Phil Dowd - Stoke on Trent's finest son - top flight referee.
Tempting as it is to launch into a diatribe accusing Dowd of being everything from a Chinese Bookies pawn to a man suffering deeply from Portnoy's Complaint, I'm not going there. It is too easy. It's cheap and inaccurate and it won't explain my problems with Mr Dowd's decisions. For that I need to ponder coolly - and with some degree of objectivity.
Case 1
Villa left back Joe Bennett is involved in a touch line tussle near the halfway line. He and his Norwich namesake Elliott are pushing and jostling each other and Elliott falls over. Is it a foul? Well half of me says no - it was six of one and half a dozen of the other - and replays later show that. But I am a Villa fan - and I know I cannot trust myself - so another part of me says yes - because our Joe did have hold of his shirt when he fell - and was intending to block the attackers run.
So I can accept the foul - even though its a murky one - but it's on the halfway line - so no harm done.
But no - not enough - Mr Dowd - who rightly booked Bennett for a reckless lunge in the first half - feels the need to go to his pocket. As soon as he does this - the moment he makes that gesture - there is no way back. Joe is sent off for a non dangerous foul on the halfway line. Even a neutral could see this was a very harsh decision. And it was a decision that altered the course of a match.
Now Mr Dowd may well say that according to the letter of the law he had no choice. He may say that the tussle was worthy of a yellow as a professional foul. He may say that - but we will never know because referees don't talk to the press after matches to explain contentious decisions. Unless they want to of course.
Whatever he may say - he cannot say that the tussle on the halfway line was worthy of a red card - because patently it was not. It was a nothing foul in a nothing part of the pitch - and a free-kick and stern final warning would have been enough. Instead - Dowd effectively killed the match as a spectacle. Which is a pain - as it is spectators like me who pay money to keep the whole bloated edifice of the Premier League afloat. But never mind .... the law is the law and all that.
Except it isn't.
Case 2Wembley. The League Cup Final of 2010. Aston Villa vs Manchester United.
I was laughingly told by a 'Stokie' mate that we had no chance - Dowd's kids were big Man U fans and in the crowd - which of course I laughed off. And then Gabriel Agbonlahor received the ball on the wing just inside the Man Utd half. He sprinted in field - jinking left and right - leaving the last defender - a lumbering Nemanja Vidić in his wake. Then just as he made room to shoot - Vidic pulled his shirt and hacked him down to make sure.
In happened right in front of me. It was blatant. And Dowd blew his whistle and pointed to the spot. All that was left was to administer the coup de grace - the red card that would inevitably follow. A blatant professional foul making no attempt for the ball. The last defender. Denying a goal scoring opportunity. Vidic was toast. And yet of course he wasn't. There was no red card. There was not even a yellow card. It was inexplicable. The resulting goal from the penalty was lost in the bemusement of the crowd around me - what on earth was going on?
To make matters even worse - Vidic was finally booked in the 68th minute after a string of fouls - and Manchester Utd and Vidic went on to lift the Cup.
It remains the single most troubling moment of my sporting life.
Mr Dowd later decided to speak - it was either that or an Earthquake alert in North London as Martin O'Neill threatened to erupt violently. Dowd was quoted that he did not send Vidic off because Agbonlahor was moving away from goal at the time of the tackle. It is sophistry of the worse order. Worse - it is a straight faced lie.
Agbonlahor received the ball out wide just inside Man Utd's half. He was felled in the penalty box. Draw a line in your imagination between those two points. Does it look like he was moving away from goal?
Unless of course Mr Dowd meant at the exact moment of contact. Say the ten milliseconds Agbonlahor was jinking in his run. Left and right. Surging - trying to make room for a shot. Perhaps that's what Mr Dowd meant? But if decisions are to be based on the direction of motion of the fouled player at the exact moment of impact then the Ronaldo's and Messi's are finished. Any player who doesn't run in a straight line toward the goal is fair play. Jink to the left - jink to the right and you can be fouled with impunity using this logic. It is plainly a smokescreen. A mealy mouthed excuse for a decision that not only outraged Villa fans - but every single media source covering the final.
