Some years ago I had what might be described as an altercation with BBC
Television commentator Barry Davies.
A few weeks before we met, there was an incident at a match on which he was commentating, when he criticised the
referee's decision. I reminded him of the occasion and read to him the law on the
subject which showed the referee was correct in his action. I hoped the
explanation would improve his knowledge of the laws of the game and faced
with a similar situation in the future he would know what the decision should be
and not mislead his viewers. Many football supporters and park players take
their view of the game from what they see and hear on television and radio.
He thought about it for a moment and then replied, 'I still think I was right.' In other
words, 'no matter what the laws say, I'll criticise the referee, even though I don't
know what I am talking about'. He also gave a slightly weird reason for never
seriously studying the Laws.
This was in the days when there were only two television companies, BBC and ITV, showing football and there
was some degree of rivalry between the BBCs commentators, Barry Davies and John
Motson and the star performer for ITV Brian Moore. Brian Moore had received
some publicity because he had taken a referee's examination. Barry Davies's
refusal to follow suit was because it would look as if he was copying his rival.
No thought of the fact that he should be fully conversant with all aspects of his
trade or that he could take it without publicity, he just wouldn't do it.
Are ex-players as TV pundits any better? Although they may understand tactics
their knowledge of the laws is scant but they don't let that stop them. On the
Birmingham City goalkeeper sending off, ITVs Robbie Earl commented on a
clip of an earlier incident with Manchester United. To referees it showed his
lack of understanding of that particular law.
To viewers it cast doubt on the integrity of the referee and misled them on the law. On radio too we hear lots of
errors and no wonder. A couple of years ago I invited BBC Radio Berkshire'
Joel Hufford to talk to Reading referees about his work commentating on
Reading's matches. He admitted that he had never considered attending a
referee's course. When asked where he then gained his understanding of the
laws of the game, he replied 'from playing in the Reading Sunday League'. Do
need to make any further comment?
I was reminded of all this when I leamt last week that a dozen top football
writers were invited to FA Headquarters. They took part in a demonstration
using video clips, showing how match official are taught to distinguish between
fair and foul tackles and then which deserve a yellow card and which red.
This is similar to what we do on our training courses here in Reading. A green card
means they saw no offence, a purple card says it was just an unfair tackle,
yellow means it was also worthy of a caution and the red card of course denotes
a sending off offence. There was a total lack of consistency amongst the sports
writers. On one occasions Keith Hill from the FA, reviewing the display before
him remarked, 'It's like looking at a rainbow'.
These were representatives of a press who constantly make strident demands that referees should be more
consistent and criticise referees' decisions and yet they couldn't agree amongst
themselves. I'm told that the football writers found the morning enjoyable and
absorbing but the question is will it change their comments when similar
incidents occur? Or will they be like Barry Davies and say 'that might be the law
but I still think I'm right'.
Dick Sawdon Smith