Search Results

It’s been too long since I last posted having been lured away from the blog by work, the weather, kids sport and cricket. It's been especially busy across sport in the last few weeks so this latest blog will touch on some of the most recent developments: BHA continues to crack the whip Dash Debacle Ivan Toney FA papers over the cracks with its points deduction threat PGA U-turn a rough row back Snooker's race fixing case reaches impressively swift conclusion BHA continues to crack the whip Maybe I was a little hasty to say I’d got it wrong about the whip. Whilst the racing media hasn’t really been reporting on it at all, with the exception of The Sun’s/ITV’s/Sky Sports Racing’s Matt Chapman (@mcyeeehaaa), there are unresolved issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. I’ve been trying to keep a tally of suspension and the numbers are eyewatering. Since the new Rules and Penalties were introduced in the second week of February, there have been 274 suspensions totalling 1602 days (assuming the four outstanding referrals get entry point penalties of 28 days each). In the nine weeks since the new regime applied to both Jump and Flat racing, the figure is 202 suspensions totalling 1169 days. That's more than four years’ worth of cumulative suspensions in less than four months. Not only is that a staggering amount, I have no doubt it is having a significant impact, both mentally and financially, on jockeys. Not just on those who have been suspended, but on those who are trying desperately to ride within the rules. Despite the obvious and largely successful efforts of jockeys to adjust to the new regime, a few major issues are clear: 1. The Penalties for some offences are ridiculously disproportionate to the offence. For the occasional wag on Twitter who likes to compare this issue to speeding, getting an 8 days suspension for going one over the permitted level in a Class 2 or above race is like being banned from driving for your first time going 34 in a 30mph zone, as opposed to attending a speed awareness course or taking three points and a modest fine. 2. The BHA has created an entirely unnecessary problem with their changes to some of the technical offences. 3. The idea of “double-tapping”, and the punishment of such, is absolutely bonkers. Whilst the BHA recently announced some minor changes to how it would go about policing this, it only served to highlight the non-sensical, seemingly muscle-flexing nature of the BHA’s position of punishing accidental, incidental and, as evidenced by this winning appeal, highly debatable, contact. 10 weeks into the rules and penalties applying to both codes of racing and it's clear that some elements are going well - whip use has reduced, jockeys have accepted the new permitted levels and racing is arguably easier on the eye (and let's face facts - it's clear that was the desired outcome for those in power). But averaging almost a year’s worth of suspensions every three weeks demonstrates that this isn't an issue that is going away and it is well beyond time for the BHA to show the same adaptability as the jockeys have shown. Just because jockeys have been quiet, don't think that emotions are not running high. Dash Debacle Epsom, The Jockey Club and its Chief Executive, Nevin Truesdale, played an absolute blinder in dealing with the threat of disruption from animal rights activists and fronting up in the media to debate with them, and deserve enormous credit. Thanks to them, we can focus instead on Drama in the Dash ™, where four horses were seriously inconvenienced by their stalls opening later than the other runners. It’s not the first time this has happened and won’t be the last. The Steriline starting stalls used in Britain are electric, not hydraulic, and operated by a push button. In my experience this scenario occurs when a horse anticipates the start just after the Starter has pushed the button and forces their stall open, which then slightly interrupts the opening process for other stalls. Shaun Parker, the BHA’s Head of Stewarding, appeared on ITV with the aforementioned Matt Chapman to explain why the Stewards took no action: Shaun regularly comes out to explain or defend decisions and his explanations are informative and easy to understand, but this was a long way from his usually strong and robust performance, as he stated that the Stewards didn’t think the four horses had been inconvenienced sufficiently. Regardless of that (and I think it’s clear they were inconvenienced, as the JockeyCam footage of Live in the Moment clearly shows, though there’s certainly a debate to be had about how much they were inconvenienced) the level of inconvenience was completely irrelevant. The Rules of Racing didn’t allow the Stewards to do anything because they only offer limited powers: The relevant Rules of Racing are (H)5 and (H)6. H5 gives discretionary powers to void races, but only in the following circumstances (my emphasis): The Stewards may declare a race void where: - a false start should have been declared; - a fault with the starting stalls has materially prejudiced more than one-third of the horses starting the Race. - no horse covers the course in accordance with these Rules; - all the horses in the Race ran at the wrong weights; or - all the horses ran over the wrong course or started from the wrong place. Furthermore, Rule (H)6 gives powers to retrospectively declare a horse a non-runner, but only in the following circumstances: In a Race started from starting stalls, the Stewards may declare a horse a non-runner where: - that horse has been prevented from starting due to a faulty action of the starting stalls; or - that horse is riderless at the ‘Off’. In the case of the Dash, no horse was prevented from starting, the stalls hadn’t malfunctioned, and even if the stalls had malfunctioned or there was a fault, less than a third of the field was prejudiced. The Stewards therefore COULDN’T take any action, so whether they thought the four horses were sufficiently prejudiced or not was entirely irrelevant. It begs the question why Shaun was giving what appears to be an irrelevant explanation, leaving one to wonder whether the Stewards hadn’t realised what had happened until after they’d announced the Weighed-In signal or, for the conspiracy theorists, whether they were under pressure not to declare non-runners or a void race to the hugely increased Tote turnover, and therefore money for the racecourse, from it being a World Pool day. It was all very unsatisfactory and I certainly feel huge sympathy for connections and punters of the four horses, but there was nothing that could be done on the day under the current Rules. They need reviewing and it wouldn’t surprise me if an alteration, giving the Stewards power to act in similar circumstances in future, was forthcoming. Ivan Toney Where there's betting on sport, there'll be sportsmen and women who fall foul of the rules. Brentford and England striker Ivan Toney has been banned from football for eight months having accepted charges of betting on football over a number of years, including matches he was participating in. Toney's defence centred on his gambling addiction, which was backed up by the highly-regarding Phil Hopley, whose company Cognacity was the first provider of psychological support services to jockeys when I was at the PJA. As has happened recently in the NFL, there was much criticism of the FA for their hypocrisy in willingly taking betting companies money in sponsorship and advertising expecting their players to be angels. On the opposite side of the fence, there were those that said the players know the rules and he was very lucky not to be given a much lengthier ban. Call me a sucker but reading sports' tribunal decisions is fascinating, even if its often a tough slog, but this one was especially interesting. Toney admitted to 232 breaches; 126 in respect of matches or competitions his club was playing in or eligible for, and of those 29 were directly related to teams he was playing for or registered with. Drilling further down, he placed bets on his own team to lose seven times, though wasn't playing in those matches, and bet on himself to score in nine matches, all ofwhich he played in. The sanctions open to the panel to hand down (see pages 22 onwards of the attached) were severe. One instance of betting on your own team to lose ranges from 6 months to a lifetime suspension depending on mitigating and aggravating factors, with the same sanction for betting on an outcome involving yourself. With 16 of those such occurrences, in addition to all of the other bets, it was certainly within the Panel's gift to issue a ban from football of many, many years though to be fair to the FA they only argued for a suspension of at least 12 months. Typically of a sports governing body though, they deserve only some credit as a result of questioning his gambling addiction and only suggesting a total discount 20% discount on penalty as a result of his guilty plea and personal mitigation. Addiction of any sort is an illness that has catastrophic impacts, and in a sport that pushes betting at every opportunity it is entirely understandable that Toney's colleagues are up in arms about the suspension. Should you be punished for something that is ultimately outside of your control, or you at least have limited control over? In the end, the panel reached the conclusion that without the early admissions and personal mitigation, they'd have suspended Toney for 15 months. Even to someone who spent 10 years fighting for athletes and railing against the injustices they experience, that seems incredibly lenient. As a result of the guilty plea, they reduced the 15 months to 11, and then reduced it by a further three months for his personal mitigation, resulting in the final eight month suspension. Reducing the suspension for being a gambling addict by just 25% leaves a very sour taste in the mouth and I can understand his colleagues' ire. In the end though, 8 months feels about right taking into account all the elements, but the way the panel got their is far from ideal, and to my mind at least it would have been preferable to have issued a far bigger initial suspension and offered much greater discount for the mitigation. For example, if they'd have suspended him for 30 months for the breaches, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea and rounded down, that would have left 22 months. That could then have been halved for personal mitigation to 11, with a further three months suspended for a period of time. To me, that seems to strike a better balance of deterrent and empathy, though ultimately I guess how the sausage gets made is irrelevant. The FA papers over the cracks with its points deductions threat Talking of the FA, they recently announced that clubs who continuously behave poorly towards officials face the prospect of points deductions at grassroots level, at Step 7 and below. This is a welcome step from the FA but the reality is that allowing professionals to behave in one way to one set of ultimately ineffective sanctions is always going to lead to problems at grassroots level. Despite the high profile and column inches devoted to poor behaviour towards officials of players and managers, the situation continues to get worse and reached a new low during and after the Europa League final last week. Appalling behaviour from the players with Jose Mourinho behaving disgracefully on the side-line and after the match, all ultimately leading to the awful scenes that referee Anthony Taylor and his family had to endure on their way home, despite him having a good game according to pretty much all observers who actually know the Laws of the Game. Be in no doubt that what happens in the professional game has an impact on grassroots, and at that level you are without the protection of cameras, security and the police.. Enough is enough - the FA, UEFA and FIFA have to stop talking a good game and start taking serious actions against players, managers and clubs at ALL levels, not just grassroots, before it’s too late. Mourinho deserves a very long ban but in a sport whose authorities allow abhorrent racism to go largely unchecked it's unlikely he'll get one and, even if he does, it won't change anything. Points deductions at all levels are long overdue. Also long overdue is the breaking of the silence of the otherwise excellent League Managers Association and Professional Footballers Association. Whilst no one appreciates the need to defend your members more than me, there are times when you just need to do what’s right and say something. Would a generic statement condemning the behaviour and stating that they would work with their members and the authorities to significantly improve behaviour really be asking too much? PGA U-Turn a tough row-back Two major sports news items broke yesterday just as I was about to publish. There's not time to do either subject justice but it would have looked odd not to comment on either. The US PGA announced "an historic" deal, formally linking up the US PGA and DP World Tour (formerly European Tour) with the Saudi Public Investment Fund and LIV Golf. You say historic, I say hypocratic. Coming so soon after a US judge permitted the impending litigation to go to trial, one is left wondering which side was most scared about what the impending disclosures would put into the public domain. The PGA's vehement opposition to LIV Golf leaves it's Commissioner in a pickle, and judging from his response he's at least had the decency to virtually offer no defence. His previous opposition was based on "information available to me at the time." I'm guessing that information didn't have lots of zeroes on the end of it. As ever with sport, follow the money...and Ewan Murray's excellent piece in the Guardian sums it up better than I ever could. Snooker's race fixing case reaches impressively swift conclusion Somewhat buried by the PGA's bombshell news (though issued before they did, so no suggestion at all it was intentional), the WPBSA announced the results of it's Disciplinary Commission's hearing into match fixing. 10 players received bans from the sport ranging from a lifetime to one year and eight months. The Commission's reasons are 58 pages long and I haven't had the time to digest them, but justice was incredibly swift. From being first alerted to suspicious betting in August 2022 to a hearing taking place between 24th April and 3rd May 2023 is just nine months. The speed of the process raises some concerns about the fairness of the process, and it's a certainly a concern how few players were legally represented, but further reading of the reasons is required to establish whether any such concerns are justified. If those concerns are misplaced, there is a lot for other governing bodies to learn. More on that next time. As ever, thanks for reading and comments very much welcomed.

