The world of football management is one full of potential pitfalls and stumbling blocks. It appears to be a world that pushes it’s incumbent to the very limit with numerous challenges that test a person’s ability to deal with all sorts of, often contradictory, problems. Of all of the paradoxes that a manager deals with the one that seems most prevalent at the moment is the post-match interview. Especially when broached on the subject of the referee.
Here are the two golden rules, in relation to referees, for any post-match interview.
Rule 1.
Any negative comment about the referee will result in swift disciplinary action from the FA.
Rule 2.
The interviewer will spend a large portion of the interview shamelessly badgering the interviewee on the subject of referees.
You can see where the dilemma lies. It’s a dilemma that faced both Swansea City’s Michael Laudrup and West Bromwich Albion’s Steve Clarke this weekend. Both had to look on as their teams conceded wrongly given penalties resulting in the loss of precious points. Swansea losing a 3-2 win against Stoke City and West Brom having a famous 2-1 win away at Chelsea stolen from their grasp. Both games ended in draws.
Michael Laudrup’s post-match interview was quite a spectacle to watch on this weekend’s Match Of The Day 2. Laudrup was left with nothing more to present to the public than a sheer dumbfounded look and very few words. He was left utterly speechless, not because he was lacking in thoughts that he wanted to share but because he knew that the number of answers he could give to the questions being asked had already been strictly limited by the FA.
What were Laudrup’s choices when asked about a refereeing decision that replays had already shown to be incorrect? He could have lied. He could have said that the referee made the right call all the while knowing that what he is saying is farcical. Or, he could be honest in his assessment of the ref and face the impending fine or touchline ban from the powers that be. So, not a lot of choice really.
Laudrup chose to be the personification of diplomacy. Unable to really lambast the referee for his decision to give not only the penalty, but also another incorrect handball against his team in the build-up to the penalty. One thing that he was allowed to say, and did, was this:
“Sometimes I just wish that those referees or linesmen, they could come out and say ‘Sorry, I made a mistake’.
“(That would be) no problem, we are all humans – I can make mistakes, you make mistakes, the players make mistakes – but why can’t the referees say sorry?”
All fair points. Managers have to answer to the media in the wake of losses and bad decisions. Players have to face the music after missed chances and calamitous errors. Their accountability is quickly and swiftly utilised. That is not the case for the referee who will not have to explain any of the mistakes he made during this game.
The unfortunate truth for referees is that any time the press will want to speak to them is in the wake of an error such as those seen at the Liberty Stadium and Stamford Bridge over the weekend. This could lead to a post-match interview that is purely a no-win situation for any ref. Because, after a game, the ensuing witch-hunt would only focus on the negative aspects of refereeing.
When a player is interviewed after a game he is just as likely to be asked about a great goal or a stellar performance as he is anything negative. But no broadcast company wants to give valuable minutes to a referee allowing him to talk about correctly booking a player or effectively letting play carry on after a bad challenge. Nor are we really that interested in hearing that.
So don’t expect referees to be given the avenue to explain themselves after a game. However, maybe it’s time for managers to be allowed an opinion on referees instead of having to mindlessly dodge the questions they are asked. The reality that Michael Laudrup had to dance around the fact that the referee had clearly made a bad decision is laughable. It makes the manager look pathetic and makes the interview largely redundant.
Maybe in an ideal world interviewers wouldn’t persist with questions that they know can’t be honestly answered for fear of FA rebuttal. But, regardless, the FA can no longer obviously insist on the feelings of a ref being protected. The referee has seen the replays, I’m sure he can already work out that Michael Laudrup is disappointed with the decision. Can’t we now just be grown-ups and inject a little honesty into the process?