10 issues that show there is something seriously wrong with refereeing in the PL

 

 

• Do Arsenal have a discipline problem, or is something else going on?
• Why there is nothing particularly wrong with this Arsenal team

By Tony Attwood

Really not too much to add to thoughts on last night, except to add the league table, including of course Real Madrid, who must (as we have called them occasionally in the past) be Real Mad.  The top eight qualify automatically for the eighth-finals, mostly known as the round of 16.   Here’s the table.

 

	Club	P	W	D	L	F	A	GD	PTS
1	Aston V	3	3	0	0	6	0	6	9
2	Monaco	3	2	1	0	9	4	5	7
3	Sporting CP	3	2	1	0	5	1	4	7
4	Arsenal	3	2	1	0	3	0	3	7
5	Borussia Dortmund	3	2	0	1	12	6	6	6
6	Brest	2	2	0	0	6	1	5	6
7	Benfica	2	2	0	0	6	1	5	6
8	Bayern Lev	2	2	0	0	5	0	5	6
9	Real Mad	3	2	0	1	8	4	4	6

 

So now I’m moving straight on, and without any further ado, to a question: “What would you do, if you want to discredit a view that is widely held by quite a few people?”

The most likely answer if you are a journalist, is that first you would call it a conspiracy theory – because it is generally felt that a “conspiracy theory” is something that is believed by nutters. 

Thus if one says that the board of Manchester City are conspiring together to dominate English and ultimately European football by utilising the massive wealth and by flagrantly breaking the regulations, that is deemed “a conspiracy theory.”

As a result, defining the phrase “conspiracy theory” into a viewpoint only held by nutters, allows Manchester City to dismiss the view with a wave of the hand.  Defining the view that there is something seriously wrong with refereeing in the Premier League as a “conspiracy theory”, without putting forward any serious evidence to show that the issues raised by those concerned with refereeing in the PL, is thus once more a simple put down.  A way of sweeping arguments under the carpet.

For having labelled the view a “conspiracy theory,” those who wish to show everything is fine have nothing more to do.  Once something is called a “conspiracy theory” all serious debate is stopped because, well, we don’t take conspiracy theories seriously.

Take the suggestion that the VAR official in an Arsenal match is a self-confessed fan of the opposition.  No rules are broken.  Is that incompetence by PGMO to allow that?  We never get to the debate because the notion that the VAR official was biased is instantly defined as a “conspiracy theory” and so not worthy of discussion.

Yet a rational and reasonable debate of this point would suggest that this is a bit odd – if he is not allowed to run the game, why is he allowed to run VAR in a match concerning his supported team?  That’s an interesting point for debate – but no, it is based on a “conspiracy theory” so only nutters explore it.  

Thus such debates are immediately denigrated by the press through headlines such as “fans are furious”.   And “Arsenal fans fume at referee’s decision”  and so on.

The very language used suggested unbridled emotion with no sense of logic.  The journalists then use the allegation of “conspiracy theory” to snigger at fans who now by definition are unfit to make rational decisions.

It is easy to tell that something is wrong in such reporting of course, because invariably key evidence is not only not examined – it is never presented.  Rather the focus is on laughing at the silly fans who are so removed from reality that they believe in conspiracies.  And indeed there is something wrong: the debate is ended without key issues being investigated.

The perfect example through all of this came with the Arsenal game at Bournemouth.  I didn’t see any of the mainstream media examine the issues that worry many fans about the refereeing.  But the media did spend a lot of time knocking the notion could be wrong.  

And that is the point we have got to: the media’s view is not, “let’s look at  the evidence” but rather “you’re a conspiracy theorist if you think anything could be wrong”.  So to help those rather myopic journalists who can’t see what is before their eyes, here are some points that make me think something is indeed very wrong.

1. PRMO is a highly secretive organisation, when there is no need for it to be secretive.  Compare and contrast with Germany where the DFB itself runs refereeing.   There is no separate highly secretive organisation..
2. More referees are needed.  Clearly it is a logical way to ensure that allegations of inadvertent bias by referees are reduced, by ensuring that no referee oversees a game involving an individual club more than twice in a season.  At present referees can oversee the same team five times – and that is without counting VAR duties.  See also point 7.
3. PGMO must be just about the only organisation of substance not to have a website.  Even MI5 has a website.   A website would allow PGMO to explain their views and decisions.
4. Have referee interviews.  In Germany referees are interviewed after major games by the mainstream media.  I can’t even imagine that happening under PGMO.
5. Secrecy rules everything.  No one has ever explained why referees were allowed to fly back and forth to Saudi Arabia, and then suddenly not allowed.  If that first decision was a mistake, how come it was made?  Were the people who made that mistake removed or are they still working?
6. Why are referees not allowed to drive themselves away from a game, but must use a special car and a PGMO provided driver?  Other countries don’t do this – why does PGMO.
7. Why has he number of refs been so limited that clubs keep seeing the same officials?
8. How did PGMO become insolvent?  How can a monopoly supplier of such an essential service as providing referees run into such financial problems?
9. Why does home bias continue?  Indepoendent data proves some referees are utterly home team biased.  Why is this allowed to continue? 
10. Why is none of the above debated by the media, while they call people who suggest that something is wrong with refereeing in the Premier League conspiracy theorists?

I leave these thoughts with you.