Agbonlahor was jinking in his run to make space to shoot - as he has done since (though sadly not often enough). Vidic certainly thought it was a goal scoring opportunity - as did everyone else - except Mr Dowd.
That Vidic was the last defender was apparently not longer a factor in decision making.
So the law is the law - except when it isn't.
So Mr Dowd - you I'm afraid cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you enforce the letter of the law - or you mediate it with common sense - because if you do not - you leave yourself and your profession in a position in which your impartiality can be questioned.
Maybe I'm being unfair - who'd be a referee ? It's a hard job. People only remember your mistakes. The general perception is that there is a shortage of good people coming in to refereeing - because it is so hard - and we should all be thankful to the brave souls who volunteer their time to officiate our parks and recreation grounds on nippy November mornings - and I am. I am a fan of football at every level, and without such people the game would be lost.
Then again - the days of the likes of Jack Taylor - or the impartial amateur in the top flight are long gone. Since 2001 we have a new breed. They call themselves 'The Select Group'. They are well paid professionals. Very well paid professionals. Surprisingly - given the sports status as 'the Nation's Game' - the FA are not very open when it comes to just how much these new professionals are paid. A deep search brings up all sorts of figures - but none of them officially confirmed for some reason. The consensus centres around a figure between £3500 and £5000 per match. Very select indeed for 90 minutes work.
The situation is complicated in England by the FA's decision to pay all this 'select group' a retainer in the region of £35,000 - and then a match fee on top of that of about £1200. On top of that the refs can claim expenses which may add up to another £500 to the match fee. Then there is an end of season bonus scheme - nice work if you can get it - which last season was reported by the Daily Mirror to be a further £15,000. All in all - with everything thrown in - I would be surprised if £100,000 per year were not achievable as a member of the 'select group'.
Which is all well and good I suppose - perhaps this is to help boost the image of the referee and combat the recruitment crisis at lower levels? Except there is no crisis.
In a Guardian report from September 2010 the FA's senior refereeing-manager Ian Blanchard - though quiet on the money on offer at the top - is keen to talk about the 'community' input that the FA is funding. He states - "officiating is increasingly being seen as a route to participation at a higher level. Last year the number of new referees coming into the game between the ages of 14 and 19 was 2,614. This year it's already over 4,400." Great stuff - trebles all round.
Which brings me to the real point of my post. It's not that I resent referees - or envy the money they receive - or think them consciously biased - or bent. The reason I pre-ambled with the amount of money they earn is because it confirms their own assertion that they are professionals - with a ruling body - a code of conduct - and a pay package to confirm it.
Because if this 'Select Group' are professionals - then surely they should be accountable like other professions with similar rewards and professional bodies. If I am a Solicitor - and I am incompetent and muck my job up - I am accountable to my Professional Body - in this case - the Law Society - and I will be sanctioned, punished, and either dis-barred or forced to undergo retraining.
If I am a medical doctor - or a GP - and I am incompetent and muck my job up - my Professional body is the GMC (General Medical Council) will again sanction me, punish me, and either strike me off or compel me to undergo retraining.
If referees want respect - then the FA should stop with the PR campaigns and badges - and make referees explain the reasoning behind their decisions after every match, not hide behind a cloak of silence and denial.
I respect that there are people in the world who are idiots - who may hold grudges - who may seek to intimidate or even harm controversial referees and their families. But explaining big decisions is unlikely to inflame a situation that is already a smouldering pile of ashes. If anything - I think it would serve to douse anger and calm emotions and put the focus on the laws of the game rather than the individual.
Transparency is the greatest sign of health in any organisation - intolerance of criticism - obfuscation - silence - refusal to comment - and closed ranks are the marks of the dysfunctional organisation - of the dictator - the tyrant - and the thief.
And yet again - though I would never accuse you of being dishonest - I feel as if something has been stolen from me - Mr Dowd.
Postscript- I tried to find an image of the FA Board of Directors to illustrate this post - but hours of searching reveals no photos of them exist in the public domain. Strange. If I was a conspiracy nut I would suspect all sorts of things about this secrecy. As it is - make do with the image of the Wembley shed on the web page that is all about the FA Board.
