While I do not always agree with UEFA President Michel Platini, like his proposals for wage caps and vendetta against the big-spending Premier League, the Frenchman has been spot on in implementing more referee assistants on the pitch.

Platini was massive in introducing extra assistants to aid the referee in last season’s Europa League competition. In that system, one official is placed at each goal and can assist the referee with goal-line calls and penalties. Because of the success of that experiment, it was announced today that the International Football Association Board (IFAB) has ratified UEFA’s proposal for the use of extra officials in all Champions League matches for the 2010-2011 season.

While the system was largely a success in last year’s Europa League, there were a few instances where calls were missed in critical areas, leading cynics to proclaim that additional officials do very little. But, as this was the first time in history for extra assistants to be utilized, there were always going to be a few hiccups along the way. Errors could be blamed on the assistants not being authoritative enough, and UEFA should underline how important a job these goal-line assistants now have.

Giving these officials the confidence and authority to make difficult calls will ameliorate any tentativeness they may experience in their new position. Aside from the head referee, these officials may very well be the most important on the pitch. With these added assistants, a bounty of positives are introduced to the game:

A) Discouraging simulation: With an additional pair of eyes at each goal witnessing action in the most important area on the field, hopefully diving in the box will be discouraged. Players will know that cheating their way to a penalty could more easily be caught, and could be deterred from doing so. Well, maybe not the Latin players, but we can pray, can’t we?

B) Phantom goals: In the wake of Frank Lampard’s “ghost” non-goal in England’s second round defeat at the hands of Germany, adding these eyes is an absolute must.  Had there been an assistant watching Lampard’s shot as it left his foot and tracking it to the goal, England would certainly have been awarded their equalizer and perhaps the World Cup would have turned out differently (although probably not knowing the England players).

C) Spotting penalties and infractions: The most critical area of the pitch deserves a pair of eyes, does it not?  Ultimately, yes, the referee has the final say and will be the one blowing his whistle the minute he feels a penalty has occurred, but with an assistant present, if he is ambiguous on the call he can either default to or confer with his assistant to make sure he gets the call right.

Granted, calls will still be missed with these new assistants.  In American football, there are seven referees on the field with equal authority when it comes to calling an infraction, and there are still blown calls.

Is UEFA’s new system perfect?  No.  But they and IFAB have taken a monumental step in the right direction to clean up some of the abysmal officiating the sport indefensibly tolerates.  One thing is certain: FIFA will fall well behind their European counterpart on any progressive ideas to better the sport.

What do you think about this issue?  Good or bad move by UEFA?

I appeared on a CBC TV news program in Canada Monday night and was asked to defend the theatrics of soccer. The diving and the cheating that are so woven into the fabric of soccer and are most evident to the public when the World Cup takes center stage every four years. To be fair, the diving and cheating is indefensible other than the fact that this is what countries often do to gain a edge in soccer. And oftentimes a slight edge is all it takes to win a game.

In the past few days, I’ve spoken to many North Americans who have enjoyed the World Cup but would be much more interested in the sport if the cheating and diving could be eradicated from the game. And they’re absolutely correct. The diving that we’ve seen by footballers has been disgusting such as Italy’s Daniele De Rossi (to win the penalty against New Zealand), Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo (to win free kicks in dangerous places on the pitch against Ivory Coast), Chile’s Jorge Valdivia (who received a yellow card Monday for diving to try to win a penalty), Ivory Coast’s Fadel Keita (who charged at Kaka on purpose to draw a foul, which ended up being a second yellow for Kaka and he was sent off), etc.

Several people I speak to say that they would love the sport if only the diving and cheating could be eliminated. They blame the referees for not seeing the fouls. They blame the players for faking and cheating. I blame FIFA for not being strong enough. Here’s why:

The referees are at a disadvantage. We get to see every controversial incident on replay as well as from different camera angles (including overhead cameras at times). Plus, we see the incident in slow-motion and we can watch it over and over again in a couple of minutes while the referee and his assistant referees are handicapped by only seeing it once without the aid of TV replays. When we as the TV viewer have so much more evidence at our fingertips, how can we expect the referee to make a fair and accurate result unless he sees the same things we see? Simply put, FIFA needs to introduce video technology to the modern sport of soccer.

