Spare a thought for the referee
WITH all the recent discussions and controversy surrounding the quality of the referees at World Cup '94 and their various, sometimes even incomprehensible, interpretations of the new FIFA regulations, I would like to extend the following comments and suggestions to all my football-loving brothers and sisters who have traditionally blamed everything on the referee: The present system of FIFA-qualified referees, as I understand it, consists of both professionals and amateurs. In the World Cup's case, the ''Best of the Best'' were selected from the various football associations from all over the world.
As most of us spectators have already noticed, referees from countries such as Sri Lanka and Mauritius were have been invited to officiate. With all due respect to those referees, one cannot help but to think that referees from these countries are more likely than not amateur and would certainly not have the regular exposure to refereeing world-class professionals as would their European counterparts.
As such, they would not have the necessary experience nor the authority to do a proper job in such an important tournament as the World Cup.
I feel that FIFA should make it mandatory for all referees working in major international tournaments to be professionals. This move, I think, would go a long way to ensure that consistency and overall quality are properly controlled.
As many of us are already aware, some of the rulings and interpretations of the new FIFA regulations have been at times mind-boggling, and other times down-right outrageous.
Of course, referees have the responsibility to interpret the rules and implement them as they see fit during the course of a match.
However, one must not forget that it was FIFA which created the new regulations, and they were also responsible for putting the referees under an enormous amount of pressure to perform up to their standards, or be sent home.
With literally only a few weeks to prepare, and actual implementation of the new rules beginning only with the first game of the World Cup, it was not surprising that the poor referees had such a terrible time. Again, FIFA is ultimately responsible.
There had been so much talk about the horrendous weather conditions under which the majority of the World Cup matches in the US had been played.
This was especially the case for the matches played in Orlando and Dallas where the temperatures often soared into the high 30s and even 40s Celsius.
With the excruciatingly high humidity which accompanied these high temperatures, let's be thankful that FIFA had the humanity and common sense to allow water bottles galore to flow during a match.
Bearing the above in mind, let's take a moment and spare a thought for the referees. Although their physical exertion may not be as great as the players, referees are human beings and were subjected to the same unbearable weather conditions as the players.
What's more, with the fast pace of the world game today, not only are referees expected to be in the correct position to make quick and accurate decisions, they are also subjected to a constant barrage of verbal abuse from coaches, players, and supporters alike demanding decisions in their favour or just plain arguing.
Worse yet, in some countries, referees may even have their lives threatened by over zealous supporters and officials.
The referee's job is by no means easy, and should be recognised as such.
In light of the above, perhaps the following suggestions could be considered: Slow-motion replay: This system has been proved to be quite useful in America Football and Test cricket. However, one must note that the above two sports have as part of the game regular time-outs and numerous stoppages . . . football does NOT!! Although stoppages are allowed for on-field injuries, substitutions, etc, football is essentially a non-stop game.
The introduction of such a system would only serve to break the game's natural rhythm and ultimately kill the game as we know it.
Five-referee system: As recently suggested by a friend, this system would basically be the same as used by FIFA with the only difference being the inclusion of one more on-field referee.
With two on-field referees, each covering one-half of the pitch, along with two linesmen and the alternate referee, this system would improve the speed at which the referee arrives or positions himself in the general area of play.
With less ground to cover, the referee would benefit from less physical exertion, which should improve his overall mental state, thus leading to more accuracy.
Moreover, the presence of one more on-field referee would also ensure that more off-the-ball incidents were spotted, which referees working under the present system may miss from time to time.
Some may argue that the five-referee system may result in less running and passing space for the players. I don't agree . . . at the present, there are already 25 individuals on a football pitch at any given time. I doubt the inclusion of one more referee would be that disruptive.
Official recognition: It is understood that the referee and the linesmen who were chosen to officiate the final match were unofficially recognised as the best during the tournament.
What's more, to be selected to serve on FIFA's panel of referees is for some already the ultimate honour.
I would like to take this idea a little further . . . how about an award for the best referee over the course of an entire season? This award would be on the same line as the ''Golden Boot'' or ''World Footballer of the Year''. A quality referee should be recognised in the same way as would a Roberto Baggio or an Andy Cole.
Like it or not, referees will always be an essential part of any organised sport.
I sincerely hope that referees will be recognised as the noble servants of the game that they are, and not the eternal guinea pigs or damaged egos of an unfulfilled sporting ambition.
ROSS CHAN Hong Kong
