Poor ref's just the man in the middle in cup blame game
GREG BAUM
June 24, 2010

THERE are two loud, constant and increasingly irritating droning sounds at the 2010 World Cup. One, the vuvuzelas, is unique to South Africa. The other is generic to football. It is the dismal chorus raised by players, managers and fans against referees. Call it the Fergie syndrome.

The referee is the universal scapegoat. Carded players blame refs. Losing coaches blame refs. Teams who have goals disallowed blame assistant refs. Teams who have goals allowed against them blame assistant refs. Lowly teams blame refs, saying they are over-awed by the superpowers. Superpowers blame refs anyway.

New Zealand captain Ryan Nelsen took the blame game to a new low while revelling in his team's improbable draw against Italy, saying the ref had ruined the game. Oh, that Australia could be so ruined. Australia have a victim mentality about World Cup refs. Certainly, they have been unlucky. But waggling an accusing finger at refs conveniently obscures more fundamental problems. There is a common form of criticism, used by all teams and managers: ''I'm not saying he cost us the game, but … [insert latest whine here].'' Fergie rarely bothers with the caveat.

FIFA, by its inaction, is complicit in the persecution. It rarely defends referees, nor does it punish tirades against them. At best, it maintains silence, itself an accusation. Perhaps referees have been trigger-happy when pulling out red cards this tournament. Why would they not be? It is the one form of authority they can assert to counter this whole-of-game conspiracy.

And it is a conspiracy. Players concoct elaborate hoaxes to fool referees. One side complains bitterly when he is fooled, the other even more so when he is not. Often as not, the supposed defendant will in some way wink at the supposed plaintiff. Bastian Schweinsteiger did it in one form to Tim Cahill after Australia's game against Germany; Daniele De Rossi in another to Nelsen after ''winning'' a penalty for Italy against New Zealand. Simulation is a problem in all games, but it is institutionalised in football. It is regarded as a skill.

When the deed is done, players from both sides cluster indignantly around the ref, one lot demanding sanction, the other pressing the not-guilty case. It is a blot on the game. Both rugby codes do not tolerate it. The AFL also empowers umpires to award a further free kick, or reverse it, if they are assailed in this way.

Who would be a ref? As in other codes, football has become faster, players have grown stronger and the game is more physical. The gathering in the penalty box for a free kick or corner is a free-for-all, a schoolyard punch-up. The referee cannot blow for every foul, but is damned both for the many he does not punish and the one he does.

TV repeats in vivid slo-mo what the referee sees once, at full speed, if his view is not obscured. He is one, they are many. Yet he has no recourse, no device to second guess, other than an audio link to a pitch-side colleague with limited authority. Football loftily snubs technology in decision-making. And to think cricket was always the stuffy sport!

The crux of the problem is that the conformation of the game means even a good referee has too much influence. With one decision, he can change the course of a game. With one red card - or two yellow - he can change the course of the ones to come. It invests him with power, but not authority. It is an uncomfortable position. Football's scales of justice are awry, the punishment so often not fitting the crime.

A ref would want to be sure when he is making a decision that leaves a team a man short for the rest of the match and undermanned in matches to come. A ref would want to be sure in making a decision that leads to a goal. Yet how can he be sure in the place of organised, orchestrated player ingenuity? There appears to be little consistency between refs, and between games. Some refs will issue repeated cautions before reaching for the yellow card, some reach for red straight away. Some refs use cards not necessarily to apply the rules, but to keep control. Prima facie, this tournament has been no dirtier than any other and - to judge from scratchy replays - cleaner than most historically, yet it seems as if a player is sent off every other match.

Football being football, no correspondence can be entered into afterwards. There is little or no review, no tribunal and no appeal, merely a disciplinary committee that may mitigate punishment, but never overturn it. In 2010, it is positively feudal. In moments, this already has been a breathtaking World Cup. Sadly, badly, too many breaths have been expended in condemnation of referees. Again.



http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/poor-refs-just-the-man-in-the-middle-in-cup-blame-game-20100623-yz5l.html