FIFA has so far not introduced the chip technology in the ball and the addition of two assistant referees behind goals to help referees in World Cup matches. They’ve also resisted introducing video technology. The reason they are so archaic when it comes to the question of introducing technology is because they’re fearful of losing control and power. Once the decisions are made by people with video monitors, the balance of power and authority has shifted from the referees to a man in a TV studio or press box. Getting a decision correct with the aid of video technology should be the way FIFA is heading, but it undermines their authority and it undermines the authority of the referee.

FIFA wants to maintain as much control as possible. The best example of this was the controversial incident involving referee Koman Coulibaly who disallowed USA’s third goal against Slovenia. After the incident happened, no one knew what the call was. Was it offside, or was it pushing? As is FIFA’s policy, the referee didn’t conduct a post-match interview to explain his decision. And there was no word from FIFA regarding what really happened. This was on Friday. Over the weekend when the video highlights were added to the FIFA.com website, all evidence of the controversial incident was not included in the video highlights section. All we knew that FIFA was going to make a statement on Monday. So, for 3-4 agonizing days, FIFA said nothing until now when they announced that Koman Coulibaly would not be refereeing any more matches in the World Cup. And what did the head of referees think of their performance so far? “We are very, very satisfied with the performance of the referees,” Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for FIFA, said Monday.

FIFA is walking a tightrope. I’m convinced that between now and the final a very controversial incident will happen again and a referee will make an incorrect decision which will lead to a country being knocked out of the tournament and injustice being served. This is the sort of thing that turns fans off soccer. It can be corrected, but FIFA is too stubborn and too protective of the power they maintain to let anything go. Unfortunately it’s going to take a controversial incident that will get people incensed to encourage FIFA to change. And even then, FIFA will only change on their own time and when they feel like it.

Bottom line, FIFA needs to be more transparent and needs to be seen as doing everything they can to make the game fair. They also need to stamp out cheating and allow referees to come down hard on players who conduct that behavior. For the sake of soccer, let’s hope FIFA does something after this World Cup to improve the game.

I hate to be “that guy.” I really do but the British media’s constant efforts to chalk Chelsea’s EPL campaign as the result of favor from match officials is bordering on insulting. Chelsea’s last three victories came against Manchester United, Bolton and Stoke City and in all three the Blues have come under critcism for calls that went in their favor. Pundits pointed out Drogba’s offside’s match-winner against Manchester United as referees giving the game to Chelsea but these same critics stayed silent on the possible handball of Federico Macheda or the obvious penalty on Gary Neville.

Sir Alex Ferguson, always quick to blame defeats on everything but his players, said “What I can’t understand is the linesman’s directly in front of it. He has no-one near him and he gets it wrong. A game of that magnitude, you really need quality officials and we didn’t get them today. It was a poor, poor performance.” On his last point Ferguson was correct, the officals were poor on that Saturday afternoon at Old Trafford but they were bad for both sides. The outcome was not determined by the men with the whistles and to imply otherwise is ludicrous. Who knows if Macheda would have even gotten that goal if it were not for the reckless pressure United was forced to apply with a two-goal defecit. It is overly simplistic to think that the outcome of the match would have been identical minus one goal. That’s not how the game works.

The following week Chelsea put in an admittedly flat-footed display against Bolton. Bolton had two handball appeals waved off, one against John Terry and the other against Didier Drogba. Drogba’s offense was obviously a penalty but the alleged offense against Terry seemed to come off the shoulder and not the arm. Columnists were infuriated with the apparant blue bias of the referees. “At the top, Manchester United and Arsenal can forget about the championship if Chelsea are going to survive such clear-cut handballs,” said ESPN columnist Harry Harris. Did Chelsea escape this game with a few generous calls? Probably. But what some people do not seem to understand is that handballs inside the box are missed more often than they are seen. Chelsea had a few claims to handballs themselves but were turned away because the offense is so difficult to see.

But the most egregious offense came during Sky Sports halftime analysis of Chelsea’s thrashing against Stoke City. Both analyists claimed that Soloman Kalou’s sliding rebound to put Chelsea up 2-0 was “a dangerous play that deserved a red-card.” Upon viewing the replay it’s obvious that Kalou got to the ball first and and it was the goalkeeper who lunged to make contact with the Chelsea player. The play resulted in Thomas Sorenson getting injured and that’s regrettable but in no way a sending off or grounds to wave off a clear goal. The commentators again cited big-club bias against the referees but made no mention of the obvious handball by Stoke in the first half.

If Chelsea manage to hang onto their slim lead atop the EPL and hoist the trophy on May 9 it will not be because of favorable treatment by officials. It will be because they played the best football over the course of the season. Clubs get victories they don’t deserve because of blown calls all the time. That will always be the case and incompetence by officials knows no biases.

