´óÏó´«Ã½

Some years ago, a documentary miked up David Elleray for a game between Millwall and Arsenal. The level of foul-mouthed abuse he suffered was extraordinary, so much so that the experiment has never been repeated. In 2006, we are used to the sight of every decision, right or wrong, being disputed by a pack of outraged players. Quite often, the coaching staff also join in. The letters we receive from lip readers would suggest that much of this anger continues to be expressed in less than polite terminology.

It has come to something when one of the Premiership's more sensible managers disputes a red card because his player apparently did not call the referee a "f***ing cheat"; he merely said he was "f***ing s**te". Perhaps I'm being prudish - and I knowis not everyone's cup of tea - but surely neither is an acceptable form of words.

If the referee was miked up, the whole thing could be cleared up retrospectively. And, as with CCTV cameras and speeding, there would be a spate of disciplinary points earned early on, but patterns of behaviour would soon change. No coach is going to ignore persistent intimidation of officials if it means half his squad is suspended for a subsequent match.

Also, if verbal abuse was recorded, officials would be obliged to act, and to act consistently. Any suspicions that certain clubs or individuals were being treated unequally would also be allayed.

Fascinating though it would be, taste and decency considerations may not allow the live broadcasting of backchat caught on the ref's mike, as currently happens in rugby. But tapes could be made available to disciplinary panels, or possibly for non-live (and suitably bleeped) broadcast.

As with goal-line technology, miking up the refs could only be implemented in the upper reaches of the game. But Sunday players - and kids in particular - copy what they see happening at the top level, and standards of behaviour might just improve. There have been reports recently about the struggle to find people to officiate at a grassroots level. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

Even at professional level, officials are paid a tiny fraction of what players earn, and the grief involved would put off all but the most hardy. I'm sure people will disagree - and I don't suppose for a minute that or are ready to sanction an experiment - but something has to happen.

Professional football is a passionate game with a lot at stake, and mistakes by officials are always easier to shrug off when your team is not involved. We in TV, with our array of different camera angles and the benefit of hindsight, are at least partly responsible for the degree of scrutiny to which officials are now subjected. Barely a MOTD weekend goes by without at least one contentious decision to analyse.

For what it's worth, MOTD backed the late penalty award at Portsmouth on Saturday. Sunday's MOTD2 felt that the penalty and red card against Tugay were technically correct, and that the officials were right not to award handball against Mido. However, we felt that Watford had one, possibly two, penalties incorrectly turned down and that Hossam Ghali's sending-off for Spurs was harsh.

We'd rather have devoted all the studio chat in both programmes to purring over or 's displays, or to the fabulous goals scored by and . As it was, given the furore and next day's headlines created at Pompey and Blackburn, we once again felt duty-bound to analyse examples of refereeing as well.

One thing we're all agreed on is that officiating is a difficult job which is becoming harder. That won't stop us reviewing key decisions, but if the authorities are going to hold referees to account for making bad decisions (as Aidy Boothroyd suggested, perhaps understandably, after his afternoon at Pompey), then perhaps players and coaches need to show more restraint in return...