Matt Maher: Do referees really need a fresh bone of contention?
It is hard not to view the proposed trial of sin bins in professional football as an answer to a question no-one asked.
The logic behind the plan, announced this week by the game’s lawmaking body Ifab, appears sound enough on paper. Who doesn’t want to see a reduction in cynical fouls and dissent?
Yet if the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is just at this moment football doesn’t need any more variables adding to an already jumbled officiating mix.
Referees are having a tough enough time consistently applying the laws already at their disposal. Just ask Wolves and Gary O’Neil.
So often has O’Neil found his team getting the rough end of the stick, any sense of anger has dissipated into exasperation.
In the moments after referee Michael Salisbury had awarded Fulham their second, game-clinching penalty on Monday night, the Wolves boss could be seen looking at his assistants, shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders. What can you do, indeed?
It says plenty about the way O’Neil has conducted himself that, despite having to speak at length about controversial refereeing and VAR decisions after three of Wolves’ last four matches (not to mention a couple of others earlier in the season), he has not said anything to warrant an FA charge.
One suspects the response of sporting director Matt Hobbs, suspended one match for calling Anthony Taylor “f****** useless” after the recent 2-2 draw with Newcastle, chimes closer with that of most supporters.
