MOURINHO FINE WAS EXCESSIVE, REFEREE MISTAKES DESERVE TO BE CRITICISED

1

Getty Images

The Chelsea manager was issued with a suspended stadium ban and a fine of £50,000 for comments after a defeat to Southampton, but he has been defended by the former referee

I think Jose Mourinho’s fine for his comments about referees in the wake of Chelsea’s 3-1 loss to Southampton is very excessive. It’s £50,000 but where does that money go?

You look at Arsene Wenger, he came out and criticised Mike Dean and nothing was said; he wasn’t even charged. You’ve got to be consistent.

We’ve seen it in the past, Wenger pushed Mourinho last season and the FA didn’t take any action. You get Nigel Pearson holding a Crystal Palace player down on the floor, threatening to knock his block off, and yet the FA don’t take any action so once again it’s the FA showing its inconsistency in dealing with players and managers. £50,000 is excessive for what he said.

Perhaps we need to look at whether managers should come out and speak straight after the games because emotions are running high. They might be frustrated at the result, or perhaps sometimes the decisions go against them. But later on they can look at the DVD, calm down and say: "Maybe the referee was right."

I think the LMA need to get involved, because fans and everyone in the game want to hear the manager’s post-match comments. If they’re going to be fined for being honest in their assessment and criticism of referees then managers are going to stop coming out. They’ll send someone else out - you don’t want the coach or the assistant to come out, you want to hear from the top men themselves. It’s got to be consistent and £50,000 is far, far excessive.

Mourinho's criticism of the referee is just part of the job. I had incidents where I made errors. We’re human, we make errors and I’ve had one or two managers come out and criticise me. If I make a big error in a game or I get a key decision wrong then I deserve to be criticised, just like a player, if a player makes an error.



You’ve got the pundits there, they criticise the players for making those errors. It never used to worry me, it’s fine, he’s entitled to his comments. If I’ve had a bad day at the office by affecting the result of a game then so be it. That’s the nature of the game we’re in.

That’s why you’re a referee, because you’re thick-skinned and mentally tough and you just move on. You want the managers to come out and you want their comments after the game. If we keep going down this road, managers aren’t going to say anything.

How can they give him a stadium ban for a comment after the game? If he’s sent from the touchline, like Alan Pardew was last season after he headbutted David Meyler, that is a completely different matter because it’s on the touchline, it’s while the game is going on, he was sent to the stands and given a fine and touchline ban because of that incident. This was an incident where Mourinho made a remark about a referee in a post-match interview. How can you give a suspended stadium ban for that?

I’m just as miffed as Chelsea and Mourinho because the punishment, for me, is far excessive for the crime and, as for what Mourinho said about only him being punished by the FA, I think he's right, as the proof is there in the pudding.

You take Neil Lennon’s stinging attack on Dan Drysdale at QPR v Bolton - Lennon called the referee an "absolute disgrace" - that is far, far worse than what Mourinho said and I think he got a £3,500 fine and a warning for his future conduct. It happened in the Championship but what’s the difference? If you’re going to charge one then you have to do them all.

If you can’t charge the others then don’t charge Mourinho. Managers now are going to stop giving post-match interviews, they’ll be frightened of what they’re saying. It’s not nice sometimes, I’ve been there, I’ve been criticised but it’s the nature of the game we’re in. They can say what they want to say about it and then you have to move on.

---

POCHETTINO LUCKY TO STAY ON TOUCHLINE IN SPURS DRAW

---

Craig Pawson didn’t have a particularly good game in Tottenham’s 0-0 draw with Liverpool. His recognition of fouls and non-fouls was not what I thought it should have been at that level.

James Milner's clash with Danny Rose was all about managing the game and you have to ask: "Was it careless, was it reckless, was it reckless with excessive force, or was it an accidental collision?" He most probably would have got away with giving Tottenham a free-kick; had Liverpool gone on and scored I think there would have been mayhem because it was a free-kick. Whether it was a second yellow, I'm not so sure as they’re both going for the ball and they’ve clattered into each other, but it was a foul for Tottenham.

When it comes to Pochettino’s reaction, though, it’s the job of the fourth official to calm him down. If he can’t do that then you get the referee over and move him into the stand. But what’s the difference with his behaviour to what Mourinho is saying after the game?

The difference is that Pochettino has an example to set in that technical area, especially to the young fans, but he’s clearly animated after that decision, he’s not happy and he’s not setting the right example. So, quite rightly, perhaps he could have been moved to the stand and that’s when you receive your touchline ban or your stadium ban, for misdemeanours in that technical area.

With Mourinho, the game has finished and he’s talking half-an-hour after the game. You just don’t know what you’re going to get next from the FA and I think that’s the feeling of everybody.

---

REF DELEGATE SHOULD EXPLAIN DECISIONS

---

They’re doing it in Australia, in the A-League, now. Referees have to come straight off the pitch and explain their decisions. That isn’t the time to do it, but someone should front up. There’s a delegate appointed by the Premier League to every game, so the delegate should be responsible.

He assesses the referee’s performance for the league and he’s usually an ex-player, an ex-manager or an ex-administrator, he’s with the referee before the game, he’s in the dressing room for the exchange of team sheets and he comes into the dressing room after the game. He speaks to the referee about his performance, for example, his fitness, his game management and his decision making on key issues.

That’s what the delegate is there for. Once he comes in and speaks to the ref about his performance, they can look at the DVD and can ask him about key decisions, they can play it back on their laptops and see it straight away and the delegate can come out and explain to the media why the referee has made that decision after their conversation.

The delegate is also responsible, on Monday or Tuesday, for ringing the manager and asking for his comments on the referee’s performance and the manager will tell him what he thought. There is that dialogue anyway but for everyone else to hear, like the written press and the media, the delegate can come straight out and explain the decisions and then everyone can move on, instead of dwelling on decisions.

We’re in the 21st century, the game is moving on but refereeing circles are still in the last century. There’s no transparency, and that’s the trouble.