Picking up the pieces...

Well - thats Keith Hackett's job after a disastrous weekend for referees in the Premier League, and on the back of the Watford v Reading controversy too. Matches were riddled with errors, several of them match-changing. Hackett's own position could be called into question. But first, lets analyse the key incidents.

Firstly, the Merseyside derby. I thought Mike Riley did a little better than the previous week, although at times he still stifled the flow of the game rather. Liverpool had a third goal harshly disallowed for a pretty insignificant foul. But the big controversy is Tim Cahill's red card. He dived in to the challenge, wound up by an earlier altercation with Arbeloa, though I don't think he expected the red card. Many think its harsh. That said, I can see why it was given. Cahill dives in with a lot of force and aggression - arguably "excessive force". His legs wrap around the opponent as he tackles in a scissors movement, arguably "endangering safety". Those two make it serious foul play, and a red card. Personally, I'd go with yellow, but its certainly not a totally incorrect decision by Riley - perhaps a harsh one.

Now - Mr Styles. What can I say? He has history, but yet again he's made a terrible blunder, a perfectly timed tackle punished with a penalty at a crucial time in the game. Styles had the perfect view, he couldn't have been better placed - the decision defies belief. Given the history Styles has with poor penalty decisions, maybe its time to consider his position on the Select Group of Premier League referees. Consistent errors like this can't be tolerated. More on that later.

Steve Bennett at Wigan. The penalty he gave wasn't as bad a decision as Styles' call, and Bennett didn't have quite such a good view. That said, it is the softest of penalties, and there is barely any contact. City also had a couple of good penalty claims turned down - in both cases Wigan got the free kick, rather bizarrely. The usually reliable Bennett seems to be going downhill rapidly.

Chris Foy should have given Middlesbrough a penalty. Steve Tanner should have sent off Ryan Nelson. Tottenham should have had a penalty for handball by Diarra, although Mike Dean was probably unsighted so that one is a little more understandable. But six matches with pivotal decisions wrong is not a good average, and a couple of them are inexplicable errors.

Where do we go from here then? How does Keith Hackett pick up the pieces after this weekend? I've been following this blog on the BBC website, which contains all sorts of suggestions as to how to make things better, including the use of technology, sacking Mr Styles, cross-examining referees and demoting about half the Select Group.

As I said last time, the whole culture within the Select Group seems to be wrong. There is favouritism. There is random punishment and demotion. There is public rebuking of referees which can do their confidence no good. And there is a total lack of support when mistakes are made. How can we claim that the Select Group of Professional referees has improved standards when Styles gives a decision like that? What future is there for professional referees?

What we need is some distinction between mistakes. Hackett needs to strike a balance between supporting referees and making them accountable. I have four suggestions:

• Accept mistakes will be made by referees, and don't relegate people simply for odd picky things, especially if they aren't Hackett's favourites. No discrimination!
• Look to see if the mistake made was avoidable. This weekend, Styles and Dean made wrong decisions. Styles had a perfect view, so it was inexplicable. Dean's view was blocked, so the mistake is understandable. If you're going to punish, do it for avoidable mistakes.
• Look at the long-term view. If someone is consistently making avoidable mistakes, do something about it! (Some of you might get who I'm subtly referring to here.) The idea is to improve standards. Alan Wiley had a bad game at Stoke the other week, but its a drop in the ocean of good showings. Styles has been making bad errors for several years (see two ridiculous penalties last season). Don't demote someone for one mistake (as happened with Andy D'Urso and Matt Messias several years ago), but consider the positions of the consistently bad performers.
• Bring new referees through. The Select Group is rather closed off at the moment, with few people joining. The barriers need to be broken down, giving more opportunities for the best Football League referees to make the step up. Competition is healthy! When they do make the step up, make sure they've got the experience to do it, and don't rush them (as with Stuart Attwell). Then we can see some new promising talent succeeding on the Premier League.