It takes a certain type of person to want to be a referee. The snarks will say it's someone who can't play football and wants to be the centre of attention. If a referee makes a decision they disagree with, whether through ignorance of the Laws of the Game or because of a genuine mistake, all too often you'll hear "the referee ruined the game" or "the referee made it all about them". Those that do it know that it's challenging and pushes you out of your comfort zone; develops your skills in all sorts of areas that you can use in other aspects of your life (and vice versa); teaches you a lot about yourself; keeps you involved in a sport you may be too old to play; develops confidence and allows younger people the opportunity to progress to a level their footballing ability doesn't allow. At it's best it's thoroughly enjoyable and rewarding. The last thing I want is to issue a caution or send someone off - or 'making it all about me' as some say. I want it all to be about the boys and girls playing the game and to play what role you can in making it a positive experience for coaches, players and spectators. What we tend to see now - and unfortunately what too many referees have to experience - is the negative side. All too often refereeing and VAR drama seems now to take priority over the actual football. Last weekend, Brighton supporters were up in arms about the officiating of the Spurs/Brighton match and then there was elbowgate from an otherwise pulsating Liverpool/Arsenal game. Handballs were the dominating theme from this weekend's Premier League games. Social media (or certainly the algorithm on my For You feed) is awash with criticism of referees at all levels (for the sake of balance, interspersed with praise for officials from some grassroots clubs). This post isn't about the rights and wrongs of any decisions. Brighton fans and journalists were certainly justified in feeling aggrieved about some of them, but entirely unjustified in relation to some other decisions. For example, they clearly don't know understand the handball laws, for example, and then like most fans cannot accept that a handball decision called in good faith wasn't overturned by VAR because replays were inconclusive, complaining that a bar that was previously too low was now set to high. It also isn't about whether or not Constantine Hatzidakis intentionally elbowed Andrew Robertson in the face. The FA have investigated and concluded the same as me, that he was simply trying to shrug Robertson off him and accidentally caught Robertson as a result, an incident which in turn stemmed from Robertson touching or grabbing the Assistant Referee by the arm. The vitriol and frustration aimed at referees on social media is out of control. An element of it is part and parcel of modern day life in the public eye, and some of the frustration is understandable. Some of the opinions expressed though are plainly ignorant of the Laws of the Game, and regularly come from managers and coaches of teams, like the one embedded below. I understand allegiance can blind you to reason, but the Red Card for Serious Foul Play is entirely understandable from a perfectly positioned referee, and the second incident, which on the surface "looks" worse because of the reaction of the player who's fouled, but it is a far less dangerous challenge and looks like a Yellow Card all day long. In any event, should a manger be able to comment publicly like this? Personally I don't think so as it adds to the division, shows a complete lack of respect and in this particular case goes further and calls into question the referee's integrity. I know it's something I keep harping on about, but public criticism of referees by team officials or players simply wouldn't be tolerated in rugby and would lead to disciplinary action, as Exeter's Jack Nowell has recently found out. What is particularly frustrating about this example on the left is that whilst I understand that the foul by the centre half in the second clip LOOKS worse, it is actually a far less dangerous challenge than the second one, for which a Red Card for serious foul play appears entirely justifiable: "Serious foul play A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." At the same time, we also have referees on social media fighting back, sometimes politely trying to explain decisions and at other times going back almost as hard as the original posters. The former approach makes sense and I'd always advocate taking the high road, but I understand the latter approach even if I cannot help but feel it can be counterproductive at times and only serves to exacerbate the them and us attitude. I'm liable to take what goes on on social media with a pinch of salt, but it is apparent on the pitch and in the TV studios that there is an increasingly divisive relationship and narrative between referees and players, and the chasm between players (and fans) and officials grows ever wider. All the social media impressions and driven engagement in the world is not worth this. Being a match day official, whether at the highest level or, like me, at the lowest level, has never been more challenging. The professional game is quicker and more skilful than its ever been. Gamesmanship or outright cheating is now an accepted part of the game. Almost every match is covered by countless cameras capturing and replaying every incident in slow-motion from every conceivable angle. At the lower levels, we're asked to officiate without the guaranteed safety that television coverage brings. We rarely have the benefit of neutral Assistant Referees, have to make subjective calls the whole time and will make honest mistakes in the same way the players on the pitch will. The worst I've experienced personally is low level disagreement that a verbal warning deals with, a reluctance to shake hands at the end of the game and then a poor mark for my performance, and fortunately that's only happened once. However, I have witnessed young, inexperienced referees have to deal with completely inappropriate levels of dissent or criticism, there is regular protest and dissent that goes unpunished beamed into our homes, and there are plenty of examples on social media of referees being abused, threatened and even assaulted. None of this is a new phenomenon but be in no doubt that it is getting worse and is only only going to get worse still, and it isn't unique to the UK either, with reports today suggesting La Liga referees are considering strike action. The situation is entirely unsustainable there needs to be significant change and soon. There are those who say the standard of officiating is worse than ever and referees shouldn't be above criticism. I don't agree with the former at all - the issue is as the coverage of football has improved the dissection of subjective decisions taken in a split second is far easier - we can see when a referee has got something wrong. But since when has it been remotely realistic to expect perfection? Why are referees the only ones on the pitch expected to be perfect? As for criticising referees, I don't believe they should be above criticism at all. Any referee at any level worth his or her salt criticise their own performance afterwards. Personally, I welcome and encourage constructive feedback after a game and will admit and take ownership of when I might have erred or been poorly positioned to make a decision. However, the crucial element that's currently missing is respecting the officials and their decisions, and when it's happening week in and week out at elite level it becomes the accepted norm at all levels of the game. The good news is that these issues can be fixed. Change is always easier said than done - especially for a sport with an international governing body in FIFA and IFAB where change can easily be stymied or blocked - but where there's a will there's a way. And, let's face it, despite the FA saying the right things the will hasn't been there. So here's my 10 point plan to get the situation fixed quickly. 1. First things first, the FA, PGMOL, FIFA, IFAB and all national associations need to get genuinely serious about harassment and treatment of professional referees by players and managers. This starts with an unequivocal, public acceptance that the status quo is not acceptable and commitment that they will act. Well meaning Respect campaigns are all well and good and have a place but are an ultimately ineffective way of trying to show that they're doing something without actually doing anything. The Laws that already exist need to be enforced more consistently, because not doing so makes it harder for lower level referees to set a higher standard, which is effectively what we're asked to do. 2. The Laws need to be enhanced as a matter of urgency and ahead of the 2023/24 season. I spoke earlier about rugby and still believe football can implement much of what rugby does. Only allow Captains to approach the referee and set clear guidance how that approach needs to be made (eg respectfully, in a controlled manner etc). All other unwarranted approaches should be sanctioned. I wouldn't be at all averse to implementing temporary dismissals in the professional game for dissent either, and whatever happened to the trial of moving free kicks ten yards closer to goal? They might have made a horlicks of the initial tackle heigh announcement, but the below document from the RFU is excellent and makes an excellent starting point to consider what is unacceptable, It is sadly notable that what would constitute a red card offence for dissent in rugby is likely to only incur a yellow card caution in football, and is so frequent at so many levels of the game that it is language that is currently unlikely to lead to any sanction at all in many cases. 3. Lead the horse to water when it comes to increasing understanding of the Laws of the Game and make a concerted effort, in conjunction with enhancements to the Laws of the Game, to educate professional players on the impact their behaviour has on the lower levels and how they can be partners in brining about change. Coaches, managers & players at all levels should be required to complete a Laws of the Game module every year. Media should be strongly encouraged to do so as well and this could even be enforced for those media accredited on an annual basis. I accept this is not fool proof, as I am regularly checking the IFAB Laws of the Game app to check certain Laws and what to do in certain situations, but anything that can aid understanding and reduce uninformed comment can only help. 4. The VAR protocol needs to be amended and improved and distributed far and wide to ensure when it will be used and what far is clear and understood. Give the referee’s mic feed to broadcasters and allow it to be broadcast as they do in rugby - as this clip from France on Amazon Prime shows it can make a huge positive difference to how referees are perceived. At the very least, VAR discussions should be broadcast and replays shown in stadia. 5. Clear, enforceable guidance of what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of post-match comments in interviews and by players/club officials on social media should be created and rigorously enforced. 6. On the subject of social media, as I mentioned in a previous post I still believe a lot more use of social media to explain decisions and Laws would help increase understanding and respect. 7. I readily accept that referees (myself most certainly included) will make mistakes and that not every referee is good, for a variety of reasons - confidence (especially for young and/or recently qualified referees), inexperience, fitness, poor communication skills and attitude can all play a role. To improve performance, referees at all levels should have to undertake mandatory CPD and be given more proactive assistance than they currently are, especially young referees. At the moment, once you’ve done your course you're left on your own unless you choose to attend the CPD days offered, ask for a mentor or unless you want to move up through the ranks and need to be observed for promotion. This would undoubtedly require more investment from the FA - the refereeing team at Wiltshire FA, particularly Ella Broad (Wilts FA's Football Development Officer and an Assistant Referee in WSL) is excellent, for example. They are proactive and incredibly responsive, but I know their resources are limited. Give them the resources they need. 8. Talking of promotion, the FA operates 13 refereeing levels, starting at Trainee (post-completing your course and until refereeing five matches) all the way through to Select Group 1, made of of those who can referee in the Premier League. There is active encouragement to try to progress through the levels, and the higher up you go the better standard of football you can officiate in. I'm a Level 7 - the lowest there is outside of the two Youth levels (the Youth referring to the age of the referee). I'd be keen to go for 'promotion' to Level 6, which requires that you've officiated 25 games in which offside was in operation. I've done that but another requirement is that at least 10 of those games must be in adult football. I have zero interest in refereeing adult football and therefore will remain stuck on Level 7, with my development left entirely to myself. This makes no sense and having at least some form of progression for those that officiate at youth level only can only serve to upskill and improve individuals and enhance the standard of refereeing, which is good for everyone involved. 9. Referees should be encouraged to brief TEAMS before matches, not just captains and managers/coaches. On my course with Wiltshire FA we were actively encouraged to try to build up a rapport and set the tone with teams beforehand and certain aspects of the importance of your own behaviour, appearance and body language from the moment you arrive at the ground were definitely a point of emphasis. However, since starting refereeing, I’ve seen a general vibe on referee forums that speaking to players is a waste of time as they can’t behave themselves. This is patently not true - the vast majority can and do - and simply indicative of a wider breakdown in trust both ways. Treat them as adults and partners equally responsible as the officials for managing the game. Treat them as a necessary evil to be tolerated and it only serves to reinforce a "them and us" attitude. 10. Last but not least, local FA’s should be made to publish all findings against players, officials and clubs. At the moment this doesn't happen and thus whilst someone may be suspended or have been fined, there is no public record and the deterrent effect is entirely absent. I'm sure there are many more initiatives or changes that could help. Do you have any thoughts on these ideas, or have any ideas of your own? If so, please do share your comments below.

