Referees and Dictators: Freedom to say what you like about them, as long as it's not criticism.

The job of referees is to apply the laws of the game during matches. Sometimes they get it wrong. If they do, it’s likely to result in supporters, communicating through the medium of song, accusing the referee of having a tendency to engage in self-sexual-simulation.

‘Refereeing is a difficult job’ say their defenders. Of course it is. Because if you get it wrong, you get derided. If no one cared whether you sent off the wrong player or awarded a penalty ‘for a laugh’, then being a referee would be a doss.

The level of derision varies from singing songs (pretty tame) to death threats (criminal behaviour). Referees can expect the former but shouldn’t have to put up with the latter.

It seems the FA think they shouldn’t have to put up with fair comments from Football Managers either.

Unless it’s praise. If managers praise the ref, its fine. If, on the other hand, they dare to suggest the referee got a decision wrong, they’ll invoke the wrath of the Football Association, who'll charge them with misconduct and fine them or give them a ban.

Freedom of expression in the world of football is on a par with freedom of expression in a dictatorship: you can express yourself freely, as long as it’s not critical.

The latest manager to blacken the good name of the men in black is Wigan FC manager Roberto Martinez.

After his side were beaten 4-0 at Man Utd on 15 September 2012 he said the following:

‘When you come places like this you need a strong referee – and the first decision, the penalty, really sets you back – it was a shocking decision.’

‘It is difficult to come to Old Trafford and having a referee that gets affected by the event and the circumstances surrounding the game.’

The FA have charged Martinez with breaching rule E3, which says:

‘A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.’

It seems a bit strange that making comments about referees’ decisions are lumped into the same category of wrongdoings as racist abuse, threatening behaviour and violent conduct. Besides, what does ‘best interests of the game’ even mean? The best interests of who? The FA? The referees? What about the manager, his team, their supporters? They are the game, aren’t they?

TV analysts will lay into the referee if he makes a bad decision. They’ll use slow motion replays from a camera showing the ref’s view of the incident, so they can criticise him with a cruel amount of authority. If the FA tried to stop TV people from criticising refs then everyone would laugh at them and they'd be accused of ridiculous censorship.

Of course, TV analysts are impartial and Football Manager’s aren’t. Everyone knows they aren’t. So if a referee makes a blatantly wrong call, why can’t Football Managers say so? We'll all treat the Football Manager's statements with a degree of caution. We can all make up our mind as to whether we agree with his complaint. We're all adults.

Of course, there is a line – managers can’t go around accusing referees of being motivated by bias but what’s wrong with them expressing annoyance at a poor decision.

Martinez didn’t cross the line. He said the penalty decision was ‘shocking’ (it was, as a matter of footballing fact, controversial). And he suggested that the referee was affected by the atmosphere.

Ask any football fan. They’ll know that at Old Trafford a 50/50 challenge in the box is more likely to lead to a penalty to the home team than the away team. It’s an intimidating ground for the opposition. It’s huge. The fans are passionate. It’s noisy. Of course a referee is going to be aware of that. Of course they’ll try to referee the game fairly – but they’re only human.

Martinez has defended his comments as rational. They were rational. They were the rational comments of a manager who has seen his team concede a controversial penalty at a ground notorious for referees awarding the home team controversial penalties. They were rational comments that the FA deem to be not ‘in the best interests of the game’.

Come on FA – sort out your code. ‘The best interests of the game’ might include protecting referees, but it’s not in the interests of the game to display stubborn intolerance and a lack of common sense.