Does that sound implausible? Its certainly not how I see it happening at the moment. Combined with support for officials following mistakes, which I rather suspect they don't get, this should ensure some kind of decent future for refereeing in this country.

On the other hand, perhaps we need a total change of direction - with new management. Perhaps the Select Group should be abolished. Either way, if something isn't done, then I can see weekends like this happening more often in the future, which means everyone is talking about the referees and not the football.

Bannister blamed, Attwell escapes

Not surprisingly, the saga of Saturday's bizarre incident in the Watford vs Reading game, where referee Stuart Attwell awarded a goal (on the advice of assistant Nigel Bannister) when the ball clearly went nowhere near the goal, rolls on. Firstly, the game will not be replayed, and the decision stands. Fairly obvious I guess - you can't change history.

But the big question now - what will happen to Attwell and Bannister? It appears that the blame is being placed firmly at the door of the assistant referee. This doesn't surprise me at all. Stuart Attwell is the rising star of refereeing, the youngest ever Premier League referee, who the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials Ltd) have made a special effort to fast-track to the top. They clearly believe he has the ability to do really well and have a long and successful career. Here is a chance to show how a young referee is succeeding at the top level of the game. The international list beckons for Attwell in January, the next step in his rise.

It was all going to plan. Attwell had handled two Premier League games, and didn't hit the headlines. And then comes Saturday, and Bannister's intervention. The plans are in ruins. The rising star has fallen, being involved in making one of the worst ever decisions.

The argument that Attwell isn't at fault doesn't wash with me. He is the referee, and takes ultimate responsibility for any decision made during the match. Yes, to ignore the advice of an experienced assistant like Bannister would be unusual, but shouldn't be discounted. Could Attwell really not see that the ball didn't go into the goal, especially when it was so far away from it? Did the reaction (or not) of the players not arouse some suspicions in his mind? Like it or not, Attwell must take his share of the blame, be it smaller than Bannister's.

But he isn't being blamed. The PGMO don't want their plan for Attwell ruined - all the effort they have put in. Attwell's face fits, he is their future of refereeing, and they don't want to ruin it all over one decision. So they'll hide him away, and he'll come back, like nothing has happened. As for Bannister, who knows what will become of him. As it is, Attwell has an appointment for Saturday, albeit as fourth official as Middlesbrough, but its more than Bannister has.

If someone like Lee Mason or Phil Dowd had made that decision, then would the outcome have been different? I reckon so. They are referees who aren't really among the favoured ones in the Select Group, and they might be considered expendable. But not Attwell. I have nothing against him, and its not his fault that he is being favoured, but if standards are being applied consistently then he should be facing some punishment, like it appears Bannister will.

But this gives rise to a bigger question - why are we seeking someone to blame? Why this need to apportion blame and punish referees? Dermot Gallagher has made an interesting point:
"What we need to do is counsel him (Bannister). He's been on the league list for 10 years and a knee-jerk reaction of kicking him out will do him no good and do the game no good. He's made a mistake towards the end of his career but we need to look at how this occurred. We need to get his confidence back. He must be at rock bottom after the hammering he's had.''

Kicking someone while he is down does no-one any good. But the culture of the PGMO seems to be that when a mistake is made, someone has to be blamed and punished. The blame culture seems to be the way Keith Hackett runs his organisation. Now, some would say that referees need to be accountable for their mistakes, and they do. But to take this to the extreme level it seems to be at now just puts more pressure on individuals, worried about surviving on the Premier League list. It could be that Hackett is being pressured to use this culture of blaming individuals because of the perception that refereeing standards are low. Either way, the blame culture of finding someone and punishing them is, in my opinion, not the best strategy.

Problems of this sort have been around for some time. We see the same referees getting the big games, the ones who are favoured. We see referees who make high profile mistakes kicked into the gutter until everyone is happy they have suffered enough. Here we have, in one high profile incident, evidence of both of these problems. The saga will continue to run.