In my last blog on the first day of the Cheltenham Festival, I wrote: “It may well be - and I certainly hope - that this turns out to be a storm in a teacup, and I expect another “quiet” week this week when the latest Whip Review Committee findings are published this evening or tomorrow morning. “However I firmly believe that with the Festival upon us that will change…” How wrong could I have been? At the end of racing’s flagship meeting, a total of 6 suspensions were handed out, three for “technical” offences and three for going one over the permitted level, none for horses ridden by jockeys who won the race. Not one bad headline, no disqualification, and no controversy whatsoever. All of the jockeys deserve enormous credit but particularly the Irish-based and Amateur jockeys, and the BHA must have been absolutely delighted that any fears people like me had were not borne out. As is common in life, most people have moved on from the story though the Rules come into force on the Flat for the first time last week and the BHA announced some minor changes that I’m sure will be welcomed by the jockeys. However, don’t be fooled into thinking the game hasn’t changed. It clearly has, with jockeys most definitely riding differently and with greater caution. Furthermore, let’s not lose sight of the fact there were still 24 suspensions in the last ten days worth 127 days, 10 for 49 in the last three days alone. That's a lot of days on the sidelines. I'm surprised that jockeys are happy with the way the technical infringements are being policed or the disproportionate penalties for minor offences in big races, but they apparently are and it would appear there’s little to see here and we can all move on. It'll be nice for me not to have to write about it anymore, and for you not to have to read what I’ve written! My last blog included for the first time my experiences of refereeing grassroots football, since which time Fulham’s Alexsander Mitrovic has been red carded and charged with violent conduct for making contact with an official and improper, abusive, insulting and/or threatening behaviour. Fulham’s manager Marco Silva was also dismissed and subsequently charged by the FA for using abusive or insulting words or gestures and improper behaviour towards the officials. The hearing takes place today. The whole incident from start to finish can be seen on the BBC website here. As always on social media, the debate has split into two very partisan camps. The first that says he needs a long ban, the attitude of players and coaches stinks, and that the FA need to get serious about dealing with how referees are treated from the top of the football pyramid to the bottom. The second, whilst condemning their actions, excuse them by saying that it’s an emotional game so their behaviour can be understood, the standard of refereeing in this country is poor so what do you expect and if it was better there wouldn’t be so much abuse. Regardless of what someone has done, I'll always advocate for fairness when it comes to sports disciplinary matters and proceedings, something which is all too often lacking. For this reason, I can see that “throwing the book” at Mitrovic could be argued as being fundamentally unfair given the continued failure to act on, and general acceptance of, lower levels of abuse and intimidation in the professional game that the Laws say should be dealt with by yellow and red cards. Looking at the wider issue, I can also see that poor officiating does exist, whether that’s through a poor attitude, communication, positioning, understanding of the laws, a lack of confidence or not enough training. I recognise that officiating decisions, often based on subjective interpretations of the Laws of the Game, and the way VAR has been introduced and used, can and do lead to immense frustration, a frustration I have shared and written about in this blog (though have always tried to ensure I do so fairly, reasonably and respectfully). Against that, I read about the regular abuse grassroots official are subjected to, have witnessed it first-hand myself as a referee (on rare occasions) and as a coach (from other coaches/spectators) and see it regularly on Twitter whether through comments or from videos that are posted. I know there's a major shortage of referees, and was told on my course that of the 24 on it, on average only two will still be refereeing in a year's time. It's a genuine problem across the sport but particularly at grassroots level. Outside of incidents of outright aggression, this is where it comes back to the fundamentals of manners and decency. I know when I’m coaching A referee has to leave the pitch for his safety and see when I’m refereeing – that the behaviour of the coach is a massive influence on the children. If it’s okay for me to express my frustration then it’s okay for them, which is why it's vital to set a good example. I know the referee is doing his or her best and isn’t going to get everything right. We all make mistakes and officials are not immune to them, particularly when making split second decisions with no technology to help. But when we get something wrong that is what it is - a mistake - and we'll feel pretty terrible about it too. It is therefore important for football that the eventual sanctions imposed on Mitrovic and Silva are sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent, but ultimately until the FA gets serious about the wider issues rather than simply making an example of someone, the problems will persist. As will a “them and us” attitude between players and refs that mirrors so much of modern discourse, which encourages and promotes trenchant, opposite views and isn’t conducive to nuance and balance, which tends to go unnoticed, be misinterpreted or get shouted down. Of course there are times when matters are black and white, but there’s a reason the adage Recent tweets highlighting officiating errors “two sides to a coin or story” has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. No one should be above criticism, but is it really that hard for us all to be more respectful, tolerant and just fundamentally nicer to each other? UPDATE - MITROVIC SUSPENDED FOR EIGHT GAMES AND SILVA TWO GAMES The FA have announced that Mitrovic had been banned for 8 games - 3 for the initial red card, three for violent conduct and two for improper, abusive, insulting and threatening langauge, and was fined £75,000, slightly less than his estimated weekly salary based on Spotrac's estimates. Marco Silva was banned for two games and fined £40,000 for abusive and insulting words, gestures and behaviour towards the match referee and for his comments in the post-match press conference. Cue outrage from both sides of the argument - it's either nowhere near enough or way too much, depending on whether you support referees or support Fulham! On balance and bearing in mind my comments above, it feels about right to me and whilst we await the FA's Independent Regulatory Commission reasons I suspect that the biggest issue for the FA - who have announced they intend to appeal - is their relative acceptance of poor treatment of referees and its failure to take any action whatsoever against Bruno Fernandes, albeit it for a far less serious instance of making contact with an official. I will write more about this, and the ECB's prosecution of Michael Vaughan and others, in my next blog. As for my own refereeing, due to poor weather and an unfortunate incident yesterday (more on that later) I’ve only been in the centre once, in an enjoyable and predominantly good spirited U14s Cup Quarter Final. It was all pleasantly uneventful for the most part, once again the attitude of the coaches filtering down to their players and there being no issues as a result, despite the apparent gap in abilities of the two teams. I did potentially miss an off the ball incident as I was focused on the player with the ball, and the Red Team’s captain (on whom the alleged fouled had been committed) wasn’t best pleased, but I explained I couldn’t give something for something I heard (a clipping of heels and someone falling to the ground) but didn’t see. I turned away and heard him use the word “cheat” under his breath and he looked so scared when I turned back I was happy to accept that he was referring to the player who fouled him. I also missed a Blue Team player potentially kicking the ball away and delaying the restart of play (lesson to self – jog backwards into position after awarding a goal kick). Worst of all for my dignity was taking a full force clearance square in the groin, much to the amusement of the spectators, players and coaches. It was my own fault for being poorly positioned too close to the action, and at least it meant that the Red Team’s captain (for it was he who kicked it) got his revenge on me, entirely accidentally. There was also one controversial moment that on some days might have kicked off but thankfully didn’t. Blue Team’s goalkeeper had been taking very short goal kicks to their centre back (and captain), who was very good and would either pick a pass or dribble it out. Late on in the game, the keeper puts ball down, casually rolls the ball with the bottom of his foot and walks away, in my mind suggesting he's taken the kick. The centre back didn't move, so the keeper turned round and kicked it again, no more than a yard. To me he’d clearly played the ball twice so I blew the whistle and awarded an indirect free kick to the Red Team, who weren't closing down (nearest player 20 plus yards away) so there was no need for me to consider any action beyond the award of the free kick. The keeper and centre back enquired politely and looked surprised, but I explained what I’d seen, why I’d awarded it (to me the keeper walking away after rolling the ball with his foot was crucial) and, credit to them, they accepted the decision gracefully, as did their team mates and coaches. The Red Team scored from the subsequent and maybe the Blue Team would not have been so accepting if they hadn't already been winning easily at that point. After the game I made a point to speak to the coach, keeper and captain to explain my decision again and thank them for how they dealt with it. I said to the keeper that only he knew whether or not he’d done it on purpose. If he had then I got it right and if I hadn’t then it was my subjective call and I hope he at least understood where I was coming from. I got a nice message from the coach post-match but I’m not so naïve that this run of easy to manage matches will continue! Which leads me on to yesterday the “unfortunate incident” that prevented me from refereeing. I was allocated to officiate an U12s Cup Quarter Final. The fixture had been postponed twice due to waterlogging and the rules of the competition require the venue to change, with the home team becoming the away team. I turned up in plenty of time and went to introduce myself to the now home coach, who asked me why I was there as he hadn’t contacted me and had appointed his own referee. No apology and a completely wasted 60 mile round trip. What was that I was saying about being nice to each other?

