super-glued my hand to my head?"
There is a faction of the political left that have politely bastardized a Gerald Massey quote, which equates to, “Take the truth as authority, not the authority as truth”. When super-imposed over the problems we encounter weekly with effectively officiating the game from top down, or bottom up, it makes sense (as it does politically) and enables those charged with refereeing to be afforded a fighting chance. Currently the authority in football provides us with our ‘truth’. A decision is made based on their rules, with no flexibility to adjust when things occur beyond those rigid parameters. The conclusion (or ‘truth’) in this instance does not provide justice, and so to approach it differently; when you discover the truth about any given incident in football, whether that be during, after, two weeks after, or two years after, you respond appropriately, you allow the truth to lead the action that deals with the event (forming the authority).
It’s very simple. The grey areas that make the above seem like the unrealistic ramblings of a pleb, are only grey because the laws aren’t strong enough in one sense, yet are entirely inflexible in an other. MAKE THE LAWS STRONG ENOUGH IN ONE SENSE, AND YET FLEXIBLE IN ANOTHER! Eradicate the grey by re-writing the rules which confuse and contradict. Replace the ones that don’t make practical sense. When they’re good and ready they could even consider making it even easier, and fairer, by introducing technology.
In the current footballing climate, if I were a referee, I know what I’d be telling the governing bodies to do with their whistle.
I’d like to ask all of you to watch the Yves Hinant, Eric Cardot and Lehericy Delphine 2009 documentary entitled, The Referees before entering into any ‘my gran could do better’ hackneyed grumblings in the future. It’s a true testament to just how difficult the job is (you can also have a good old titter at Howard Webb’s short-comings if that’s what you’re into).
There is also an alternative theory: Ssssshhh … It’s a conspiracy
