Refereeing: a difficult decision to make

Try as I might I can still think of no rational explanation for why any man or woman would choose voluntarily, of their own free will, without any threats of violence or blackmail, to be a referee or umpire.

A few weeks ago I got a letter from a football referee in the north west who told me of a game he officiated recently when he was "spat at and f***ed out of it, etc, and put in my box". Nothing too surprising there, perhaps, except that the players were all under 11 years of age. "There is a strong vicious element there that needs watching," he said, "and it's coming from the kids themselves and is sometimes ignored by the manager on the sideline."

I expected him to announce at the end of the letter that he had retired, disillusioned, from refereeing (and coaching, which he also gives his time to) but no, he seemed to have resigned himself to the fact that such is the referee's lot and he'll carry on regardless.

Also recently I witnessed a small section of an incensed crowd at a match accusing an umpire of being a "bigoted bitch" after she had made an honest difficult call which led to the game's winning goal.

It seemingly never entered the heads of her abusers - whose comments suggested if anyone was bigoted it was themselves - that she had called it as she saw it (as it turned out not even slow-motion television replays could prove whether she or they were right).

The abuse upset her, naturally, but I don't think the thought of jacking it all in ever entered her mind. And imagine the kind of week Niall Barrett has just had. Granted, it was fairly inevitable that booking 20 players and sending off six in last Sunday's less-than-ferocious Westmeath-Carlow match, would cause a bit of a stir, but at this moment he must be desperately trying to remind himself of why he chose to be a ref in the first place.

Then there's the Australian cricket umpire Darrell Hair, one of the officials at the World Cup which got under way yesterday, who received a death threat earlier in the week. Why? Because he has a habit of no-balling Sri Lankan spin bowler Muttiah Muralitharan.

And last weekend Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards singled out referee David Elleray for special mention as the title-race nerves began to fray a little. "If Arsenal or Chelsea win the Premiership this season by either one or two points, I trust they will strike a special commemorative medal for Mr Elleray because he will have done it for them," said Edwards, as irresponsible (in the times that are in it) and silly a comment as he's ever likely to make.

Elleray, of course, was the man who gave Liverpool a dodgy penalty against United at Anfield the Wednesday before last, adding to his reputation among some United fans (including Edwards perhaps) that he has it in for the club. The truth is he's probably just a referee who makes a few bad decisions and so long as he spreads them around a bit it's hardly right that he should be accused of conspiring against one particular club. He sent Roy Keane off in the FA Cup semi-final replay against Arsenal last month, a decision that was disputed by few who saw his two obvious bookable offences - not least Keane himself who didn't object too much when Elleray showed him his second yellow card.

But Elleray had sent Keane off twice before (in his - Keane's - wilder days). Ha, proof he has it in for the United captain, some suggested. Well, no. The first sending-off was in the 1995 FA Cup semi-final when Keane stamped on Gareth Southgate; the second was in a league match against Blackburn when he picked up two yellow cards, the second for an alleged dive. Hardly evidence of a vendetta against Keane but it's a pity football chairmen and managers don't check their facts before they accuse referees who, at worst, can be accused of incompetence, of bias.

As fate would have it, Elleray (unless he has the good sense to produce a sick-note) is refereeing tomorrow's Arsenal-Aston Villa match at Highbury, when Arsenal need to win to have any chance of retaining their title.

Picture this. It's injury time in tomorrow's games and Manchester United are drawing with Spurs at Old Trafford and Arsenal are drawing with Villa at Highbury. Dennis Bergkamp, bearing down on the Villa goal, collides with Gareth Southgate and the two fall to the ground in the penalty box.

Penalty or free out? Penalty? Elleray despises Manchester United and would do anything he could to stop them winning the title. Free out? Elleray was intimidated by Martin Edwards and Alex Ferguson's comments after the Liverpool game and hadn't the nerve to award a disputed penalty.

Who'd be a ref?

Hugh Dallas, for one. Now, if the penalty he gave Rangers in the recent Old Firm match was a penalty then Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger are the best of pals. In the heat of that moment many (guilty m'lord) questioned not only Dallas's integrity and competence but also his parentage. But then most calmed down, got a grip of themselves and denounced the supporter who threw the coin that drew blood from Dallas's head.

Most except the author of this version of events on a Celtic internet site. "Dallas, of course, will escape any censure for his contribution to the evening's chaos. This is in no small part down to the fact that the behaviour of some Celtic supporters has diverted attention away from his outrageous behaviour and on to the fact that he was struck by a missile - pity it wasn't fired by NATO".

Surely life's too short to be a referee?