Andrew Smith: Calls for common sense are at odds with Fifa orders which our referees must obey

Published on Thursday 10 December 2009 22:07

SCOTTISH referees make mistakes. Gasp. They make lots of them. Shock. They seem to be making more than ever. Horror. The current crop of top-level officials are probably younger and less experienced than any earlier generation. Oh. They are scrutinised to a degree way beyond arbiters of ages past. Ah. They are expected to apply the laws in a far more exacting manner than before. Right.

None of which makes it any less understandable that Csaba Laszlo has written to the SFA for an explanation of referee David Somers' performance at Hamilton on Sunday. Laszlo contends that Somers got three key decisions wrong: the straight red for Michael Stewart, the second yellow for Ismael Bouzid, and the failure to award Hearts a last minute penalty when Calum Elliot was bundled to the ground by David Elebert. And, judging from repeated viewing of the video evidence – now, crucially, available to pore over from every SPL game – Lazlo contends correctly.

So Somers joins the myriad men-in-the-middle miscreants who have been ruining games this season by erring on the side of cautions...at the very least. He is in good company. Willie Collum was ridiculed for the 'belly booking' he administered to Kris Boyd at the weekend; the celebrating striker receiving a caution for the utterly harmless act of showing off his less-than-taut torso after taunting from Falkirk fans.

Craig Thomson has gone to pieces after rejecting three legitimate penalties claims from Celtic in the first Old Firm derby. And Steve Conroy has never quite recovered from the lambasting he took over his dishing out 11 yellow cards, two reds and sending Walter Smith off at Rugby Park in the early weeks of the season.

Yet, that specific Conroy case highlights the fact referees are hardly alone in failing to cover themselves in glory this season. On reviewing the calls that caused Conroy to be the subject of such coruscating criticism, it transpired only one caution was of the seriously dubious variety. Yes, others tackles that he punished might have escaped sanction without anyone being fussed, by that was not the point. Of course, a fleet of former players jumped on their soap boxes to rage about cards being flashed for "first tackles" and the absence of "common sense". But what are they actually saying with such bluster?

Clearly, referees are under greater pressure from assessors in the stand to clampdown on illegality under the auspices of new Fifa directives. It might be considered a zero tolerance policy. But it hardly means they aren't doing their jobs properly if they book a player for his first bookable offence, rather than his third? Of course, there is a subjective element to judging the severity of any action or physical contact. But it shouldn't be subjective in the sense that a trip ought to be more likely to earn you a caution after 50 minutes than after four; or less likely if you have already been booked. That is ludicrous stance. Yet it is one any number of old pros and managers rush to take up. In doing so, effectively theirs is a demand for a "common sense" policy that is tantamount to telling referees to be inconsistent. Which, in itself, is supposed to be the big no-no.

Some respectable figures in the game have suggested refereeing standards have dipped because promising officials are being all-too-readily fast-tracked. Yet, without experience, without learning from their errors in the most unforgiving environment, there is no way of bringing young referees fully up to speed. However, in their desperation to impress in such pressurised circumstances and show themselves to be on top of discipline, they are probably going over the top.

Of course, there is another possible explanation.

Maybe they just aren't as good as Scottish referees of the past. And, in that respect, why should they be any different from the players that they are officiating on?