“Giggs looking to pick out Rooney… who’s got there, is that a penalty kick?! What does Mike Dean say?! He says penalty!”

This whole routine is getting a little old, isn’t it? Screw diamonds, refereeing mistakes are forever. It’s like the referees all convene and decide whose turn it is to make mistake and forbid us from ever forgetting how truly inadequate they are. Just when we’re about to move on from one refereeing saga, the Eduardo dive, Wayne Rooney provides the perfect half-dive(he was already going down, but there was contact) to remind us of the skinny men(excluding Howard Webb) in black. Pretty good timing though, being international week and all. Thanks, Wayne.

It’s really unfair to demonize the referees without looking first at those who bestowed such an enviable task upon them – the FA, FIFA, and UEFA. Instead of giving referees a requisite arsenal for calling a fair and accurate match, they provide them with an extreme protectionism that only vilifies them more. What I mean by this is similar to what Arsene Wenger meant when he labeled Eduardo’s ban a “disgrace.” Although I believe Wenger worsened his case with some of his comments, particularly trying to defend Eduardo with claims of contact being made or mentions of his injury, he makes one very good point. UEFA retrospectively overruled a decision the referee had dealt with on the pitch, something that has always been forbidden by the FA and UEFA. We are constantly reminded: if the referee did not take action, the governing body cannot take action. The governing bodies do this to protect the referees and credit them with the final word. This was cited as the reason Jose Bosingwa was not banned for clear red-card kick on Benayoun and why Michael Ballack was not punished after the Barcelona match, just to name two examples. UEFA seem so eager to protect the decisions made by the referee that they blindly accept reversible mistakes. With the Eduardo ban, UEFA prove themselves to be hypocrites.

In last year’s Champions League semi-final between Arsenal and Manchester United, Darren Fletcher brilliantly stuck in a toe to legally win the ball from Cesc Fabregas, and he was handed a red-card. The only way to get the unjust red-card overturned, UEFA said, is if the referee mistook Fletcher for another person – in which case a different person would be banned for a legal challenge. As they always do, UEFA came to the rescue of the referee and punished the player – who actually plays the sport – with a Champions League Final suspension. In fact, Eduardo was not banned for simulation, he was banned for “deceiving the referee.” If they charge him for simulation, they accept that the referee made a mistake, but when they charge him for “deceiving the referee,” they make the referee the victim. In his own words Michel Platini removes blame of the referee,

“However, on Wednesday he showed disrespect to the game by his actions in winning a penalty against Celtic.”

The way he phrases this, you’d think Eduardo was the referee and awarded himself the penalty.

This is where I may surprise you. I wanted Eduardo to get banned for cheating, plain and simple. Bans for diving needed to start sometime and now is perfectly suitable.  A friend of mine had a perfect analogy, “Cavemen used to kill each other for sport, does that mean we should never have made a law against murder?” However, in order for UEFA to really make a difference, they’re going to have to change a lot and to be honest, they probably won’t.

First, the next time Ronaldo, Messi or Kaka clearly dives in the Champions League, they should be banned for two matches. If they want to show they’re serious, they can make an example of a superstar and show football what nobody believes, that UEFA is unbiased. Second, the players need to be protected, not the referees. Why punish a player or a team to protect the least profitable and marketable aspect of the game, the referees? All decisions should be available for overruling if they are clearly incorrect. Lastly, give referees the technologies that any supporter of football has from his living room. The problem is that the governing bodies are run by older people whose playing days didn’t know anything of instant replay. The game has changed and technology has changed but sadly, they have not. This leads me to believe that instant replay and goal-line technology are inevitable, seeing as they are supported by the majority, just not the right majority. Adding an extra referee will further the problem, not solve it. If you’re playing with a flat football, do you go and get another flat football? As Slaven Bilic famously said, “Wake up.”

Without a lot of herald or press coverage, UEFA announced at the start of the week that there will be five referees on the pitch for all Europa League matches next season.  An additional pair of eyes will be stationed behind each goal, focusing on incidents in and around the penalty area.

I’m 100% behind this move by Michel Platini.  The debate about video replays seems to polarize fans’ opinion, and I’m no different.  I just can’t see a workable situation that will cover the most contentious decisions in a way that doesn’t detract from the beauty of the game.

