....and here's my response:
Thank you for your email. It is with disappointment that I note the generic response to the concerns I have raised, in some cases which do not address my queries sufficiently and in others are irrelevant.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to comment and seek clarification on a few of your statements:
We are not able to comment on specific incidents such as those you raise, partly because it is only the referee who can answer questions about particular decisions and also because of the high level of correspondence we receive.
Indeed, and one of the points I raised, which was not addressed, was the need for referees to publicly take responsibility for their decisions and justify their judgements explicitly, or showing they are prepared to learn from errors. Is this likely to happen and if not, why not? Your referees have a poor public image and the current wall of silence that follows every poor decision only serves to make them appear more and more stubborn and arrogant.
We understand that it can be perplexing when there appear to be inconsistencies amongst the officialsÔÇÖ decisions. *
I find it the exceptionally poor decision making more of a concern, rather than inconsistency. For example, Mata's goal this weekend, Mendes a few years ago, this is inconsistency for sure. But it's the sheer incompetence in the decision making that is more perplexing. Again I ask, why are the same officials still refereeing big games involving the same teams?
However Professional Game Match Officials, (PGMO) the body which employs all the referees, works hard to try and ensure a consistent approach where possible.
I'm sorry to tell you that the PGMO aren't working hard enough. The only consistency I have noticed this season are the poor offside decisions at the expense of Emmanuel Adebayor. Three incorrect calls in successive weeks is indeed quite prolific.
Contrary to popular opinion, referees are under intense scrutiny from within the game and are appropriately criticised if it is felt that an incorrect decision has been made.
Clearly the FA need to work a lot harder too to clarify what is popular opinion. I would suggest that the "appropriate [criticism]" is not sufficient to address the public perception, which is surely the responsibility of your media/PR wing.
The refereeÔÇÖs technical performance in a match is assessed by the Independent Assessor, and their overall handling of the match is reported on by an Independent Match Delegate, who is often a former player, manager or coach. These reports focus on the refereeÔÇÖs control of the match, the way that he deals with key incidents as well as the way he communicates his decisions. These reports are shared with the referees on both a formal and informal basis.
Again, greater transparency is required here. Who are these former players etc? Surely the public can get some reassurance from knowing the second opinion of a respected figure? If there is a contentious decision can they not represent the FA, by name, to support the referees judgement? In short, these formal/informal discussions should be made public.
Whilst I cannot comment on the individual incidents you refer to, I hope the above helps to clarify how we are constantly trying to improve and maintain standards of refereeing. We would like the English style of refereeing to continue ÔÇô letting the game flow as much as possible, using management skills to control players as opposed to instantly brandishing cards ÔÇô but we want to also push for improvements in behaviour standards.* The game is full of passion and with very high stakes sometimes that passion spills over.
None of the comments I make refer the flow of the game nor management skills in lieu of booking players. Though it would be useful to know what management skills Howard Webb employed in situations such as Lescott flooring Kaboul with an elbow to the face, or De Jong studding an opponent in a World Cup Final. I'm sure that example alone demonstrated to the globe the English style of refereeing at its best.
Again, thank you for sending your previous message.
However, I look forward to receiving a response that addresses some of the actual concerns I had raised.