A variety of topics in my latest blog, and a bumper read as a result. You can click on the links below to skip to each section. BHA whip crisis blowing over? Crisis Management 101. Fairness is vital. The art of communication. Referee Tales Part 1 BHA whip crisis blowing over? Despite no major news, there have been interesting developments on the BHA’s new whip rules. The first week of the new rules saw 20 suspensions totalling 134 days and a disqualification. Week two saw 12 suspensions totalling 92 days and another disqualification. Last week we received the latest weekly figures, with 9 suspensions totalling 39 days. Those latest figures represent a 55% reduction in offences and 71% reduction in suspension days, a massive improvement in a very short period time. That improvement suggests jockeys are adapting very quickly indeed, and much more quickly than then did in 2011 when there was the last major overhaul of the rules. Back in 2011, there were 117 days of suspensions in week one, 121 days of suspensions in week 2 and in week 3 that figure rose again to 131. So whereas now we have an improving situation, back in 2011 the situation was not improving over time and was getting marginally worse every week. That impression is born out by the eye test, as it is obvious from watching races that jockeys are trying exceptionally hard to ride within the rules, to the point they appear to be very much erring on side of caution, rarely even getting close to the permitted level of seven uses. With the window for suspensions falling during Cheltenham week long since passed, this ‘erring’ looks entirely genuine, and jockeys deserve an enormous amount of credit. It is important to remember that, for the most part, jockeys are riding in predominantly small fields, for modest prizes in front of small crowds, which is a world away to Cheltenham this week, with large, competitive, tightly packed fields, high pressure due to the stakes involved and a huge, loud crowd. It is worth noting that in three weeks we’ve seen 265 days of suspensions handed down by the Whip Review Committee. In the first three weeks of the new rules in 2011, there were 370 days suspensions issued, but this included both codes as the rules came into force at the same time for Flat and Jump racing. Had the rules been implemented for both codes at the same time as they were before I don't think it's unrealistic to assume we'd have outstripped that 370 day number. For context, in the same period last year there were 69 days of suspensions. To these eyes I’ve certainly watched races where the result would have been different had the second jockey not been so cautious. I know the argument goes that there was still a winner so who cares, but I strongly suspect there have been times when the owner, trainer and backers of the second cared. One particularly notable difference between the 2011/12 changes and these latest ones is that the jockeys are far less vocal in their criticism and appear much more accepting of the changes, despite the new rules containing a significant increase to even more disproportionate penalties. Does that reflect a genuine contentment with the rules and penalties? Are they under a three-line-whip to keep the peace? Or is it that jump jockeys are more inclined than their flat counterparts to tolerate it? Only time will provide those answers. We have also been told that this time around jockeys asked for increased penalties, a point reinforced by BHA Chief Executive Julie Harrington when she appeared on Luck on Sunday. On the one hand that's surprising, as I wrote the PJA's initial submission. 24 senior riders were directly involved in producing that submission, with a further 106 reading it (hopefully!) and agreeing to put their name to it. Whilst that submission was open to increased penalties for "technical" offences (using the whip when out of contention, clearly winning and with excessive force), it couldn't have been clearer on a more general increase in penalties, as it "Strongly Agreed" that the current penalties for use above the permitted level were appropriate to the rule breach and that racing's whip rules and penalties were appropriate. Amongst many other comments, that submission couldn't have been clearer: "A jockey who is suspended for any breach of the whip rules is prevented from earning their living for a minimum of two days, even though the sport accepts (in the absence of wealing, of which there was not a single example in 2020 and hardly any examples full stop since the advent of the current rules) it is not a welfare issue. "The problem, if there is one, isn’t that the penalties are not a sufficient deterrent or punishment and the evidence is completely to the contrary. There were 7874 races run in 2020 and 73,843 runners, yet just 297 instances where a jockey was found in breach of the whip rules. This is an “offending rate” of just 3.77% of races (ie almost 97% of races have no whip breaches) or just 0.4% of rides. "Given that not all recorded offences will be by the jockey who rode the winner of the race (and the BHA does not provide those figures for this consultation), it is safe to say that at least 98% of all winners are ridden by a jockey who has not broken the whip rules. That flies in the face of any suggestion that the current penalty structure is not a sufficient deterrent, especially when factoring in that over 68% of whip breaches were for one use over the permitted level. "Anyone who has ridden a horse at racing pace in a packed field in front of a crowd will know that it is not easy to be certain of how often you have used your whip or crop given the speed, danger, adrenaline and other psychological factors." I don't doubt something changed as. whilst in common with other governing bodies, the BHA are not averse to occasionally disingenuous stretching of the truth, there's no way Julie Harrington would lie about that. The problem is jockeys, like many sportsmen and women, are prone to thinking in the now and not always seeing the bigger picture or intended consequences in order to secure an immediate change, in this case getting the BHA to relent on the backhand only rule. Don't forget, in 2011 it was the jockeys themselves that told the BHA "give us a limit and we'll stick to it, and hammer us if we go over it." How did that go? It may well be - and I certainly hope - that this turns out to be a storm in a teacup, and I expect another “quiet” week this week when the latest Whip Review Committee findings are published this evening or tomorrow morning. However I firmly believe that with the Festival upon us that will change, despite the jockeys' collective best efforts. In the cauldron of Cheltenham the psychological factors make mistakes far more likely, particularly for Irish based and Amateur jockeys who aren’t as used to the rules as their professional British counterparts. When that “blip” happens, we’ll still have to wait until the rules formally come into force in Flat racing from 27th March. Only then will we be able to reach final conclusions as to the success or otherwise of the new rules. Crisis Management 101 This is a sports blog, but I feel I can stretch it to cover the bizarre handling by the BBC (and the Conservative Government) of Gary Lineker’s tweet about the Government’s proposed new Border Bill. I won’t recap it because if you’re reading my blog, you’re certainly aware of what happened. Crisis management is stressful and intense, but like most things it isn’t rocket science. If you crisis plan and prepare properly, and have the correct processes in place, you should be in a good position to react. Areas of risk can be identified and prepared for well in advance, pre-agreed processes can ease the stress and make for better decision making, whilst having initial lines to take/drafts in place make life significantly easier when the merde Copyright www.matgreaves.com / Private Eye eventually hits the fan. In an organisation the size of the BBC, they certainly have a detailed crisis management plan and procedure, albeit in common with most media teams it seems under-resourced, with a Head of Press, two Heads of Communications, three Media Relations Managers and four Communications Officers. That sounds like a big team but for one of the highest profile media companies in the world with over 20,000 employees, it isn’t. However, no amount of planning and preparation can make up for poor decisions. And when those poor decisions are open to serious questions of hypocrisy and go against the public’s view you’re no longer managing the crisis but have enflamed it and are then left fire fighting until you course correct. The BBC finally did so yesterday but the damage was done. As for the Conservative Government, they simply can’t get out of their own way. Either that or they take us for fools. Probably both. Everyone assumes the BBC was placed under pressure, either by the Government directly or indirectly through those with close links to Government who are now in positions of influence within the BBC, a view reinforced by some of the frankly tragic co-ordinated tweets from Tory MPs. Who's ever gone to the pub for last orders after watching Match of the Day??? People are tired of disingenuity and the days of getting away with it are numbered. The sooner those responsible for communications accept that the better off we’ll all be. Fairness is vital The last couple of weeks have been a fascinating insight into how Governing bodies operate, something I’ve experienced first-hand from both within and against. First, details leaked about Ivan Toney’s impending case with the Football Association. Of course it is entirely possible that leaks can come from either side but there’s really no benefit for the leaks to have come from Toney or his team. He has demanded an investigation and rightly so, though that call is likely to fall on deaf ears and even if it doesn’t I wouldn’t expect a great deal if any transparency into how the leaks came about. We’ve also been able to witness the ECB’s case against Michael Vaughan, another case that’s been subjected to significant leaks that resulted in a number of those charged refusing to co-operate further. Ivan Toney's post on Instagram as it appeared on mirror.co.uk The hearing was open to the media, who were able to report on proceedings as they happened, a rarity in sport. For example, the media have for many years been able to attend hearings heard by the British Horseracing Authority’s Judicial Panel, but are forbidden from live reporting and can only post updates during breaks in proceedings. It is vital that governing bodies and regulators have the powers and will to investigate matters thoroughly and bring charges where the evidence warrants it, however difficult that is for those charged. However, with great power comes even greater responsibility, and regardless of the seriousness of the charge it is equally vital that the accused is subjected to a fair process. Vaughan’s counsel was highly critical of the ECB’s process and investigation, alleging that the ECB did not set out to establish the facts but to prove their case. As part of this allegation, it was said that in failing to interview potentially key witness and suppressing evidence the ECB wasn’t interested in the truth, but in the result. I have seen this countless times before in horseracing and know from my time at the Professional Players Federation it is a concern held across sport. It is of course the job of a prosecutor to present the strongest possible case and try to win, but Governing bodies have a duty of care that all too often plays a distant second fiddle to other considerations. These considerations might be media interest, public sentiment or simply the desire to win at all costs. Ultimately their responsibility should be to get to the truth – or the closest they can get to it with the powers they have – instead of forming a hypothesis, trying to