Clash of the Titans

It was billed as the biggest game of the season so far - the top two clubs in Europe meeting at Stamford Bridge. Indeed that match was just one of the key fixtures of an eventful weekend, which also saw one of the worst gaffes yet witnessed in the world of refereeing.

But lets start at Stamford Bridge. England's most experienced top level referee, Mike Riley, was in charge as Chelsea met Manchester United. The game itself was a bit of a disappointment. Although it had its moments, it was stop-start and rather scrappy. Unfortunately Riley didn't really help it as a spectacle either.

He elected to employ, from start to finish, safe refereeing, penalising every minor infringement in order to retain control of proceedings. In terms of retaining control, this succeeded, and there were no major flashpoints. However, in terms of allowing a free flowing game of football, this approach was stifling. At various points I was shaking my head at the softness of the decisions Riley was giving, and doubtless the players were frustrated too. It appears to be Riley's style - he handles things in a way more often seen on the continent, and in Spain and Italy that sort of performance would be the norm. But in England, players and fans like to see an open, free-flowing game, and Riley's style is not suited to this.

Another advantage of the safe approach is that it should reduce the number of cards needed to keep control. Yet Riley showed eight yellows, including seven to Manchester United. Some of these were undoubtedly harsh, and it could possibly be said that if he was totally consistent in his approach he would have reached double figures. Some of them I agreed with - Ronaldo's booking, for example, for actions which showed a blatant lack of respect, as he appears an arrogant know-it-all who is far from perfect, taking at least one clear dive earlier in the game. However, the game didn't really have many bad tackles, and so for it to end up with eight yellow cards you have to feel that something has gone wrong somewhere.

At least the one big decision Riley had to make he got correct. It was the penalty appeal for Van Der Sar on Malouda, where Van Der Sar takes the ball, so I think no penalty is the correct decision.

Controlling games is one of the key skills of refereeing. Knowing when to let things go and when to clamp down is not easy. Its a delicate balancing act between interfering too much and losing control. Riley did not strike this balance at all, and didn't even give the game a chance to flow. If he'd given it a chance, seen it going out of control and then clamped down, then fair enough. However, he didn't, and its something that we've seen from him before, and is why he is not one of my favourite referees on the Premier League. Mike Dean is perhaps my favourite referee at the moment, and I always enjoy watching him. He handled the West Midlands Derby well, and although there were frequent stoppages and probably a similar number of fouls to the Chelsea game, it didn't seem that way because of the way in which Dean refereed it. He played (as always) stacks of advantages, and gave the impression that he could strike that balance better. It may not have been perfect, but it was an improvement. As referees, we need to contribute to the spectacle and not make life difficult for the players by being overbearing. Rio Ferdinand's frustration at the bizarre conclusion to the game said it all. Not a disastrous performance from Mike Riley, but certainly not a good one.

At least Riley didn't give a goal that clearly wasn't a goal, and in fact didn't go between the posts! For those of you who haven't yet seen the incident, take a look here. Referee Stuart Attwell bizarrely awarded a goal on the advice of his assistant Nigel Bannister. It is a baffling decision by the two, and while the assistant was fooled by an optical illusion, it mystifies me how the Premier League's youngest ever referee could not see that the ball didn't go anywhere near the goal. The referee takes ultimate responsibility for all decisions, and I don't why he didn't intervene and overrule his assistant here. What harm it will do to his chances of continuing the rapid progress he has been making remains to be seen.

We are not finished yet - next there is the controversial disallowed goal at Anfield in Liverpool's match against Stoke. It appears to have been ruled out for offside, with referee Andre Marriner taking the view that one of the Liverpool players interfered with play, even though he didn't touch Gerrard's free kick. Thats not an unreasonable interpretation, although the initial offside decision is marginal. It was probably wrong, but for Liverpool to blame their defeat on this one incident is ridiculous - they did after all have 88 minutes to still try and score and yet failed. Typical Benitez - an excellent result one week, a poor one the next.

