Seeing Red (30 page)

That may seem a bit rich coming near the conclusion of a book which includes accounts of hurtful experiences and which is critical of some individuals and of some aspects of the way the game is run. Those accounts and those criticisms are in this book because I have tried to be truthful, but I also want to state with all the conviction I can muster that there are far, far more good things about football than there are problems. Whenever I refereed a top match, I knew for certain that of the twenty-two players on the pitch at any one time, at least sixteen of them, and perhaps as many as nineteen or twenty, had never dived and would never do so. The same proportion would never belittle referees, or do anything deliberate to damage the game.

When Arsenal moved from a ground holding 38,000 to one with a capacity of more than 60,000, they still sold out every week. There is a frantic clamour for tickets for matches at the new Wembley. These are just two examples of many
that convince me that football is a vibrant, successful game, and at the top it is played by sensational athletes who are very decent men. I know it, and it needs saying more often. I will try to do so.

Of course, by embarking on a career involving the media, I set myself up for some more doses of a very familiar criticism – that I love the limelight. Some of that criticism will come from people in the media who do not notice any paradox about haranguing me for enjoying exposure while writing under pictures of themselves, but there you go.

I am not wealthy enough to retire and stop earning a living to support my family. I have to work and it makes sense to use the knowledge I have learned – and the visibility I have earned – as a referee. So I am going to try to work in the media. Television, radio and newspapers are offering me the opportunity to earn money and, I hope, put across some aspects of refereeing that I believe should be aired.

Am I a vain thing from Tring? Well, I never wanted to be famous. I certainly never wanted to be infamous. I just wanted to referee football matches because I love football and, for most of the twenty-seven seasons as a ref, I loved refereeing. When I started to clamber up the refereeing ladder – well, then yes, I wanted to do that and I wanted to get as high as I could. But not for fame or celebrity. I relished the physical and mental challenges of refereeing, and cherished the feeling of success when I dealt well with those challenges. I wanted the toughest challenges, and that meant the biggest games. The recognition that came with succeeding in those matches – when people said I was a good ref and when I continued to get top matches – was pleasurable. Of course it was. But I never wanted to use that recognition as a door to becoming ‘a celebrity'. I did not want to walk the red
carpet at premieres, hang about in fashionable clubs or move to somewhere trendy. Whenever I came home after refereeing, I was more than content that home was an ordinary house in Tring.

But I'll admit this: my life could have taken one of two paths from 2006 and, given my personality, I am not sure I would have handled success as well as I dealt with failure. From comments passed by several people, including the incomparable Jack Taylor, it seems now that if I had refereed completely competently in Stuttgart then I would have had a chance of emulating Jack by refereeing the World Cup Final. Jack told me he thought I would have done it. That would have been the ultimate achievement for me and I am not sure how I would have reacted. There is a danger that my personality – all right, if you've got this far in my book I am prepared to admit it to you – can veer towards arrogance. Certainly, if I had refereed the World Cup Final my veneer of confidence would have been pretty thick.

Some players struggle to deal appropriately with success. It was said, for instance, that Frank Leboeuf, the ex-Chelsea defender, used to tell people too often about how he had won the World Cup with France. Would I have been like that if I had refereed the World Cup Final? I would have known that my reputation (and future income from commercial opportunities) was secure. Would I have struggled to remember the advice of Fred Reid and his wife – to keep my feet on the ground and ‘my cloth cap on'? I would like to think I'd have remembered their advice and stuck to it, but I am not sure.

We'll never know. That is not the path my life took from Stuttgart. Instead, I came home with my head down in shame. I was battered and very nearly broken. Yet I believe I became a better person.

Craig Mahoney, the referees' sports psychologist, uses a phrase which I am sure you have heard elsewhere. He says, ‘If it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger.' And because I didn't shrivel up and retreat into my shell after Stuttgart, because I refused to let my career die at Stuttgart, I do think it made me stronger.

Instead of revelling in the success of the 2006 World Cup, I had to work very hard to re-establish myself – to rebuild my self-esteem and my credibility with others. I think that taught me some humility. It definitely taught me some other lessons.

