By Tony Attwood
Who independently scrutinises the people responsible for policing the accuracy of referees in Premier League matches?
By Tony Attwood
Referees are monitored and I think employed by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd of which organisation they are all members. And if PGMOL needs monitoring well… err. it’s no one. At least no one I can see.
Meanwhile PGMOL has just rebranded itself Pro Ref, and it is owned by the Premier League, the English Football League and the FA. But if these Pro Ref referees get things wrong who deals with that?
So far we don’t know. Pro Ref has taken the dramatic step forward into the end of last century by having a page on the league website but I don’t it is helping us judge the performance of refs much although it tells us how good they have all been in the past and how they are going to be even better from now on.
And yes, there is the Elite Referee Development Plan which “has enabled Pro Ref to put a more modern and dynamic pathway in place, which will continue to provide opportunities to those who are ready to officiate across the various levels of the professional game. ” OK so it is going to find more referees – and this is good, because as we have constantly noted, at the moment we can have the same ref see the same PL club five or more times in a season – and we don’t think that is right.
And we are going to have a “Development Group and the CORE X programme” that is revamped creating “a new chapter for professional refereeing in England, the change from Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) to Professional Game Referees (Pro Ref) to deliver the highest possible standards of refereeing in this country for the benefit of the game.”
In fact it has already begun. “For 2026/27, a newly created Professional Referee Group will service the Premier League and EFL Championship, creating both greater competition and flexibility to appoint and recognise high-performing match officials.”
Tye this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PskjcZKmfc
O this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMl9oxZjalE
Or this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/cm2m7105d71o
Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqWPUQIpCJM
ISo as we are told that “Behind every referee and assistant referee is a multi-disciplinary team of experts, working together to ensure that the officials can perform at their best week-in, week-out,” we know that is one thing and one thing only – a total and utter con trick.
Now Untold always tries to be fair (honest, we do) so we didn’t jump in with this story on day 1 of this season. We wanted to give them time to get settled into their new titles. But now the clubs have had four league games and the refs lots of extra training we think it is time to start taking notice.
So we note that “Performance is measured by an independent Key Match Incidents” panel which is made up of “five members including former players and coaches, alongside one representative from the Premier League and another from Pro Ref.” It is there to give an “independent assessment of decision-making” and “review major incidents and assess the outcomes of on-field and VAR decisions.”
Now of course I may have got this wrong and maybe that is me, or maybe that is the way the ProRef stuff is written, but isn’t this still the referees monitoring the, err… referees? So if Referee Bert cocks up he’s monitored by Referee Fred who say, “I think you made a bit of a cock up this time old pal.” Is that it?
What we want, and what there is no mention of so far is…
No referee should oversee games involving a Premier League club more than once at home and once away in the course of a season. Why can’t PGMO employ enough refs to make this happen? (We’ve been asking for four years).
Presentation to the public (ie on line) of referee errors and a report on what was subsequently done (an apology would be nice also, but we’re not asking for the moon).
Publication of the report made by each PL club on the performance of the referee for each Premier League match, plus the awarding of a mark out of ten given by the club, which can be averaged across the season.
An explanation of why the level of yellow cards per game ranged from 4.6 by Stuart Attwell over 25 games, down to 2.67 per game for Craig Pawson over 21 gams. That seems to be Attwell giving 70% more yellows that Pawson per game. Why?
And here’s just one more for the time being. Why Peter Bankes saw 68% of his 22 matches last season as home wins, while Jarred Gillett only saw 22.7% of his matches last season as home wins. Are you selecting the games they see specifically, or is one ref biased to home teams and one to the away teams? Or are they all making it up as they go along?
We have of course got lots more questions, but answers to these would help. Data comes from Who Scored. Oh and by the way – we’re not dropping this.
As I have said so many times:
They do not want consistancy. Subjectivity is the referees freind.
It allows them to favour teams or victimise teams without being wrong. The broader the range, or subjectivity, the easier it is to justify any call they make.
The media are never behind any moves to ‘police’ referees becuause THEY ARE the police!!!
The media judge whether the referee was right or wrong. Yes the five man panal make their retrospective assessments, but this is only days after every man and his dog has publicly stated whether the specific decision was right or wrong.
Take Gabriels kick to the head of martinez. Pretty much the entire media actually backed the referee and VAR who said it was not reckless or dangerous play. So, it was no surprise to me that the 5 man panel unanimously backed that call.
The Konsa incident on the other hand has seen a split. The BBC for one was clear that it was never a penalty. But of course the PGMO/Prorefs ever loyal friend Dermot Gallagher some how justified it.
To my mind SKY in particular has great influence over how decisions are judged so it will be interesting to see what the 5 man panel make of that one.
On A wider point, I have always said that the diabolical way we have been treated by referees and VAR over the years is down to how we are portrayed in the media.
Basically according to them we are cheats. Masters of the dark arts. Boring. There are quite a few big voices in the media that claim they were the only reason we won the league last season. Oh, and of course because everyone else was crap.
And these endless, completely baseless accusations have already seeped in to the medias and publics pysche.
You only have to read the comments in the blogs and on line media, it matters not a jot that konsa was fouled, Arsenal had this coming.
Ex eferee Hackett said that in his assessment.
“This grappling has got to stop. I back the referee”
So, the grappling by the Sunderland player is okay, it’s just the grappling by the Arsenal player that has to stop!!!
This is what was said in the article next:
“This time, thanks to Raya, they got away with it. Yet, it will be interesting to see how it goes as the season progresses, as Arsenal’s reputation in both boxes is tested and analysed more than ever, with this being the first example of true scrutiny so far this season.”
So,
WE GOT AWAY WITH IT. Even though the evidence clearly shows konsa was fouled.