I went to see Nottingham Forest play Charlton this week, and saw a distinctly unimpressive performance by young Football League referee Karl Evans. He looked out of his depth, turning down a Charlton penalty claim and harshly sending off Forest substitute Matt Thornhill in an incident-packed game. He, like Riley, was far too fussy for my liking, and Forest boss Colin Calderwood said that he felt like both teams were playing against 12 men! I could extemporise at length about Evans's performance, but I think that's enough discussion for one week! Lets hope I don't have to write as much next week!

Big Match Talking Points...

Two big matches this weekend, both of them on Saturday, and both of them on TV. I found them both entertaining for differing reasons.

Liverpool against Manchester United is possibly the biggest derby match in the world. Alright, the two teams aren't right next to each other, but the two cities have an intense rivalry, as do the two clubs. It had the feeling of a local derby, with the passion, atmosphere and tension.

Howard Webb did a decent job of controlling it. Things got pretty fiery in the first half, but he rode the storm, and a yellow card for Carlos Tevez helped him to calm things down, and play settled down again. Manchester United played poorly, and deserved to lose. Their afternoon came to a bad climax at the end when Vidic was sent off for two yellow cards. The first was for a cynical foul on Robbie Keane, where some people think the card should have been red. I disagree. I think that there is sufficient doubt as to whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity, so I would let him have another chance, as Webb did. It was very close to a red, but not quite. In any case, Vidic used up that other chance with a stupid aerial challenge which saw him receive a second yellow and (eventually, when Howard Webb remembered) a red. It strikes me that the challenge was similar to Kovac's one on Joe Cole in the England game during the week. Anyway, a deserved red card and a good performance from Howard Webb.

The second big game didn't go quite so well for the referee. Manchester City, with their new found wealth and new signing Robinho, took on Chelsea. It was an open, entertaining encounter, with both sides trying to play football. Robinho got his dream debut goal, but Chelsea performed well and deserved their win. Mark Halsey didn't do so well.

He gave rather too many minor free kicks for little infringements, which was infuriating at times. He played advantage well, including on Chelsea's goal, but thats about the only positive. Chelsea should perhaps have had a penalty for a push by Richards on Anelka. Altogether, not ideal, but not disastrous. And then Halsey sent off John Terry.

This is a very strange decision. John Terry does bring Jo down with a cynical foul, a gentle rugby tackle I suppose. However, it is in the centre circle, and one or even two defenders are covering. If Vidic stayed on at Anfield, then Terry cannot be sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity - there is massive doubt. But Halsey has said the sending off was for serious foul play.

That makes it even more mystifying. For serious foul play, a player has to use excessive force or endanger an opponent's safety in his tackle. The challenge, while cynical, did neither of these! I know some people would like to see fouls of this nature punished with a sending off, but the laws don't allow for it, and if the card is for serious play then I don't see how it won't fail to be overturned. A rather bizarre decision, and not a good evening for Halsey.

So, two big matches, one of which went well, the other not so well. The matches keep coming too, with the start of the Champions League group stages this week, followed by a West Midlands derby and Chelsea vs Manchester United on Sunday. Doubtless there will be something to discuss!

Excellent England!

Did anyone expect me to write that as a title? I said on Saturday that if we came out of these two games with six points then it was mission accomplished for Capello. Given yesterday's performance, it was more than that. It was the best England performance for well over two years, and I actually enjoyed watching it!

I went to the Czech Republic friendly less than a month ago, and came home very concerned. There was no shape to the team, and no passion from the players. Capello, to his credit, made the necessary changes, and it worked! Beckham showed he was past it, so a brave decision to play Walcott was made, and it paid off! Lets hope this isn't a one-off from Walcott. Gerrard's absence clearly helped, and the midfield pair of Lampard and Barry were good if not exceptional. What happens when Gerrard returns remains to be seen. Joe Cole deservedly got his place in the team, and did well. Heskey worked well with Rooney, who also did well. The whole team's performance, most importantly, was good. After weathering the early storm, England took the lead, and always looked in control. The sending off didn't change anything, and the win was comfortable.

