DON’T TORTURE OFFICIALS LIKE HERETICS
PREMIER LEAGUE clubs are increasingly insistent that referees conduct post-match interviews to explain their decisions and mistakes after the game.
There is one problem with this: who says they made mistakes? The presumption here, from managers and players too, is that referees will accept responsibility under questioning — although quite what good this will do, beyond vengeful vindication for the supposedly wronged club, has never been explained. Yet take West Ham’s disallowed goal at Chelsea, a judgment the majority of observers saw as erroneous. What if the referee does not agree? What if Andy Madley comes before the cameras and sticks by it? Says that Jarred Gillett, the VAR, drew his attention to a foul he had missed and he stands by that decision? How many times is the replay reviewed before we accept he has simply made a call that differs to ours? It’s an interview, not an Inquisition. We can’t torture officials like heretics until they recant. Throw it open to the studio, get the guests involved, it’s an argument that goes absolutely nowhere unless the referee is prepared to change his mind. And, even if he does, then what? The game has gone, the final whistle has blown.
So while the event itself would be modern and new — and television would love it because it makes them the centre of the universe again — in terms of benefit for the game, there is little. Much like VAR really.