prove it at all costs and making life as difficult for the defence as possible through what can charitably described as unsatisfactory disclosure procedures. With sports tribunals traditionally loathe to criticise the governing bodies whose prosecutions they sit in judgement of, I doubt we'll ever get the truth, which more often than not lies in the grey areas between black and white (more on that later). Whatever the outcome, it really doesn’t need to be this way. The Art of Communication I love American Football and follow it closely, both the playing and business side. Last week news broke that the Baltimore Ravens were placing what’s known as the Franchise Tag on their Quarterback Lamar Jackson, one of the biggest stars of the sport. The Franchise tag is a one year, full guaranteed deal that is a way for teams to retain a player they can’t reach or don’t want a long term deal with. There are two ways to ‘franchise’ a player – exclusive and non-exclusive. The exclusive tag doesn’t allow the player in question to negotiate with any other team and the player either has to sign the contract (the tag) or he can choose to not play, but if he chooses to not play he can’t play for anyone else and is then left in limbo until he’s traded to another team or eventually relents and signs the contract. It is more expensive than the non-exclusive tag, as the value is the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the year the tag would apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. In Jackson’s case that would have amounted to a one year contract, fully guaranteed, worth approximately $45m. The non-exclusive tag pays the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous five years or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. For Jackson, that figure is just over $32m. Under this tag, he can negotiate with other NFL teams but the Ravens have the right to match the offer and if it does the player must sign with them. If the don’t match the offer the receive two first-round draft picks from his new team as compensation. The Ravens issued a statement via their social media teams. It was a smart statement in that it was timely and transparent (issued right after the 4pm deadline to confirm Franchise Tagged players), it was positive and sympathetically written and avoided antagonism, and confirmed that they wanted to keep Jackson and hoped to sign a long-term deal. It was a wise statement and, more generally, a sensible course of action. Baltimore clearly wants to keep Jackson but he obviously think what they’re offering him isn’t a fair deal for him. He also doesn't have an agent and represents himself, which complicates matters. By going down the route they have, Jackson can negotiate with other teams and I’m sure Baltimore feel that once he does, he’ll realise the value of their offer and sign a deal with them, or at least get a deal from another team that Baltimore can match. It was also clever in that by saying they wanted a deal that was “fair to both Lamar and the team” they were pre-emptively attempting to pacify their fanbase if Jackson ends up leaving. I believe Baltimore has handled this situation well and it makes perfect sense from a business perspective. However, in the immediate aftermatch a number of quarterback needy teams immediately distanced themselves from being interested in signing him, which then fuelled a wider and long held narrative as the story took a twist. Unlike other US sports, most NFL players contracts are not fully guaranteed. In laymans terms, what that means is that a player might sign a five year contract for $100m, but only $40m of that is guaranteed and they can but released after a certain number of years without ever receiving the full value of the contract. When the Cleveland Browns traded for disgraced Houston Texans quarteback Deshaun Watson, the gave him a fully guaranteed contract for $250m. Word is the other NFL owners were fuming at this and there has been widespread speculation that the other owners don't want that contract to set a precedent. For some, Baltimore's decision and other teams apparent disinterest was further evidence of this, even though it would make no business sense for a team that WAS interested in acquiring Jackson to express their interest publicly, quite the reverse. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if it is true that the owners are colluding to avoid massive, fully guaranteed contracts becoming the norm. I know I credit the NFL for some of its steps at transparency with officiating, but outside of that the NFL has a terrible track record when it comes to transparency and dodgy dealings (see Colin Kapernick, Dan Snyder et al). What this goes to show that a) even well executed communications can have unintended consequences in a world where the acceptance of nuance and shades of grey – the place where most truth lies – is in ever short supply and b) bad reputations always come back to haunt you. Refereeing Tales Part 1 The travails of grassroots referees in football is an ongoing storyline, with news emerging this weekend of more referees being assaulted. Like many others, whilst I accept there will always be the occasional bad apples, I am convinced that the issue stems from the treatment of referees in the professional game, which filters down to grassroots. Until the FA, FIFA, IFAB and the PGMOL get serious about the behaviour towards referees from players and managers, all other initiaitives (whether silent weekends, respect campaigns or bodycam trials) are sticking plasters. If you don’t agree with me watch rugby, whether the professional game or at your local grassroots club, and then come back to me. I appreciate I’ve criticised VAR in this very blog and therefore thought I should begin to document my own experiences refereeing at grassroots level. I only qualified as a referee in October last year, though had been reffing U9s to U12s as a coach/parent for years. Since I qualified, I’ve probably reffed 30 or more games at U11 or U12, all 9 v 9, and ran the line as a volunteer at many more. Thankfully, I’m yet to experience any egregiously bad behaviour as a referee and have not issued any cautions or red cards. The latter is no doubt due in no small part to officiating largely developmental games, including the highly competitive Junior Premier League, and a general belief I have (that I know not everyone agrees with) that you should referee younger players differently, whilst still ensuring a safe playing and learning environment. I’ve certainly had to have a stern enough word with a couple of coaches, and a less stern word with some players, but more often than not the coaches are great and play a vital role in helping to manage some of the more emotional younger players, which is the way it should be. All that said, I have witnessed some occasionally appalling behaviour, one incident resulting in me (and several others) reporting a coach to our local FA for his treatment of a young referee and his general behaviour. I'm pleased to say our local FA acted swiftly and issued some disciplinary action, and it will be interesting to see if this coach's behaviour has improved when I next come across him. This weekend I had my first 11 v 11 game, a JPL Cup Match between Aldershot Town U15s and SOCCA U15s. I’m only a Level 7 referee – the lowest level there is and one I have no hope of moving up from as I’ve got no interest in refereeing adult football, not at the moment anyway. I always take a few minutes speaking to both teams beforehand after doing a boot and jewellery check, as I believe its important and helpful to all sides to set expectations beforehand, explain the key Laws, my areas of particular focus and to at least start to build up a rapport. My life as a referee is much easier if the captain and coach can manage their team rather than me having to, and their life is easier if they know how I’m likely to officiate the game, as no two referees are the same and whilst the Laws of the Game are clear, so much of their interpretation is subjective. If you're interested, my pre-match briefing notes are below. It was a brilliant match and closely fought until Aldershot scored three late goals and won 5-0. The boys (I say boys, but some of them were HUGE!) and coaches were fantastic, with barely a word of complaint about any decision (despite awarding two penalties and waving away another claim), with the exception of a couple of decisions where a very minimal and completely acceptable level of frustration was expressed. It's always important to reflect on your performance afterwards and I’m confident I got the vast majority of decisions right, though I know there were two that I may have got wrong. In the first period I awarded a penalty to Aldershot. There was a lot going on as Aldershot had played a through ball but massively overhit it. The attacker was in an offside position at first and the Assistant Referee (a parent of one of the SOCCA players, not a neutral) thought about raising their flag for offside, but the attacker stopped chasing the ball, so the AR didn’t flag for offside. The defender took it easy getting to the ball, and by the time it was in playing distance the same attacker was now within about five yards. The defender tried to turn away but mis-controlled the ball, lost it to the attacker and fouled him trying to win it back. This occurred about half way into the penalty area, about 8 yards from the goal-line in line with the edge of the six yard box. I was well up with play with a clear view and it was an obvious penalty, with no arguments at all. SOCCA’s keeper made a great save and on we played. It was only at halftime that I realised it had never even crossed my mind on whether or not the foul constituted the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity (or DOGSO in refereeing parlance). In hindsight, it could have done although it was a genuine attempt by the defender to play the ball so would only have been a caution (yellow card). What was interesting though was not a single Aldershot player, parent or coach said a word, so maybe it wasn’t a DOGSO offence after all, or maybe they were all so well behaved they never thought to complain. Either way, no harm done. I awarded a second penalty to Aldershot in the third period, an incident I had another clear view of and at least this time there was no suggestion of DOGSO as it was towards the edge of a crowded box. Aldershot had a third penalty claim towards full time. I was by the ‘D’ and the winger was just inside the 18 yard box by the goal line when he tried to go round the defender and went down under a tackle. I had a reasonable but not great view of it anda whilst I thought the defender had got the ball and the man, I wasn't certain so in a split second consciously thought to myself "they've won the game and there's a minute left, so that's a corner." Bad refereeing or the right call? I'm still not sure, but at least I can justify it. It was back to U12s 9 v 9 on Sunday with Whites away to Greens, and an incredibly rare 0-0 draw. On reflection I’m not sure I’ve watched, coached or refereed a 0-0 before in kids/youth football so it was probably unique! It was a very competitive game but pretty much incident free. It was quite a physical game but nothing untoward or even close to warranting a caution, even with the higher bar that I set on that requirement at that level. A couple of frustrated Whites players who needed a very quiet, gentle word but nothing worse than that, and some genuinely comical comments from the coaches of both teams, that are always a sign that a) the coaches are relaxed and in control of their own emotions and b) they’re generally happy with how you’re managing the game. As I said before, I’ve yet to have a “bad” experience as a referee, but I know if every match was like the two I refereed this weekend we wouldn’t be short of grassroots referees at all.