For a start, I was left in no doubt about the deep love of my family and the supportive friendship of real friends. Some people go through their entire lives without experiencing either – or without realizing them or understanding their importance. So, although as I say, I am not sure how I would have dealt with real success, I am happy with how I dealt with failure.

That is not to say I am glad Stuttgart happened in the way it did. Of course I can't pretend it was a good thing to have made my mistake in front of a worldwide television audience. And I think it is grossly unfair that I will always be remembered for one, human mistake after a career of 1554 games, 100 international fixtures and twenty-seven years, with sixteen of those years at the top. But that's life – that's my life – and perhaps my story might give heart to others who suffer setbacks because I think it shows that the human spirit is remarkably resilient.

This book started in the centre-circle at Stuttgart. The stadium was almost deserted and I was desolate. I was taking a private moment to try to compose myself. I was truly frightened about the future.

But I faced that future and dealt with it, and so the book can end in the centre-circle of another almost empty stadium. After my last professional game, after that Play-off Final, I walked out into the middle of the pitch at Wembley. I wanted another moment on my own. It was 340 days after Stuttgart, and of course I thought back to that day, but as I stood there at Wembley, alone again, I knew that I had coped with the aftermath of Stuttgart. I had not let my career finish in failure. Instead, I had battled back and finished on my own terms. I had completed an incredible journey, with some diversions on the way, from Woolmer Green to Wembley.

This time, as I stood there in the middle of a vast stadium and took it all in, I was content.

1) SHOULD FOOTBALL USE TECHNOLOGY TO HELP
REFEREES?

The short answer is ‘Yes'. Referees have said for years that they would welcome any system which helps them on matters of fact. So if a foolproof system can be developed that tells you when the ball has crossed the goal-line (or any line, come to that) then we should use it. For me, that is a no-brainer.

But, when I look a little deeper at the question of technology I have lots of questions myself.

I would have welcomed any technology that gave me the opportunity to immediately put right any decisions I got wrong – but when would I have consulted it?

And if a player goes down in the box, does the referee stop play immediately and consult someone who is watching TV monitors? Or should he allow play to go up the other end and then ask someone? Neither of those answers is satisfactory.

People say, ‘Only consult technology for major decisions' but what constitutes a major decision? In my last season, a free-kick given to Fulham over by the sideline proved a
major decision, because it led to the goal with which they earned a point at Charlton. So should the referee consult technology for every free-kick?

I'd hope not. But that is the danger with technology. It's a Pandora's Box. Once you've opened it, it's open for ever and for everything.

As I say, for straightforward matters of fact – has the ball crossed the goal-line? – then I'd introduce technology as soon as a robust, reliable system exists. But for other issues during a game, the biggest and unanswered question about technology is when to apply it without detrimentally affecting the game.

2) WHY DON'T ASSISTANT REFEREES SIGNAL FOR
MORE FOULS?

The two key jobs for an assistant are to say when the ball has gone out of play and to get offside decisions right. Believe me, those tasks are hard enough, because they involve looking in two different directions, ninety degrees apart, and making judgments about moving people and a moving ball. Talk about multi-tasking.

Because the assistant is concentrating on those tasks, and on getting his position correct for those judgments, sometimes he doesn't see an additional occurrence, such as a foul. And don't forget that a ‘linesman' is not sufficiently experienced to referee at the level at which he is assisting. Premiership assistants referee in the Conference or a ‘feeder' league.

And, any way, an assistant should not signal for every foul he sees. If he thinks the referee has a good, clear view of the incident, he should leave it to the referee – because the referee might want to play-on.

I always said to my assistants that they should flag for infringements if they saw them clearly and thought I had no view of them. But, frankly, if they got the ball-out-of-play decisions and most of the offsides right, I was more than happy.

3)
SHOULD EX-FOOTBALLERS BECOME REFEREES?

The assumption behind this question is that someone who has played a lot of football at a good standard understands the game better than someone who hasn't. That assumption is right, as far as it goes. So if you take two guys who have never refereed before, one of whom is an ex-footballer and one who isn't, then the ex-footballer should be better at refereeing to start with, no question.

