Special decisions

In The Scapegoat, I had mentioned that the referee gives(or not) a freekick based on what he sees. In To be or not to be... I had debated that a foul had to be a significant foul to be given these days.

But there are some fouls in certain areas which the referee does see but thinks twice about calling it. Well, you might've guessed the "areas" I'm talking about is the penalty box. Some fouls in the penalty box are not given which would've otherwise been given had the fouls been outside the box.

I have heard many commentators say that the referee must be absolutely sure before calling for a foul in the penalty box. I have also heard them say that had that foul been outside the box, it would've been a freekick. I question these statements. Does this mean the referee need not be absolutely sure of fouls outside the penalty box? Or does the penalty box deserve a special kind of foul?

My question to you is this - Should fouls in the penalty box be treated any differently than fouls outside the box?

The Scapegoat

Referees. They seem to be getting the spotlight ever so often these days. More so in the EPL because of the pace of the game.

A wrong decision here and there leaves a team a goal behind, or down to ten men. One team is definitely affected by a ref's decision or lack thereof. And it's always the team affected who seem to carry on the needless banter on the pitch and continue it once they are off it.

Many people don't seem to understand that all these decisions are instantaneous. Also, the referee gives the decision based on what he sees and not what has actually happened. I mean, he doesn't have the luxury of "technology". He sees it once and makes a decision.

Martin Tyler got it spot on at the weekend. "It's a game played by HUMANS and refereed by a HUMAN". Why don't people seem to get that in their heads?

From my experience, this is the reason. We want a scapegoat. We want to blame someone else for our "misfortune" whenever possible. I mean, you can miss 10 chances in a game but no one will be talking about those missed chances if a "big decision" doesn't go their way. All the talk will be about the "decision". Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the way it goes. For eg, take the Liverpool-Stoke game earlier in the season. Gerrard scored what seemed to be a very legitimate goal in the 2nd minute but was ruled out. And they failed to break down Stoke for the remaining 88 min. And guess what the newspapers said the next day.

"Referee denies Liverpool top spot".

What a load of trash. They had 90 min to break down Stoke and they couldn't. Simple as that.

Please feel free to add more examples.

I have one more question. When a decision seems to go in your favor, how come you don't breathe a word about it? Laryngitis?