And the scores are in. It was always going to be challenging for jockeys to adjust, but even the most anxious of spectators must have been caught by surprise about how many fell foul of the British Horseracing Authority's new crop rules in week one. 19 jockeys were suspended in the first week under the new regime for a total of 134 days, including bans of 18, 14, 14 and 11 days. Two jockeys received a combined total of 26 days in one race which didn't look at all as awful at the time as the penalties imposed suggest now. The nuclear option of disqualification, that to some (including trainers, former & current jockeys, media personalities) was the panacea and would result in no jockey ever going over the permitted level, was also triggered. Jump jockeys only have to count to seven and stop. So the logical conclusion is jockeys must be stupid, or cheating, right? You’re wrong. There are seven things I’d ask you to consider. As I touched on in my last blog, there is a significant amount of psychological research into the impact of interruptions and distraction on short term/working memory. Counting when there are lots of other things to focus on is not easy. Imagine riding a half-tonne animal, with a mind of its own, at 30 to 40mph. Surrounded in tight space by other half-tonne animals with minds of their own. You’re jumping obstacles. Looking for space. Trying not to clip heels or cause difficulties or danger to your fellow riders. There’s wind in your ears (that’s why cyclists can’t hear you when you’re driving up behind them). Other jockeys are shouting. The noise of the crowd as you approach the finish. It's a bit different to counting on the back of your sofa. Imagine doing something under one set of rules for over 10 years then having to change, even with a bedding-in period. It would naturally be challenging. The risk of distraction on impeding decision making is well documented in aviation, hence the expansive use of checklists. Unfortunately, a jockey can’t keep notes whilst riding. The brain is a funny thing, and the brightest minds still don’t fully understand it. But if you’ve ever walked into a room and forgotten what you went in for, you might have a bit more sympathy to a jockey’s plight. Still don’t believe me? If you drive a manual, keep count of how many times you change gear. You’ll be able to do it most of the time, until something – a cyclist, a traffic light, a pedestrian you see on the pavement, your hands-free rings, a deer leaps out in front of you, and you’ll soon forget. If you still don’t believe me, go back to point 1 and start over again. Of course, as the former CEO of the Professional Jockeys Association I am naturally sympathetic to jockeys and am less inclined to think the worst of them than most are. Even so, I was surprised to see so many – including senior ones – state that it was "up to us" after the announcement of some quid-pro-quo amendments to the guidelines were announced towards the end of the bedding-in process. For anyone who was involved in the previous overhaul of the crop rules in 2011, it was hardly a leap of faith to expect the implementation of the new crop rules to be rocky. The owner of Lunar Discovery confirmed his horse had been disqualified on Twitter. Saying "it's up to us" was always going to leave them as a hostage to fortune and so it has proved, with a BHA statement issued today on the back of their Whip Review Committee stating: “Jockeys have had more than four weeks to adapt to the new rules through the bedding-in period. As the jockeys themselves have stated, it is now up to them to ensure that they ride within the new rules.” The tone of the BHA’s statement may well upset some people, and it undoubtedly might have been better for the BHA to express their obvious exasperation and frustration in a more conciliatory way. But given what jockeys said it’s hardly surprising that the BHA chose to use it against them after such a lengthy consultation process. As I've said before, whether I personally like the rules or not is neither here nor here. However, regardless of the undoubtedly professional and thorough process that the BHA deserve credit for (and got, from me) I don’t like the new rules and for good reason. There were 7874 races run in 2020 and 73,843 runners, yet just 297 instances where a jockey was found in breach of the whip rules. This equates to an “offending rate” of just 3.77% of races. Factoring in the occasions where there were multiple offences in the same race, 97% of races had no whip breaches. Put another way, just 0.4% of all rides resulted in an offence, 69% of which were for just one use over the permitted level. It was hardly the problem some in racing outside of the BHA made out. As well as thinking the problem wasn't anywhere as close to being as bad as some portrayed, it was driven by what to me was a flawed hypothesis. As I wrote in the PJA's submission to the consultation in September 2021: “There are some who we know argue for more draconian penalties for jockeys or who advocate for zero breaches (and achieving this by either draconian penalties and/or disqualification). With respect we say this a naïve view. If you want zero breaches of a Rule (or law of the land) you completely outlaw the issue you are trying to deal with, and even then you will not end up with zero offences. "Furthermore, is the problem not the level of Penalty or the fact there are a relatively small number of breaches of the whip rules, the majority incredibly minor in nature, but the fact that a very small number of people believe the use of the whip is intrinsically cruel? Even if this supposed nirvana of zero rule breaches could be achieved, this group would not stop thinking the whip was cruel.” All that being said, I accept the arguments around the importance of protecting racing’s social licence, and know that external pressure was being exerted, helped in no small part by our Parliament’s remarkably lax lobbying rules, as written about ad infinitum in Private Eye. The whip rules as they currently appear on the BHA's Rules of Racing website Regardless of my personal view, the Rules are in place – well, sort of at least as the official record of the Rules of Racing still states the old rules and penalties – and it’s hard to see them changing, not in the short term at least. So what happens next? First things first, most of the jockeys suspended in week one were inexperienced to some degree. The overwhelming majority of senior jockeys avoided falling foul of the rules, so there is some cause for optimism, though the fact several very experienced jockeys still did is worrying. I’d be amazed if jump jockeys don’t massively err on the side of caution over the next week, as a suspension of more than four days will rule more jockeys out of the Cheltenham Festival (suspensions of four days or less aren't served on days where there is Grade 1 racing, as there is every day at the Festival). Though given the points I made above it’s not out of the question that more could miss the biggest meeting of the year. As for the Festival itself, it’s close to impossible to foresee an incident free week, particularly with the presence of Irish jockeys who’ve never ridden under these new rules and Amateur riders who rarely ride under them, both groups of riders that on average breached the old rules at a much higher rate. If the bookies were offering odds on a post-Cheltenham disqualification I’m confident it would be odds-on. In the medium term the problem is unlikely to go away. Flat jockeys will almost certainly have to endure a similarly challenging implementation period, and evidence from the United States suggests this could be a long, rocky road as well as further undermining the argument of disqualification as the nirvana for eliminating breaches. HISA’s crop rules have been in force since 1st July last year and disqualifications from purses continue to occur some seven months on. Twelve years ago the solution to me and BHA CEO Paul Bittar was obvious – bring back discretion. And it worked. This time that isn’t an option as discretion doesn’t work with disqualification and I can’t see the BHA bringing in one and dropping the other, so solutions are much harder to find. One possible option might be to mirror the latest incarnation of France Galop’s rules. The limits are lower – which intrinsically reduces the likelihood of miscounting or forgetting, reducing the likelihood of being in breach – and the penalties are much mor appropriate to the offence. It would also have the added benefit of at least some harmonisation. But whether it's out of a legitimate desire to maintain racing’s social licence, to appease the unappeasable or out of a paranoid concern about optics (or a combination of all three), racing in the western world is slowly backing itself further into the corner and running out of ideas. With administrators neither confident enough to resist those demanding change, nor confident enough to ban the crop altogether, this sort of increased harmonisation might be the only sustainable longer-term solution.

Readers will recall my blog on VAR from a few weeks ago, where I suggested some key steps the Premier League / PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Ltd) could take to improve the situation. In summary those recommendations were: 1. Explain and communicate decisions as/immediately after they are taken. 2. Invest time and effort in proactively explaining the Laws of the Game and contentious decisions after the event. 3. Taking responsibility for when mistakes are made and ensuring accountability. Since I wrote that blog, IFAB have commenced a trial whereby the referee explains the VAR decision to the crowd in the stadium once it’s been taken. And in the last two days, after the umpteenth weekend in a row where VAR decisions (or, more accurately, non-decisions) caused further controversy, the PGMOL Premier Game Match Officials Limited issued two statements. The first accepted mistakes were made and the second confirmed the action taken to try to ensure those mistakes aren’t repeated. They are both positive steps but there still remains a fair distance to travel before the controversies will end. The whole point of using instant replay/video assistance for decisions is remove clear and obvious errors that change the course of the game. The reason it is so successful in cricket is that the technology enables us to tell whether or not the subjective decisions (Leg Before Wicket, whether a batter has edged it or no-balls) were right or wrong. There is far more subjectivity when interpreting the Laws of the Game, which is why the phrase “in the opinion of the referee” is so important and why it’s impossible to eliminate scrutiny of decisions. Most people understand this and are willing to accept errors will occur when taking decisions live and at full speed but are far less accepting of errors in a review process that was supposed to ‘solve’ the problem. I firmly believe VAR is a welcome innovation in football and have no doubt it will keep improving. Taking responsibility for mistakes and increasing transparency will undoubtedly boost confidence in the system but ultimately unless the mistakes are eliminated the controversy will rage. So, what else could they do in addition to further training for officials? Show the replays of VAR incidents in the stadiums and provide the feed to broadcasters as decisions are being taken. I would do this alongside the broadcast of the discussions (as they do in rugby union) but a brief explanation after the decision has taken been taken, as they do in the NFL and as per the IFAB trial, but would much better than the status quo. Take what IFAB are already doing on social media but go a step further by using social media to explain actual decisions after the event, rather than hypothetical ones. Give the VAR more time to get decisions correct, and at the same time football should follow other sports and stop the game clock when a review (or other stoppage) is underway, consigning the uncertainty of injury time to the scrap heap. That’s now twice I’ve put forward advice in this blog that has subsequently been heeded. I'm not so naïve to think that the RFU and PGMOL read this blog but at least it shows I might know what I’m doing!