But neither of them will be as good as someone who has refereed for 15 seasons. Again, no question.

During 15 seasons, a referee will have been mentored, assessed, analysed and scrutinized. He or she will have taken charge of 750 games or so, and will have learned so much about managing situations, not making decisions too hurriedly, positioning himself or herself to get a clear view, how to calm a game down by refereeing robustly for a while, how not to react to all the abuse … and so on and so on. And during those 15 seasons and 750 games he or she will have learned a lot about football – about why and how teams commit fouls at specific times and for specific reasons, for instance.

Refereeing requires a different, additional set of skills to those of a footballer. It would be good for the game if good ex-footballers wanted to learn those additional skills and become referees, and perhaps they could be fast-tracked in some way.

But they would have to start at a level appropriate to their lack of experience, otherwise they would just not be able to cope.

4) ARE PROFESSIONAL REFEREES A GOOD IDEA?

The introduction of professional referees in England led to an increase in fitness: that much is definite.

Yet, the economics of the situation dictates that only a small number of referees can be paid enough to be full-time professionals. It is difficult for other referees to gain promotion to that group and it is a big deal if one of the pros is ‘relegated' from the top, professional group.

That means that a small band of referees get all the top games and that can be counter-productive. It means, for instance, that one referee might referee the same club six times or so a season – and that can lead to conflicts with that club. At the same time there is a temptation, for some, to referee safely: to avoid controversy, avoid being kicked out of the group and maintain a nice income.

Yet I would solve the problem by making the elite group smaller. Because of the amount of time and commitment involved, I do believe that international referees need to be full-time professionals. But that group need only be of ten or so refs.

Below that there should be a bigger group of refs, paid enough to make it worth their while and to compensate them for the career sacrifices they'd have to make, but not necessarily full-time. That group should cover the Premiership and the Football League and there should be fluidity within that group, so that more get a chance of refereeing big matches and, at the same time, good referees officiate in the Football League.

The advances that have been made in preparation (better diet, Pro-Zone analysis of performances, good advice from a sports psychologist and so on) should be available to the whole group but you don't have to be full-time to benefit from things like that.

5) HOW CAN FOOTBALL STOP THE DIVERS?

Diving is done by footballers. That statement might be blindingly obvious, but it is important because it is footballers who have to stop the diving.

I remember the very honest answer given by Harry Redknapp when his Portsmouth team were beaten by a penalty won for Arsenal by a Robert Pires dive. Harry was bitterly upset but when asked whether he would discipline one of his own players for diving, he admitted that he probably would not.

So that is the problem. When players are successful because of their diving, their managers, team-mates and fans do not complain.

It is tough for referees to spot diving, because players have become very proficient at it. And those who say divers should be red-carded do not understand the mentality of referees. It is difficult enough making a decision when you know that only a yellow card is at stake, but if you had to send someone off for diving, you'd be even more reluctant to make the decision.

I'd introduce an ‘honesty' system, and link it to retrospective punishments.

If a player goes down in the box and the opposition claim it was a dive, then the referee should ask the player concerned, ‘Were you fouled?'

If he says ‘Yes', and the referee agrees, then give the penalty. But if after the game the study of several, slow-motion camera
angles shows that no foul has been committed then the diver should be suspended. He should be treated as if he had been sent off for serious foul play and banned for three games.

Asking him the question avoids the risk of banning players who have just slipped. If a player has simply fallen over, he can say, ‘No, I was not fouled.'

Club chairmen would not be happy about paying the wages of someone who kept getting banned, managers would not be best pleased about not being able to select him, and the player would soon get the message.

6) WHY ARE REFEREES NOT MORE CONSISTENT?
WHY DON'T THEY SHOW MORE COMMONSENSE?

You hear both these questions asked, but they contradict each other. ‘Consistency' suggests applying the law the same way all the time. ‘Commonsense' implies having leeway to apply the law differently in some circumstances.

