This week I am going to concentrate a bit on the island’s number one sport, football. Yet, the emphasis is not on the local scene but the English one, specifically after referees where in the limelight the previous week after the Liverpool versus Chelsea game and, following the game, football authorities made also public the disciplinary measures taken against the match’s official.

It is not my intention to discuss the match in question as this has been done quite extensively in the past days. My aim is to share with you a good article that I came across and which ponders on the increased analysis that comes about through increased media following as after all, in my opinion, the media had a big say, directly and indirectly, in leading to a load of criticism directed toward the referees and ultimately to the public announcement of the disciplinary penalties.

The article in question was written by a football referee who lives in Sheffield, Alex Wolstenholme and published on the specialised publication Referee.

Mr. Wolstenholme centred his article around the consequences of extensive media coverage on referees just as himself.

He wrote that from the formation of the very first Laws of the Game, the referee has always been a key figure in England’s national sport.

The decisions of the "man in black" have provoked supporters’ anger and delight in equal measure, usually depending on which team seemingly benefited from the calls and decisions.

Managers, players and supporters have always felt a cause to disagree with them and have voiced their disapproval accordingly. Decisions have always been a talking point, basically, on newspapers since the game began and then on television since the first highlight show was broadcast.

But in the 21st century, not one week goes by in the English Premiership without managers, players and the media questioning anything from a single decision to the very suitability of a particular referee to be in his chosen profession. Although the job of the referee has not changed all that much over the years, a number of factors mean that referees at the top level are under more scrutiny than ever before.

In 1992, the Premier League was formed with the backing of the Football Association (the body responsible for the game in England). An unprecedented television deal worth $495 million with Rupert Murdoch’s Sky TV and the BBC meant more money for the top clubs, more money for the players and more television coverage than ever before. Since that time the television deal has been renegotiated a number of times and increased substantially. More than 100 games a year are now shown live on television in a single season.

The explosion in television coverage together with rapid improvements in technology means that soccer coverage on British television is almost unrecognizable from that of only 10-15 years ago. The classic high up on the halfway line camera position remains the starting point, but the action can now be viewed from any number of camera angles with the viewer able to choose a favored position.

As a result, controversial decisions such as offside, goal-line clearances and send offs are replayed indefinitely during and after the game, allowing commentators, analysts and newspaper reporters to declare that a particular decision was wrong. The referee, of course, has no recourse to those comments.

Speculation over whether television coverage should be used to assist in making decisions has been ongoing for a number of years, but despite a number of experiments, FIFA remains nervous of what it sees as undermining the authority of the official.

Of course, the major problem is that referees are right in their decisions the majority of the time. Unfortunately three factors conspire to mean that is not often highlighted: It is not as good a story to report on an official who has had a good game; television’s thirst for instant interviews after games means managers and coaches are commenting only on what they have seen with the naked eye and not with the benefit of television replays that often show the referee was correct; and most important, the apparent reluctance of the Football Association to go some way toward developing a better understanding of why a referee has made a particular decision.

Progress has been made. In 2001, the Elite Group of referees was formed to operate under the jurisdiction of the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMOB) and take charge of Premiership games.

The 24 referees in the Elite group receive a retainer of about $54,000 per year, together with a match fee of about $1,500. They are now required to attend a certain number of training sessions per year, but remain free to continue in other professions. It is hoped that having a small, select group will foster better relationships between referees and players as well as increasing referee’s fitness.

The discrepancy between the wages of players and referees has never been greater. Players in the Premiership are now likely to earn as much in one week as the referee will do in one year. That, along with the phenomenal growth in television coverage and associated technological innovations by broadcasters, the unprecedented media interest in the game and the increased pressure on managers, has combined to mean that referees are under scrutiny more than ever before.

The improvements that have been made should improve the lot of referees in England who are now fitter, better paid and receive more feedback about their decisions than ever before. Technological changes to assist them with objective decisions (i.e. whether a ball has crossed the line or not) are surely inevitable at the top level of the game across the globe, not just in England.

Subjective decisions will remain the referee’s to make and while the officials will remain a focal point for disaffected fans, players and coaches, it is to be hoped that the game’s governing body will make it easier for them to explain their decisions and educate the soccer watching public in the rules of the game.