Craig Moore, chairman of the FA Commission that recently punished Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, with a five game touchline ban for criticising referee Martin Atkinson, has this week stated that the Scottish manager’s comments “undermined the FA’s Respect Campaign”.
Moore further suggested that Ferguson’s failure to officially apologise to Atkinson was a “serious aggravating” factor for his punishment, and his reluctance to retract the comments “undermined the attempts by the FA, through its Respect Campaign, to encourage higher standards of behaviour within the game.”
Whilst the content of Ferguson’s comments justified a severe punishment – he claimed an absence of a “fair or strong” referee in United’s 2-1 Premier League defeat by Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on March 1st – the intrinsic nature of the discussion was flawed.
The Respect Campaign was launched at the start of the 2008/2009 Premier League season as an attempt to promote better behaviour towards referees. However, the initiative was immediately undermined by a series of outbursts from managers, notably Joe Kinnear, then manager of Newcastle, claiming a “Mickey Mouse referee” had overseen his side’s 2-1 defeat to Fulham. The man in black that day was, you guessed it, Martin Atkinson.
Instead of clearing the lines of communication between referees and managers or awarding referees a voice of their own, the Respect campaign simply attempted to provide a deterrent to managers and players for speaking about the officials. Unfortunately, the incentive to refrain from complaining about referees was not, and is not, strong enough.
[ad_pod id=’unruly’ align=’right’]
We are all aware that referees face a tough task in trying to make the correct decision every time, but their jobs are made much more arduous as a result of a lack of accountability. Had Atkinson been granted a few minutes to publicly explain his decisions, within say an hour following full-time, and with the aid of televised replays, then at least Ferguson would have had grounds to complain based on Atkinson’s reassessment.
If all referees were obliged, as managers are, to participate in a post-match analysis, then managers, players and fans would better understand the methods employed by referees to reach a conclusion on decisions that have to be made in the blink of an eye. Officials should be afforded the opportunity to clarify their in-match judgments and conclude whether they were correct or not. By providing a reexamination of events, referees could afford managers a platform for discussion where all parties share a voice.
Currently, managers can only assume that muted officials defend every glaringly erroneous decision they make. In the current managerial climate, each refereeing decision could be the difference between achieving the targets set by the chairman or instructing your agent to look for available coaching positions in the Championship. In this regard, it is understandable that managers vent their fury at inaccurate refereeing, as the pressure on them to produce results is so high.
Respecting referees and the demanding task they continually face is of fundamental importance, especially as a way of setting an example to youngsters who imitate their heroes behaviour in Sunday-league matches. The problem is the FA has been attempting to encourage others to respect officials whilst at the same time neglecting their duty to do so. Suspending and charging managers for speaking out against decisions is only legitimised within the framework the FA has developed. It is time, and has been for a while, for the FA to grant referees and their assistants the capacity to reevaluate their decisions, thereby providing managers with a more concrete platform for debate and an enhanced respect for those in charge.
[ad_pod id=’elbow-1′ align=’center’]