ARSENALS REPUTATION IN BOTH BOXES IS TESTED AND ANALYSED MORE THAN EVER.. Just Arsenalas then? Nobody else ever grapples or gets away with anything?
A perfect example of how this works. We get a terrible decision against us but somehow a lot of the media, ex referees turn it into an assault on Arsenal. No F***ing wonder we have a ‘reputation’ when incidents like this are turned completely on thier heads in order to cast us in a bad light.
Note:
We had a clear penalty not given to us at Villa Park. Nothing made of that.
We had a penalty for a push on Saka overturned as the incident was judged to of taken place outside the box. The initial contact was ouside the box, but I’ve watched the video a dozon times and the defenders arm was still in contact with Saka as they fell into the box. In other words the foul/push continued into the box. That is a penalty by the letter of the law. But as we have seen before, it appears the letter of the law only applies when it suits.
Nothing at all was made of this yet you can bet your bottom Dollar this ‘law’ would of been ‘found’ had it been the other way around.
Unbielievably I actually heard someone on the telly say the ‘the contact started outside the box so it couldn’t of been a penalty’
I read in posts after the Sunderland penalty more than one person making the same claim, that it ‘started outside the box’.
These people are so blind to their agendas they don’t even take time research, or worse don’t want to, know the Laws Of The Game.
Well reported Tony.
If I may, I would have one extra request.
The Referee and the VAR official gets interviewed, each briefly inturn after each manager has been first interviewed by the media.
I tell you why I think this should happen.
The Manager from each team being interviewed first before the Officials get interviewed, with each manager say getting to leave 3 questions each ( to keep it short) with the media interviewer.
Then after the managers have been interviewed, the interviewer then gets to pass on those combined total of 6 questions from both team managers, whilst asking them and filming “live” to both the Referee and then the VAR official to answer “live” those 6 manager questions on TV.
For example, the media interviews Arteta, and at the end of the interview, the interviewer says “do you have your 3 questions you would like us to ask either the Referee or the VAR officials?”
(Arteta) may say “Yes, I would like to ask the VAR official, if he missed the judo roll incident, and if not, why would he ignor that, and not mention it to the referee to review the discrepancy on the replay monitor?”.
(Arteta) “And my final question is to the referee, would he have overturned the penalty decision if he had been informed and acknowledged the judo roll incident?”
Then the media interviewer would be able to explain the question to the officials if it needed explaining, and even play the discrepancy on a monitor for both the Official us viewers, the incident again that is referred to in the managers questions.
It would take all of 5 to 6 minutes and make the interviews more interesting, plus it will make the VAR or Referee official think twice about (used loosely-cheating or) neglecting being thorough in his duties.
They would at least own up to their mistakes live on TV to the public. IMO.
The procedures you have mentioned Tony, could then follow on with maybe a points reduction or addition or a red or yellow card added to the players record, if found guilty later on, after the debate panel looks at it. Maybe!
Not sure about the last part about cards or points, but something has to come of it more than just an apology! IMO Thanks Tony.
Nitram,
I agree with you. You have wrote a Good post with agreed frustration by me on your intellectual points made. Its a shame these bias numb nuts don’t understand the rules of the game.
For instance, if the could starts outside the penalty box “but” continues to carry on within the same movement inside the box, then it’s classed as one foul without pause covering it’s whole area from start to finish for judgement.
If that area covers in part the penalty area, then it’s a penalty.
It was carried through as one foul into the penalty area. Correct verdict. Penalty.
We know this and also the media knows this, but prefers to stir it up.
My post above is basically about showing the facts live after the game to put the officials on the spot, and having them acknowledge their mistakes,
as they cannot argue with the facts live on TV.
Each manager can then ask on his team and us fans behalf the correct question instead of asking just the media ask it or not their way, with the media who usually does nothing to push it or do anything about it.
Whereas the Managers are asking what needs to be answered with factual evidence to back up their questions. Immediate live accountability by the officials, their mistakes acknowledgement cannot be disputed later by ex referees sticking together. IMO
Sorry about the grammar and non intentional words added. My AI is illiterate it seems, and sometimes adds words of no meaning for the sake of a missing letter, but replacing mine with not a near match but a completely different word of no meaning. Can we really trust AIs? Another future topic of AIs officiating football matches in the future. Can they be worst than what we already have in place, as it will end up that way!
Eg.
The phrase “ball still controlled” was replaced with a single word “could”, by my AI, after I posted it, Frightening!
daveg
“My post above is basically about showing the facts live after the game to put the officials on the spot,”
I agree that would help but it is never going to happen.
The last thing the UK’s major broadcasters of live games, namely SKY Sports and TNT want, is for the referees to be ‘put on the Spot’. Why? because when it’s a bad/incorrect decision they ‘like’ for want of a better word, they don’t want it scrutinised. If they are going to do that, they would much rather leave it to be scrutinised Monday afternoon, in a controlled studio envirenment, where they have had time to script how they can justify/critisise it. How they can ask the softest of questions, if they actully ask any at all!!
“…and having them acknowledge their mistakes, as they cannot argue with the facts live on TV.”
Well, you would think not, but given the acrobatics they perform via their explanitary ‘posts’ and post match ‘press releases’ I wouldn’t put anything past them. I ask you, how did SKY let Gallagher get away with his explanation of the Konsa incident? Easy. He gave the explanation they wanted. That’s all that would happen in a post match interview, becuase they are never going to let an independent arbitor ask the difficult questions are they?
It’s a matter of ‘will’ Dave. Is there a will from the media, including SKY, TNT, to really improve refereeing?
I think the answer is catagoricly NO. Despite their protestations chaos is what they want. It allows games to be manipulated, which is exactly what allows agendas to be followed.