I have always had a great deal of respect for Bobby Robson, now managing Newcastle United. He has managed successfully throughout Europe and was in my opinion a good England Manager, despite the lambasting that the sports writers seem to reserve for managers of the national team.
It was disappointing therefore that he blamed the referee after Kieron Dyer was sent off in the game against Tottenham. Later he admitted that it was the player's own fault. Dyer's crime was swearing at the assistant referee because he felt he should have been awarded a free kick after an opponent had robbed him of the ball.
It was good to hear the change of opinion by Bobby Robson, because there are many people in the game who believe that it is quite in order to protest, even violently or with abusive language, against a referee's decision, when the player thinks that he is right and the referee is wrong.
Last season I was an assistant referee at a match which highlighted this point of view. It was a match that meant a great deal to players as it was a regional final of a national competition. Just after half-time the team attacking the goal at the other end to me scored a goal.
The defenders protested and the referee went over to consult the other assistant referee, who indicated that in his opinion the goal should stand. However, two of the defenders were not satisfied and continued to harangue the referee so much that both their names went into his book.
After the match was over the officials of the club approached the referee and said 'You're not going to send in those cautions are you?'. 'Of course' replied the referee. 'But, claimed the officials,' they were right and you can't punish someone
if they are right'.
Irrespective of the correctness of the referee's decision which sparked the confrontation, the club officials were quite wrong.
FLFA and the FA have repeatedly confirmed that the referee's decision on the facts of law are final. In other words, even if television showed the referee to be wrong, his decision would still stand. Law 12 says that a player will be cautioned if he shows dissent. It doesn't say 'but not if the referee can be proved wrong'. And of course the use of 'insulting, abusive or offensive language' is a sending-off offence.
There are some people who actually treat the player's protestations as proof that the referee has made a mistake. For those, as well as anyone who believes players have a right to dissent if they feel they are right, I would love to have the free run of a television studio and unlimited videos of televised matches.
I would produce a film which would show all the occasions when players appeal ferociously against decisions but which show that the referee was correct in his action. If it could be shown to professional teams everywhere, it might just provoke a change in attitude.
In fact I would need to show only one incident. Remember the Portuguese protest about the late penalty which knocked them out of last years European Nations Cup? They were absolutely convinced that they were right and protested so strongly that it resulted in a player receiving the red card. However, the television replay had the irrefutable evidence that one of the Portuguese players had deliberately handled the ball, out of sight of the referee and the other players but not of the assistant referee.
The real point is that players need to understand what we were taught as schoolboys: the referee is always right, even when he is wrong.
Dick Sawdon Smith