Refereeing the encounter was Lubos Michel. The match wasn't particularly easy to referee, being full of incidents. I thought Michel controlled the game very well, letting it flow where he could in the first half (notably on Simunic's yellow card, where he played a good advantage before booking him), but clamping down more when things got heated in the second half.

Lots of big decisions though, and this is where Michel fell down. Heskey had a first half penalty appeal, which is a tricky one. You don't often see them given, but that doesn't necessarily make it right, and it did look like he was pulled down. Simunic should have walked in the second half for a cynical block on Rooney, which would have earned him a second yellow card. Inexplicable really once Michel has given the free kick. The Croatian goal shouldn't have stood - there was a high foot in the challenge with John Terry in the build up. On a more positive note, the decision to rule out Lampard's goal appeared correct for a foul off the ball by Heskey.

But the most interesting incident is the sending off. Opinions seem to vary on this - I heard a radio report last night describe it as "harsh", yet several internet reports suggest it was correct! I subscribe to the former view I think. Kovac, as far as I can see, has jumped up to challenge for the ball, not to deliberately elbow Joe Cole. Indeed, I don't think he has used an elbow, and he actually caught him with a flailing arm. I don't think there was deliberate malicious intent. That said, given that the incident occured in a challenge for the ball, it would be viewed as "serious foul play" if Kovac is sent off. For this to be correct, he must have used "excessive force" or have "endangered safety" in his challenge. It could easily be argued that, given Joe Cole's injury, he has used excessive force and his safety was most certainly endangered! But I worry about judging challenges merely by the injuries they cause - many harmless challenges can lead to serious injuries while players suffering horrendous challenges can escape without injury. Overall, I'd suggest a yellow card for recklessness, but not a red. In any case, Simunic should have walked less than five minutes before, and the red card was clearly coming, but I don't think it was correct.

Given the number of big decisions that Lubos Michel faltered on, it can't really be considered a good showing. He has really gone off form in the last 12 months - at the 2006 World Cup he looked imperious. The Champions League final wasn't his finest hour, and nor was Euro 2008, and he needs to recapture some of his form of previous years to put himself back among UEFA's elite. Not a good night for him, but a great night for England.

Looking forward now, we have two intriguing TV matches when the Premier League returns on Saturday. Liverpool vs Manchester United is always fiercely contested, and Howard Webb will unsurprisingly be in charge of this one. Manchester City vs Chelsea is the battle of the big spenders against the even bigger spenders, and it will be interesting to see how the now moneybags Manchester City perform. Mark Halsey should hopefully handle that one in his usual understated manner. Lots to look forward to then!

Unconvincing England

So, the pressure was on. England got the result they needed in Andorra, but probably not in the way they wanted it; in fact it was probably one of the most depressing games of football I've ever seen.

It was always going to be that way though. Andorra decided that defence was the best form of attack, and put 11 men behind the ball for most of the game. They did everything possible to stop England playing. And England had no reply. They couldn't find some other way to break Andorra down and only a couple of quick goals from Joe Cole, who must be due a place in the starting line up, saved England. To be honest, I don't blame the team too much for this performance. Andorra did make it a niggly, difficult kind of game, and at least England did the job. How things go against Croatia on Wednesday is far more important. If we come out of that with six points out of six, then you'd have to say its been a successful week for England, regardless of the performance on Saturday.

Anyway, the man in charge in Barcelona on Saturday was Turkey's Cuneyt Cakir. I'd never seen him referee before, and so was interested to see how he'd handle it. The nature of the game meant that it would probably be niggly, stop-start and indeed a more challenging game than the one in Zagreb on Wednesday. Overall, he did a pretty decent job.