The vantage point from behind the goal will perfectly supplement the referee in the middle of the pitch.  Between them, they should be able to make better quality decisions that will make the game more fair.  The reports from the trial of the system reported fewer controversies and and reduction of holding and pushing at set-plays.

Back in the days of the Soccer Shout podcast (circa 2005-06) I was a big proponent of this approach – before it was being talked about by UEFA – so I’m going to throw a few more predictions into the ring:

• Five referees in the Premier League in the 2010-11 season.
• Five referees in (gasp!) the World Cup.

What do you guys think – about the system and my predictions?

Is the pressure on the likes of Howard Webb and his colleagues unrealistic considering this is not a full-time job for all officials?

 The criticism directed at referees and their assistants these days is becoming more of  a talking point than many games themselves. Howard Webb made an incorrect judgement and awarded Manchester United a penalty against Tottenham last week, a decision that Spurs manager Harry Redknapp clearly felt changed the game.

Now there is some truth in this, it got United back in the game, cut the deficit in half and therefore the momentum swung in favour of the current champions. However, Spurs still had the lead and proceeded to suffer a defensive collapse in the second half in the face of a breath-taking spell of football in twenty minutes from United.

I feel however, to blame the referee for shipping a further four goals is a deplorable thing to say. It is often pointed out by pundits, journalists, fans, managers and players alike that current standards of officiating are inadequate but I do not feel that the officials themselves are to blame for 95% of this. I feel that many fans erroneously jump to the conclusion that referees are either biased or that the man with the whistle wants to be bigger than the game he is overseeing. I simply cannot agree that this is the case the majority of time. Naturally like everyone else, I have briefly questioned the integrity of the referee when following my own team, namely Rob Styles and Graham Poll! But surely what a referee wants is for the game he is officiating to pass without receiving fervent criticism from 20-75,000 people in a stadium plus the millions more watching at home.

So why do I feel that the match officials are given a raw deal? Well considering that the fitness of the Refs, like the players they blow the whistle against has steadily improved over the years (I believe they train together at least once a week plus running in between) surely they should be closer to the play? I am also sure they could get around the park with more ease than the men with moustaches from yesteryear that often came with a belly grown by ale and roast dinners.

However, for a 30-50 year old man to try and keep up with the likes of  Theo Walcott is an unrealistic task. We sometimes forget just how much faster the game really is in England at this time. The style of play, combined with the light modern ball, the fitness and physical  strength of a professional footballer has increased the pace of the game dramatically not mention the firm, slick wet pitches. 

Because of all these factors, passes on the ground are quicker, passes in the air go longer, shots fly harder, players run faster, tackle faster and are considerably more agile. How did we expect men normally at least in their 30′s to keep up with this?

Other factors have also made the job for the man in the middle even more difficult. The non-contact sport style laws not only mean more free kicks are given but because of the ease of obtaining a penalty or free-kick within the rules of football, incidents of play-acting, gamesmanship, cheating  – call it what you will, have naturally increased. The money within the game and the ever increasing player/manager power against the decreasing authority of the officials make it hard for referees in some instances to give decisions. Would anyone genuinely fancy making a penalty call against the big four on their home ground that could give the likes of Fulham (no disrespect intended) a victory and cost someone three points in the title race. Imagine making a genuine mistake and having Alex Ferguson blasting you on national television, followed by fans and the media alike. If that happened you could referee at Old Trafford one week and Blackpool the next!

So maybe it’s time to not only tighten the laws about diving and blasting the ref but to make it a full time job for ALL referees. only a SELECT FEW referees at the top end of the game are full time proffesionals .  This would then ensure a much higher base of fitness for the officials as they would train more frequently instead of spending the rest of the week working to support themselves.  A higher base of fitness would ensure officials would not only be closer to more incidents, but the fatigue factor toward the end of game that can lead to poor judgement calls would be less apparent.

Pay these men accordingly; the pressure referees face in comparison to their salaries is not reasonable. Naturally we would expect the professional referees and their assistants to officiate more than one game a week to earn their keep but I’m sure it is a better idea than FIFA’s proposal of two referees, four assistants, and an official on the touchline.

This Sunday marks the traditional beginning of the top flight of English football when Portsmouth battles Manchester United in the Community Shield Final at Wembley Stadium in London. If you’re like me, you’re excited about seeing the return of English football after being without it since the end of May.

But the biggest story in the press in the buildup to this Sunday’s match is not anything to do with United or Pompey. It’s referee Mark Clattenburg who has been dropped from the match in favor of Peter Walton.

