For most of its history football has accepted that the referee's decision is final and that he is right even when he is wrong. The alternative, it was always argued, would be anarchy and life was too short anyway.
Now, however, this concept is under threat as never before. Not only are referees' decisions being challenged almost on a weekly basis, but the officials themselves are increasingly inclined to admit errors after studying the television evidence.
Naturally this has persuaded more managers to contest publicly decisions knowing that if mistakes are proved cards and suspensions will be erased. Quite right too: justice needs to be served even in football's autocratic little world.
Yet there is a danger of the authority of the referee becoming further undermined, not only by the cacophony of protest which has become a regular accompaniment to the football programme, but the fact that human errors by officials are no longer accepted as part of the game leading to increasing capital being made of them.
With their powers of discretion virtually nullified by FIFA and their decisions questioned from all angles on TV, life has never been harder for the game's officials. No sooner has an offside flag been raised than television viewers are given an instant replay to show whether the linesman was right or wrong. Fouls are slowed down to check the relation of tackle to ball.
Losing managers often castigate referees to cover up for the poor performances of their teams. BBC Radio 5 Live's 606 programme regularly takes calls from supporters whose teams have been beaten and whose second sentence invariably begins: "This was the worst referee I have ever seen . . ." A crisis point appeared to have been reached last weekend when six players were sent off in the Premiership alone. Not only was the total alarming but in two instances red cards did not appear to be justified.
Newcastle's Warren Barton and Chelsea's Dennis Wise struck opponents and could have no complaints. Another Chelsea player, Marcel Desailly, was booked twice, albeit harshly, and had to go. On Sunday Shaka Hislop, the West Ham goalkeeper, handled outside the area and immediately walked off. But Southampton's Kevin Davies and Watford's Mark Williams were dismissed for tackles which, while rash, hardly warranted heavy punishment.
True, Williams did raise a foot shoulder-high as he challenged Jonathan Greening of Manchester United near the touchline but he was going for the ball and the offence warranted nothing more than a caution for dangerous play. Last weekend, somewhere along the line, refereeing abandoned the law of common sense and it was not all down to Mike Reed, the Birmingham bookworm.
There are increasing signs, moreover, of referees making decisions by guesswork rather than on the evidence of their own eyes, just to be on the safe side. West Ham's Paolo Di Canio is the sort of Roman who regularly falls over as if scythed down by Boadicea's chariot, but he should have had a penalty at Middlesbrough a fortnight ago when Gary Pallister took his leg and not the ball; instead of which Uriah Rennie booked Di Canio for diving.
It was Rennie, remember, who controversially sent off Alan Shearer at Newcastle on the opening day of the season for a second bookable offence, the nature of which was obscure to say the least. The odder some refereeing decisions become the more difficult it is to defend the status of those who make them. You can only be wrong every so often.
Take David Elleray, an experienced referee but one who, like the equally praiseworthy Clive Thomas before him, has become a controversy waiting to happen. The latest Ellerayism swung the game at the Stadium of Light on Monday evening when he awarded Sunderland a penalty after the ball had struck Aston Villa's Mark Delaney on the back of an upper arm.
Kevin Phillips duly brought the scores level and added a second to bring Sunderland victory. Delaney was baffled and John Gregory, the Villa manager, criticised the referee in terms which for clarity would not have disgraced one of Elleray's Harrovian end-of-term reports.
Four years ago the question of intent was removed from the law governing fouls and misconduct except in the case of handball. The distinction was quite admirably explained in an eyewitness account of England's fateful World Cup match with Argentina which appeared in a book published last year: "In the first half the ball struck Tony Adams' hand in the penalty area but it was a clear case of ball to hand and there was no intent - an essential requirement for handball to be penalised. In the second half Jose Chamot challenged for the ball with his arms high and again there was contact but, again rightly, Nielsen the referee decided there had been no intent." Perhaps Elleray should have remembered this at Sunderland on Monday. After all he wrote it.