Positives - and there are several. He played some good advantages. He wasn't conned by the Andorrans, who seemed to make the most of any slight contact, notably the accidental contact by Defoe on the Andorran keeper in the first minute. He dealt with that pretty well and without unnecessary recourse to the notebook. Indeed, he never went to book people unnecessarily, while also not missing any obvious bookings. One of the yellow cards was for an Andorran waving an imaginary yellow card, which is something people should be booked for more often. I'm not sure the referee could speak a lot of English or Spanish, but he let his body language do the talking, and that seemed to be effective too.

The main negative was his use of the whistle. He blew it, but every time it was a long blast - there was no variation. In order to use the whistle most effectively, you need to vary its tone and length - a short blast for minor offences just to stop play, long blasts for major fouls and confrontations. Players will recognise then how serious the referee is about something when there is a major incident. A subtle point maybe, but still irritating!

I'm not saying the referee saw everything or got everything spot on, but he handled a difficult match pretty well. There wasn't a chance for him to shine much by contributing to a fast-flowing attacking game of football, but it was certainly not a bad showing, and on this evidence I'd be pleased to see Cuneyt Cakir's name appear again for European encounters. He was better than the England team, at any rate.

Unexpected scorelines

Last weekend was a pretty quiet one as far as controversy goes, so I didn't write, but we have a bit more to discuss concerning this weekend's Premier League games.

The first thing to say though - the Premier League is certainly not predictable! Last season, you got the feeling that you could comfortably predict the way many of the games would go. This season, things seem quite different. An imperious looking Chelsea fell back to earth with a drab draw with Tottenham. The previously pointless Spurs looked in trouble last week, losing to Sunderland. This week, Sunderland looked poor, losing easily to a Manchester City side who lost to Aston Villa on the opening day, an Aston Villa side who then lost to Stoke! Hull started brightly, but fell to a Wigan side who were previously pointless but absolutely thrashed them. Portsmouth won unexpectedly easily at a troubled Everton. The results don't always seem to go the way you'd think, which is excellent, making the Premier League much more watchable!

Anyway, to the analysis of controversy. West Ham had a goal wrongly disallowed against Blackburn, with Matt Derbyshire being level with the last defender and therefore not offside - I guess the assistant referee was unsighted, in that Derbyshire blocked his view of the defender - an unfortunate error. The penalty awarded to Blackburn by Mike Riley was correct though.

The worst performance of the weekend was at Sunderland. Here, Chris Foy made a series of mistakes - there weren't any big decisions wrong, it was just a poor, inconsistent performance. Foy is usually reliable and understated in his ways, but he just lost his way a little bit, losing control and not giving obvious fouls. Everyone has a bad day at the office from time to time, and for Foy this was one such day.

On a more positive note, Mike Dean was on the spot to make two correct calls at Middlesbrough - namely sending off Stoke's Amdy Faye for a dreadful challenge and then later awarding 'Boro a penalty. In both cases he was excellently positioned to make the correct decision.

There were several contentious goal-line decisions this weekend too. Wigan's fifth goal at Hull was one such decision, and I think Amir Zaki's shot did just cross the line, although the assistant referee was not in line with it so must have used some guesswork here. Portsmouth's third goal also came courtesy of a shot rebounding off the crossbar - Defoe's shot might have crossed the line but it isn't certain, and in any case Peter Crouch made sure. At Bolton, Kim's shot also rebounded off the crossbar, but I don't think this one did cross the line. Ishmael Miller should have put in the rebound for West Brom, but messed it up. These three situations show that video evidence isn't totally conclusive in any case; a chip in the ball seems the only answer to solving this problem.

Now we have a two-week break for the Premier League as we turn to the first World Cup qualifiers for 2010. I went to see England's friendly with the Czech Republic a couple of weeks ago and the signs aren't promising. Capello still has some work to do to make us perform convincingly, and the match in Croatia will be a real test. We'll just have to see what happens!