Clattenburg has been suspended because the electrical company that he owns has gone bankrupt and owes debts of £60,000.

Not only will Clattenburg miss the Community Shield Final, but he’s also expected to miss being in charge on the pitch for the first few weeks of the Premier League season until the issue has been resolved.

Clattenburg will also not officiate in any other games until the issue has been resolved.

With Clattenburg having such large debts, the Professional Game Match Officials feel it’s not appropriate for the referee to be in charge of matches especially when there would be temptations for refs who are facing financial difficulties. I believe the FA and Professional Game Match Officials are making the correct decision.

Let’s hope that Sunday’s final is remembered for something special on the pitch rather than the issues off the pitch.

They’re the men in black that you love to hate, but someone has to do the job. Here’s EPL Talk’s guide to the Premier League referees for the 2008/2009 season (click on the referee’s name to view his photograph):

Martin Atkinson. Premier League ref since 2005. Age 37. On August 13, 2006 he took charge of the FA Community Shield match at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, between Liverpool and Chelsea.

Stuart Attwell. Premier League ref since 2008/2009 season. Youngest ever Premier League referee at 25 years of age.

Steve Bennett. Premier League referee since 1999. Age 47. Bennett was involved in some controversy when he refereed the Manchester United versus Liverpool Premier League encounter on March 23, 2008. He sent off Liverpool’s Argentine Midfielder Javier Mascherano for a second bookable offence.

Mark Clattenburg. Premier League ref since 2004. Age 33. He became a FIFA referee in 2006, at the age of only thirty, reaching this distinction earlier than any English referee in living memory.

Michael Dean. Premier League ref since 2000. Age 40. He was originally appointed to referee the 2006 FA Cup Final at the Millennium Stadium on May 13, 2006, but the Football Association took the unusual step of replacing him with Alan Wiley after concerns were raised about his ability to be impartial towards Liverpool, who are based near Dean’s home town in the Wirral.

Phil Dowd. Premier League ref since 2001. Age 45. He was heavily criticised by Wigan’s then manager, Paul Jewell, and their owner, Dave Whelan, following his performance in the club’s Premiership match with Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium on February 11, 2007.

Chris Foy. Premier League ref since 2001. Age 45. On February 3, 2008, Foy removed the Fulham mascot, Billy the Badger, from the playing area for breakdancing on it during their 2-1 home win over Aston Villa.

Mark Halsey. Premier League referee since 1999. Age 47. His first match in the EPL was the 1-1 draw between Wimbledon and Coventry City on August 14, 1999.

Michael Jones. Premier League ref since 2008/2009 season. Age 40.

Andre Marriner. Premier League ref since 2005. Age 37. He was given his first Premiership match on 13 November 2004 – the 4-0 home win by Charlton Athletic over Norwich City.

Lee Mason. Premier League ref since 2006. Age 36. His first ever match in that league as man-in-the-middle came on 4 February 2006, when Middlesbrough lost 4-0 at home to Aston Villa,

Mike Riley. Premier League ref since 1996. Age 43. During the first half of the home match against Newcastle on 30 April 2007 Kingsley Royal, the Reading club mascot, was sent from the field by the referee for standing too close to the pitch.      

Keith Stroud. Premier League ref since 2007. Age 38. He was ‘trialed’ for the Premier League, being given the match on March 17, 2007 between Middlesbrough and Manchester City at the Riverside Stadium.

Rob Styles. Premier League ref since 2000. Age 44. On August 19, 2007, Styles refereed the Premier League game between Liverpool and Chelsea, where a controversial penalty was awarded by him to Chelsea Liverpool manager Rafael Benítez was quoted as saying that the decision was ‘unbelievable’. “That decision is impossible to explain, it was the invisible penalty” said Benítez after the 1–1 draw.

Steve Tanner. Premier League referee since 2007. Age 37. On January 1 2008 he was added to the FIFA list of referees, replacing Graham Poll, allowing him to referee in international and continental competitions.

Peter Walton. Premier League ref since 2003. Age 48. His first ever Premiership match in charge was the 4-3 home win by Wolverhampton Wanderers over Leicester City at Molineux on 25 October 2003.

Howard Webb. Premier League referee since 2003. Age 37. Refereed at Euro 2008 but was not selected to referee the knock-out stages.

Alan Wiley. Premier League since 1999. Age 48. He took charge of the FA Cup Final on May 13, 2006 when Liverpool played West Ham United at Wembley.