Referee admits 'Fulham should have had four penalties...

[Gozorich]

... well, no, of course we will never hear that. But Clattenberg aside (a lovely thought) what is wrong with referees being allowed to go public on their major decisions that aren't immediately clear to the common or garden supporter?

Halsey is a pompous posturing ass but surely even he wouldn't mind sharing with the great unwashed why a player who is brought down five yards in front of goal with only the keeper to beat deserves a penalty but wasn't denied a clear goal scoring opportunity therefore saving Hutton from being sent off?

He may have a very reasonable explanation but until he tells us what it is we can only speculate... hmmm! :dead horse:

[MikeR]

MLS has had what I find to be an entertaining feature - a review of refereeing decisions (good and bad) from recent games to help educate the viewing public on the laws of the game. As you might expect, they include examples of TV commentators going off on what they think is a bad call and show why the ref had it right, but they also analyze bad calls and explain why the ref was wrong.

As much as the FA hates to admit it, this approach doesn't undermine the authority or credibility of the refs; to me it shows that the governing authority is working to raise the standard of refereeing. The FA could do a lot to restore the public's confidence by publishing their internal reviews of refereeing decisions. (Of course, this would mean that inferior refs would have to be relegated, the same as inferior teams, but so be it.) Instead the FA stays tight-lipped and hopes no one will notice the goofs.