Not so much a new blog this week, more of a revisiting of two previous ones I’ve written – So Near, So VAR and Lead the horse to water – as there have been important developments relating to both since I first penned my thoughts. I also want to pass a small comment on the British Horseracing Authority’s upcoming changes to their Rules of Racing relating to the use of the crop. Let’s start with VAR (Video Assistant Referee), as this past weekend saw further scrutiny after Man United's Casemiro was sent off for his part in a melee that occurred in the match against Crystal Palace. Handling a melee is incredibly challenging for a referee and his or her assistant, who can only step back and try to see as much as they can whilst using the whistle and their voice to try and calm the situation. It was inevitable VAR would review the incident and it was unsurprising when the referee, Andre Marriner, was called over to the monitor to check for a potential red card offence. As has now become customary, television cameras zoomed in as the referee watched the replays on the VAR monitor, and the video footage replayed by the VAR appeared to clearly show that Casemiro had grabbed Will Hughes round the throat. Under the Laws of the Game, violent conduct is defined as: "…when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball…In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.” It's hard to disagree with hands around the throat constituting violent conduct, and it seemed entirely the correct decision. That is until you saw an alternative view (broadcast that evening on Match of the Day) showed as conclusively as you could expect that Casemiro had actually grabbed Hughes' shirt, close to but importantly not around his neck. A different angle of the Casemiro "neck hold", courtesy of Match of the Day Grabbing another player's shirt surely falls short of violent conduct - neither excessive force nor brutality - and was certainly no worse than that of other players in the melee, so it appears the VAR either saw that angle and chose not to show it to the referee, or didn’t see it himself. Either way it is unsatisfactory and VAR still has a long way to go before winning the confidence of players, pundits and fans. What is more satisfactory, however, is news that IFAB have agreed to a trial of referees announcing and explaining their decisions, starting with the Club World Cup, currently taking place in Morocco. It happened for the first time in the match between Al Ahly and Auckland City, and is a major step forward. It’s just a shame IFAB blocked the trial of temporary concussion substitutes… Following the backlash to the Rugby Football Union’s (RFU) announcement confirming changes to the tackle-height law in the grassroots game, the RFU issued a statement apologising for the way the matter had been handled and, in particular, communicated. The proposed changes have been put on hold pending consultation. In the blog I wrote on the day the RFU announced the changes, I commented that in my view: “At least some of the criticism could have been avoided if the RFU had taken a couple of simple steps. Most importantly, they should have included with the announcement at least some initial education materials, graphic images, videos and FAQs demonstrating the new tackle height. Much of the criticism stems from people assuming you now can only tackle around the legs, which is not the case – waist height is the space between the top of the hip and the ribs… Secondly, the RFU’s release made reference to studies and trials but outside of a single mention of “a 63% reduction in head-on-head contact” following the trial in France, absolutely no other detail of the evidence that led to this decision. That just doesn’t make sense to me as some data is already out there and is impressive… Of course taking those two steps would not have eliminated criticism - far from it - but it would have made a big difference." As part of their latest announcement the RFU included links to both a detailed paper and a presentation, the two documents providing the research and rationale as well as graphics. Ideally these documents could have been distilled into easier to digest graphics and videos and we’ll never know why this information wasn’t issued to accompany the initial release. But it highlights the vital importance of involving your comms team in the process at an early stage to ensure you get the messaging around major changes right first time. Even when that happens it doesn’t guarantee the process of implementation will be friction-free, because major changes never are. The British Horseracing Authority ticked all the boxes when it announced changes to the Rules of Racing relating to the use of the crop – a lengthy and thorough consultation, detailed report, video, Q&A – and it still hasn’t been smooth sailing. Which brings us on to… I have thus far resisted writing about the upcoming change to the crop rules by the British Horseracing Authority. Whether I agree with the changes or not is neither here nor there, but I strongly suspect racing, and jockeys particularly, are going to experience a lot of short-term adversity as a result of them. For example, don’t be surprised if we see numerous jockeys ruled out of the Cheltenham Festival for falling foul of the rules when they are formally introduced next Monday. Likewise, multiple suspensions of double-digit days in length at the Festival itself seem assured. A disqualification or two is no less likely. Currently the biggest issue seems to be a new interpretation of the ‘arm above shoulder height’ rules. This Rule has always been interpreted by the height of the elbow, not the hand, and was traditionally quite loosely enforced. It is clearly a point of emphasis under the new guidelines but hopefully, after a month of bedding in, a sensible compromise can be reached on its interpretation. The other biggest challenge for jockeys that I foresee – particularly Irish-based jockeys coming over to the Festival – will be the removal of discretion. For more than 10 years Stewards have been able to discount uses of the crop: “Provided that the manner in which the whip had been used was measured, Stewards may choose to disregard occasions when the whip has been used: All Races a) To keep a horse in contention or to maintain a challenging position prior to what would be considered the closing stages of a race; b) To maintain a horse’s focus and concentration; c) To correct a horse that is noticeably hanging; d) Where there is only light contact with the horse; Jump Races e) Following a mistake at an obstacle; f) To correct a horse that is running down an obstacle.” This discretion has almost been completely removed, except “in exceptional circumstances where individual strike(s) have been used clearly and unequivocally for safety purposes. For example, where a horse continues to hang significantly despite the rider having visibly attempted to straighten their mount with the reins or in order to prevent a horse from running out.” Going from a system with some flexibility to one with none will undoubtedly cause confusion, particularly given the fact that keeping an accurate count of crop uses is not as easy as it appears from the comfort of a sofa. Ever thrown numbers at someone who’s trying to count in order to distract them and then laughed when they’ve had to start over? Now try keeping count whilst riding a horse with a mind of its own at 30 to 40 mph, surrounded by other horses, jumping obstacles, and multiple other stimuli and distractions. Keeping count is certainly possible, and most jockeys in most situations can do it, but to misjudge it or not be certain isn’t the “stupidity” that many people seem to think, and if you forget and happen to use your crop twice more than the rules permit at Cheltenham you'll be suspended for 16 days. To highlight the potential scale of the problem, the BHA’s Whip Review Committee published data that confirmed 44 rides would have been in breach of the new rules had they been in place during the first week of the bedding in period, as opposed to just four breaches of the existing rules. As they haven’t published any data (or indeed decisions) since it is impossible to know whether the situation has improved over time. Regardless of those fears, the reality is that I sincerely want to be wrong, and to that end the BHA’s approach of having a ‘bedding-in’ period has been absolutely the right one. Doing so has caused its own problems – including jockeys being informed, or calculating from what they’ve been told, that they’d have been banned for weeks for rides that would not currently incur and suspension at all, complete with the subsequent media coverage and social media storm. However it is far better to identify issues with the Rules and their enforcement before real-life consequences kick in. The bedding-in period has served that purpose and should play a part in limiting the impact for jockeys and for racing more generally, and for that the BHA deserves credit. That said, I wouldn’t underestimate how hard it will be for jockeys to change the habits learned over a lifetime. On the subject of horseracing, an interesting snippet from Sportico’s Morning Lead daily email in my inbox this morning, on why the broadcasts of US sports are increasingly looking like their gaming counterparts: ‘For years, sports video games did all they could to replicate the TV experience, from hiring the same announcers to adding authentic sponsorship placements around their virtual fields. “Now it’s the other way around,” Fox Sports SVP for technical and field operations Michael Davies said. “You look at what you can do in video games, and sometimes you try to replicate it as best you can.” The most recent example of that will be apparent during Sunday’s Super Bowl, as Fox plans to integrate player tracking data into its skycam shots, adding names below athletes’ feet for easy identification…. ESPN's use of augmented reality in this weekend's NHL All-Star Game This is all happening now in part because it can. Cameras have improved, on-field access is better, and graphic rendering time has decreased significantly… Adding player names, for instance, is not done merely to make gamers feel at home. It improves the experience for everyone, especially the most casual of viewers who could use the help identifying Travis Kelce in the slot. Those types of light-touch augmented reality elements convey information without taking viewers away from the action…It’s the exact same reason action video games constantly show things like faint health bars and ammo updates, rather than forcing a user to open a menu screen for that data… For any sports broadcaster in need of a new slogan, here’s an idea: If it’s in the game, it’s in the game.’ This got me thinking about horseracing. Watching horseracing today is not that much different to watching it 30 years ago. We’ve had some great innovations, including Jockey Cam, and the use of overhead shots, but their use is still relatively rare. The overhead shot, combined with the use of augmented reality by broadcaster NBC, led to the remarkable footage of this year’s Kentucky Derby winner, Rich Strike, scything through the field from a seemingly impossible position, becoming a rare example of horseracing going viral for the right reason. For a sport struggling to stay relevant and attract a younger audience (despite racing being a data-rich sport that should appeal), the advances in augmented reality in broadcasting are a massive opportunity to broaden racing's reach.

Moya Sport Founder & CEO appeared on Sky's 'Racing Debate' on Sunday 22nd January with presenters Sean Boyce and Matt Chapman. Paul discussed a number of issues, including the latest integrity developments in sport. Please note the interview starts at approximately 30 seconds.

