Refs are there to adjudicate, not make friends

I have long said that referees should do the job they are supposed to do, and nothing else. They shouldn’t make comments other than what is required in the line of their duty.

What am I talking about?

In a recent English Premier League game between Sheffield United and Bournemouth, referee Jonathan Moss was described as “a disgrace” by Bournemouth’s Dan Gosling.

It is alleged by Gosling that ref Moss showed “zero respect”, and he has called on the ref to “come out and apologise” following his team’s defeat at Bramall Lane in South Yorkshire last Sunday.

Gosling also alleges that the referee mocked him and his team-mates for their recent struggles – they went down 2-1 to high-flying Sheffield United.

Speaking to the Daily Echo in England, Gosling said: “The ref didn’t help by giving soft fouls to the opposition.”

He went on: “The officials talk about respect at the start of the season, and there was zero respect from referee Jon Moss on Sunday.”

He alleges the referee was making sarcastic remarks during the game by referring to their lowly position in the league. When asked if these remarks were made during the game, Gosling replied: “During the game, yeah.”

I have said many times that the English referees are far too familiar with players and coaches. They try, in so far as I can observe, to be one of the lads instead of performing their duty as adjudicators between two teams.

They appear to cosy up to teams before, during and after games. I regularly see them chatting and communicating unnecessarily, in my opinion, with the players. The fourth official appears to be in constant conversation with the bench.

I’m not sure what this is all about, but one thing is for sure – when the chips are down, the players will turn on the refs when they feel that they are being unfairly penalised during the game.

The best course of action is to keep all players, coaches/managers, and team officials at arm’s length.

Remember, the referee is judge, jury and executioner. You would never see a judge in a court of law fraternising in any way with the prosecution or the defence – that would be unethical and wrong – so why do referees feel the need to?

I know, and I’ll be criticised for this, that there is a new strategy now that a style of “man management” should be employed when dealing with players. This is fine, as long as it works both ways, but it doesn’t.

VAR still required

The video assistant referee (VAR) system is only used in the Premier League in England.

Read: Hanging Judge: The abuse of match officials must stop

On Wednesday, I watched a Championship game (second tier) between Millwall and Fulham. The game ended 1-1, but the Millwall goal should not have been allowed because the scorer was clearly a metre offside. How the assistant missed it is a mystery.

As I said, VAR is not used in the Championship, yet the television action replays showed clearly that the assistant got it wrong.

So my question is: Why does it have to be the official VAR system making a decision? The technology is there, the cameras are correctly positioned to check calls, but it’s not being used.

Likewise in South Africa, the technology is there, but it’s not being used.

All that’s required, as in rugby or cricket, is one man (a qualified referee or former referee) to be in the outside broadcast truck, and he can communicate with the referee as to whether a goal, handball, penalty or whatever controversial decision is correct or not.

Can it be more simple than that, or am I missing something?

Please feel free to make comments or ask questions.

Happy whistling!

.sports@citypress.co.za

. thehangingjudge88@gmail.com

.Follow me on Twitter @dr_errol

Get in touch  City Press

+27 11 713 9001 news@citypress.co.za Media Park, 69 Kingsway Road, Auckland Park

Rise above the clutter | Choose your news | City Press in your inbox

City Press is an agenda-setting South African news brand that publishes across platforms. Its flagship print edition is distributed on a Sunday.