If a referee shows ‘commonsense' in one situation – for instance, if he makes an allowance for a young player kicking the ball away in the heat of the moment when he has been pulled up for a foul – then you could argue he is not being consistent if he books another player for doing the same thing in a pre-meditated, cynical way to waste time.

FIFA
have made a number of law changes which say certain things are mandatory. Those changes should aid consistency, but they leave no leeway for not taking action, even if that is what ‘commonsense' dictates.

At the highest level, lots of work is done on trying to get referees to react in the same way – to show consistency. But no two situations are exactly the same. And, of course, because referees are human, different referees will interpret events differently.

So, sorry, but these two questions probably remain irreconcilable to some extent.

7) HOW CAN WE STOP SPECTATORS ABUSING
REFEREES?

It's not really a problem when 30,000 people chant, ‘
The
referee's a banker
' or whatever it is they sing. That's part of the game and part of life. But when one person yells foul abuse, full of hatred, then I think it is a problem. Why should that be acceptable? Why should my wife and children have to hear that? And, because nothing is done, it makes people think it is OK and makes them more inclined to abuse parks referees and referees in youth football. I'd like it to be stopped at the top matches. I'd like CCTV used to identify the culprit and for stewards or police to eject him (or her!). In every Premiership programme there is a warning that swearing is an offence and yet you never see any action taken.

8) HOW CAN WE STOP PLAYERS ABUSING
REFEREES?

People have to remember that using foul language is not an offence. The law prohibits using ‘offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures'. And, sadly, foul language is commonplace in society. Words which were unacceptable in my parents' day now appear on t-shirts. Football reflects society. So a certain amount of swearing is to be expected during a football match. But, just as the fan who stands and shouts something vile is not acceptable, so it is not acceptable for players to scream abuse in a ref's face, or to call him a cheat. How can we stop it? By backing refs who take action against it and by punishing the offenders and their clubs.

9) WHY NOT HAVE ZERO-TOLERANCE TOWARDS
DISSENT?

It would not be credible, sensible or workable to have a policy of zero tolerance in football. It is a passionate, physical, all-action game. And if every time someone said something in the heat of the moment he was booked or sent off, then every game would have to be abandoned for lack of players. But referees do have to be a bit braver and not put up with unacceptable levels of dissent. And to encourage referees to be braver, the FA needs to back them. Read Chapter Three, and you'll understand my point.

There needs to be a change in the attitude of the media as well. If a high-profile player is sent off for abusing a referee, then, instead of assuming that the referee has been too sensitive (or worse, believing allegations of bias) it would help the entire game if newspapers, radio and television condemned the abusive player instead of criticizing the official.

10) WHAT CHANGES WOULD I MAKE TO THE
GAME OR THE LAWS?

I get asked this a lot when I speak at dinners. And I've mentioned already in this section that I'd like to see retrospective punishments introduced for cheats.

It won't surprise you to read that I also want the disciplinary procedures to be much tougher against managers who make personal comments about referees. It is OK to say, ‘That should have been a penalty.' It is not OK at all to say, ‘The ref didn't give a penalty because he doesn't like us.' That questions the referee's integrity and undermines the whole basis on which the game is played. So the penalties for managers who make personal comments have to be suffi
cient to act as deterrents – and that means the deduction of points.

I have two other ideas. The first is that I would like to see an experiment with ‘sin bins'. If a player has lost his cool he is likely to either abuse the referee or go and kick an opponent. Yet, at present, a referee can only talk to him or show him a card. I'd like to see whether giving the player five minutes in a ‘sin bin' to calm down would work. I'd like to see referees given that extra tool. I don't know whether it would work, but I'd like to see an experiment to find out.

The other change I favour is taking time-keeping away from the referee, to avoid arguments and to make it more accurate. And I'd like to specify a minimum amount of time that the ball must be in play. In Champions League matches, for example, there is only about 46 minutes of play in the entire game. The rest of the time is eaten up by delays when the ball is out of play or waiting for free-kicks and so on. I'd set a minimum of thirty minutes active play for each half and have someone in the stand timing it. When the time is up, a hooter should sound and the ref should stop play.