Another week in the Premier League, another VAR controversy. Or should I say controversies. This past week the high profile incidents were Bruno Fernandes’ goal for Man Utd against Man City, and the award of a penalty for Fulham against Newcastle United. VAR was introduced to try to eliminate as much as possible game changing decisions by referees and linesmen that camera footage showed to be wrong. Other sports – notably American football, cricket, rugby and tennis – have successfully used technology and an additional manpower for years. Cricket has nailed it with the long established Third Umpire, albeit the nature of the sport, with technology that can remove any subjectivity (with a small amount of accepted tolerance courtesy of the use of ‘umpire’s call’) certainly lends itself to a more straightforward process that is now a crucial part of the game and indeed the fan experience. Rugby’s Third Match Official (TMO) has been around for over 20 years and whilst not without its own issues is widely accepted and a beacon of transparency, with the referee and TMO mic’d up and their conversations broadcast on television and to members of the crowd with a “Ref Link” earpiece. The NFL and NCAAF has had Instant Replay seemingly forever. And tennis has Hawkeye, with the US Open removing line judges completely from the majority of courts and relying solely on Hawkeye for line calls. Football was really the last major ball sport to introduce video replay, having made an initial foray into using technology to assist the officials with the introduction of Goal Line Technology. Many fans – myself included – wanted the use of video technology in football having seen it successfully adopted in other sports. I qualified as a football referee in October last year, having refereed games as a coach/parent for several years. So far I’ve only refereed youth football but even so I have an appreciation for how difficult it is to get every decision right over the course of 90 minutes (or in my case 60 or 80). Only coaches, players and parents can complain at me if they think I’ve got something wrong, not a crowd of tens of thousands plus the millions watching at home and online, so VAR could only be a good thing, right? The principles as VAR as laid out on the IFAB (International Football Association Board) website are helpful, and in common with other sports the video assistant referee (VAR) can only intervene ‘in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’. The only areas the VAR can get involved in are: a. Goal/no goal b. Penalty/no penalty c. Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution) d. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team) There is further clarity on each of those areas: a. Goal/no goal · attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc.) · ball out of play prior to the goal · goal/no goal decisions · offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of a penalty kick or encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper b. Penalty kick/no penalty kick · attacking team offence in the build-up to the penalty incident (handball, foul, offside etc.) · ball out of play prior to the incident · location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area) · penalty kick incorrectly awarded · penalty kick offence not penalised c. Direct red cards (not second yellow card/caution) · DOGSO* (especially position of offence and positions of other players) · serious foul play (or reckless challenge) · violnt conduct, biting or spitting at another person · using offensive, insulting or abusive action(s) *Denial of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. d. Mistaken identity (red or yellow card) · If the referee penalises an offence and then gives the wrong player from the offending (penalised) team a yellow or red card, the identity of the offender can be reviewed; the actual offence itself cannot be reviewed unless it relates to a goal, penalty incident or direct red card. The introduction of VAR was always going to take some time to bed in, and teething problems are to be expected with the adoption of new technologies and processes. But the current issues go beyond teething problems, so with a clear and seemingly straightforward process, where is it going wrong? This weekend’s incidents highlight the problems. Let’s look at Bruno Fernades’ goal first, which was flagged as offside by the Assistant Referee, a decision overturned by the referee Stuart Attwell following VAR’s intervention. Much of the criticism has centred on whether or not Rashford was interfering with play, but the Law is more detailed than just “interfering with play” ‘A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: · interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or · interfering with an opponent by: · preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or · challenging an opponent for the ball or · clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or · making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball’ The IFAB website has a section of FAQs under the Offside Rule section, one of which deals almost precisely with the incident from the weekend (note, my emphasis of certain words): ‘An attacking player in an offside position (Team A) runs towards the ball but does not play the ball or prevent the opponent (Team B) from playing or being able to play the ball. What is the referee’s decision? It is not an offside offence so the referee allows play to continue. The attacking player is only penalised if he/she plays the ball or interferes with an opponent.’ The undoubted conclusion when you understand the Laws of the Game is that the VAR decision to allow Bruno Fernandes’ goal was the right one, as Rashford didn’t actually attempt to play the ball, and didn’t directly interfere with an opponent You might, like me, think the law needs changing to reflect that Marcus Rashford certainly looked like he was going to play the ball, and arguably influenced the play and the actions of the defenders/goalkeeper, but based on the Laws as currently written the correct decision was reached, despite the confusion and controversy. As to the incident in Newcastle United versus Fulham, you cannot escape the conclusion that the correct decision was reached, but for the wrong incident. In live action, referee Robert Jones waved away two penalty claims. VAR called him over to the pitch-side screen and he reviewed the second of the waved away claims, an apparent foul by Kieren Tripper against Bobby Cordova Reid. Whilst the footage clearly showed Trippier making contact with Reid, this came after Reid had accidently stamped on Trippier, itself a free kick offence. Remembering that the requirements for VAR intervention require a ‘clear and obvious error’ or a ‘serious missed incident’ it us unfathomable why the referee was advised to review the incident, and even more unfathomable why he subsequently awarded the penalty. To make matters worse, VAR didn’t refer the first waved away penalty, despite clear video evidence of a shirt pull on Andreas Pereira by Dan Burn. It isn't just the Premier League either, with VAR failing to intervene to disallow a goal by Elche against Cadiz, despite a clear offside in the build-up, resulting in Cadiz demanding a replay. So why do I think these incidents highlight the issues with VAR? 1. The VAR process is kept secret within the ground. IFAB do not allow VAR footage – or footage of any controversial decisions – to be shown within the stadium as the decision is being made. This is to protect the referee from outside influence. They do allow VAR replays to be shown inside the ground but only AFTER a decision overturned, and not for any decision that isn’t overturned, though this has never happened when I’ve been at St Mary’s. This leaves the paying fans completely unaware of why decisions are made, and it continues to amaze me that football is the only mainstream ball sport that allows this situation. 2. Even when you have the ability to watch the footage on television, due to the absence of audio of the conversations between the VAR and referee, there’s still no actual official explanation and when it’s not plainly obvious from the footage, commentators, pundits and viewers are left to fill the void with their own explanations. 3. Linked to point 1 above, there is little if any transparency and virtually no accountability. Decisions are rarely, if ever explained after the event. 4. The definition of ‘Clear and obvious’ is, ironically, not clear and obvious and seems to vary widely between VAR officials. 5. Individual errors by the referee are being replaced by individual errors by the VAR official, undermining the fundamental premise of VAR's introduction. 6. Too many broadcasters and commentators don’t know the Laws of the Game. Like most things in life, the solution isn’t rocket science. Firstly, the process of decision making has to be more transparent. IFAB already acknowledge how important transparency is, with their VAR protocol stating that 'The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency'. But that is a show of transparency, not genuine transparency. As happens in rugby, if the media and public (both at home and in the stadium) could hear the discussions and therefore the rationale for any decision it would make a big difference. Decisions would still be talking points and fuel conversation but at least fans would understand, even if they disagreed. The sooner this is addressed the better and it was heartening to hear new PGMOL Chief Executive Howard Webb confirm it was being explored. Secondly, the PGMOL or Premier League should invest time and resources in proactively explaining the Laws of the Game as well as contentious decisions after the event. The NFL (though not exactly a beacon of transparency as Washington Commanders fans are well aware) does this very well through a standalone website and its NFL Officiating Twitter account. Closer to home, the British Horseracing Authority does a much better job than football despite having nowhere near as much money at their disposal through a dedicated Twitter feed and online database of Stewards (racing’s referees) decisions, as well as a standalone website for matters heard in front of their disciplinary tribunal. Finally, whilst we must acknowledge that we can chase perfection in decision making but can’t achieve it, it is vital that there is accountability when mistakes are made. What do I mean by accountability? I’m not talking about disciplining officials let alone sacking them, but simply someone, somewhere admitting when mistakes are made and taking responsibility for them. This helps speed up how quickly people can move past mistakes. It doesn't damage reputations but enhances them, unless of course the mistakes are endless. It increases trust. It's called leadership. Why organisations and leaders across sport, business and politics seem so averse to this remains a mystery to me.

Moya Musings are shorter thought pieces on recent news items across sport So I see the RFU has announced a significant change to the tackle rules in age-grade and grassroots rugby, lowering the height from not above the shoulder (or below an imaginary line under the arm pit for age grade rugby) to not above the waist line. The release can be found on the RFU website. Cue outrage on Twitter from grassroots players and coaches alike, with the overwhelming majority of responses decrying the move as ‘the end of the game’, saying it will ‘cause more concussions’ and that this season ‘will be my last’. Now, I completely understand most people are resistant to change and significant ones like this always attract kneejerk reactions, especially on Twitter. This decision would have attracted criticism of the RFU no matter how they announced it. But in my view, at least some of the criticism could have been avoided if the RFU had taken a couple of simple steps. Most importantly, they should have included with the announcement at least some initial education materials, graphic images, videos and FAQs demonstrating the new tackle height. Much of the criticism stems from people assuming you now can only tackle around the legs, which is not the case – waist height is the space between the top of the hip and the ribs. Where do a lot of people get their news these days? Twitter. What vehicle is great for using imagery and video to explain things? You guessed it, Twitter. Secondly, the RFU’s release made reference to studies and trials but outside of a single mention of “a 63% reduction in head-on-head contact” following the trial in France, absolutely no other detail of the evidence that led to this decision. That just doesn’t make sense to me as some data is already out there and is impressive: “Initial feedback from the Fédération Française de Rugby (FFR) is positive, suggesting a more expansive game in addition to compelling player welfare benefits as outlined by the French Rugby Federation: Threefold reduction in match injuries so far 60 per cent decrease in head impacts 31 per cent increase in line breaks 67 per cent decrease in kicks Significant reduction in winning margins” Image of a waist from AtlantaKilts.com Of course taking those two steps would not have eliminated criticism - far from it - but it would have made a big difference. Indeed the kickback for not taking those two steps was anticipated by the RFU in the very release that’s caused the outcry! “We understand this is a significant change and the game will have questions around the detail of the new law variation, what it means for coaches and players and how the tackle will be refereed during different phases of the game, for example close to the goal line versus counter attacks in open play. Detailed FAQs and training materials will be provided over the coming weeks to give clarity for the game.” As a qualified coach and fan of rugby, I actually support the move but even I had to double check what the definition of where the waist was and make an effort to read more about the trial in France (having already read about it previously). We should not leave people, or expect them, to do that of their own volition when it's so straightforward to give them the information in an easily digestible way. Yes, you can lead a horse to water and can’t force it to drink. But don’t make your life harder by forcing Dobbin to have to find the water in a naturally hostile environment in the first place. Chances are Dobbin won't.

Tuesday 17th January 2022 - Paul Struthers, formerly Chief Executive of the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) and Head of Communications for the British Horseracing Authority, has launched a new venture, Moya Sport. Moya Sport will offer consultancy services to governing bodies, player associations and clubs, specialising in sporting integrity, athlete welfare, stakeholder communications and crisis management. In his new role at Moya Sport, Paul will be able to draw on almost two decades of experience representing both athletes and governing bodies. Under Paul’s leadership, the PJA became a respected and increasingly influential player in the sport. He personally managed and advised on a large number of high profile disciplinary and regulatory cases, including race fixing and anti-doping cases, was integral in developing a holistic welfare support programme for jockeys and delivered a range of regulatory changes and service improvements for jockeys. At the BHA, Paul was the main spokesperson across all their media channels. He was responsible for their communications strategy as well as all media relations for a wide range of challenging or contentious matters, and was involved in shaping regulatory policy across a variety of areas. Speaking about the new venture, Paul said: “I have spoken to many different people working across sport and have identified a growing need for specialist support. Integrity, communications and welfare teams are over-stretched but under resourced and under increasing pressure from a non-stop news cycle, social media and the explosion in citizen journalism. “At Moya Sport, we have experienced those issues first hand from both a governing body and athlete viewpoint, making us uniquely qualified to have a genuine impact helping organisations navigate an increasingly challenging environment. I am passionate about the vital importance of integrity, but equally passionate about athletes’ welfare and treating them fairly, which is why transparency, accountability and honesty will be at the heart of everything Moya Sport does.” Notes for Editors 1. More information on Moya Sport’s services and regular blog posts on issues affecting sport visit www.moyasport.co.uk 2. For further information please contact Paul Struthers, Founder and CEO, Moya Sport on 07966 590105 or paul@moyasport.co.uk

Moya Sport's Paul Struthers was interviewed by Nick Luck on Racing TV's Luck on Sunday on 18th December 2022, and here's the interview in full. Nick asks about various matters, and Paul talks about: leaving his role as CEO of the PJA, his commitment to that role and what he's been doing since (0m 35s); his own mental health, the impact of his mother's death when he was 12 and the positive impact of therapy (2m 55s); different styles of leadership (8m 55s); improvements in weighing room culture (11m 51s); the new whip rules (13m 56s); Frankie Dettori's impending retirement (16m 44s);