Microphone, check!

An unlikely source has given KFF a stone big enough to kill two very annoying birds. Regular readers will know that the chief pet hates at Chez KFF are the lack of respect for officials and terrible commentators.

Well John Amaechi may have solved the problem. The former NBA basketball player was a guest on Something for the weekend this morning. As per normal, constant pain-in-the-backside Tim Lovejoy asked questions about football. (He does it to every guest. When he is going to realise he is not our mate?)

Amaechi revealed that a few years ago, the relevant basketball authorities began broadcasting some of the feed from a microphone on the umpire. He said that swearing, and indeed anger, was rife in the game. But players realised that they had to think before they spoke after the microphones were brought in. This did two things: it calmed players down and meant that referees were given a platform to explain decisions.

This may be a little sweeping, but basketball in the US is played by the working class more than other sports. Much as football is here. At the risk of sounding snobbish, it is safe to assume that swearing was as rife on the court pre-microphones as it is on the pitch today. It worked in the US. And it could therefore work in football.

Any doubters should consider Amaechi's other theory behind the effectiveness of the microphone. Sponsors do not like swearing. So players would find their options for lucrative boot deals severely restricted. It is safe to assume that the clubs they play for would fine them too. (£5k per S word, £20k per F and a week's pay for a C sound about right?)

Surely it wouldn't be hard to implement either. Premiership referees already have microphones to talk to their assistants, so the television executives would just need to know the frequency.

The other benefit to having microphoned referees is that it may make commentators realise that they don't have to speak all the time. Here's hoping they would be quiet for long enough for us to hear what the referees are saying. (KFF was livid at its television today. The commentators for the dreary FA cup semi-final between Manchester United and Everton were obviously bored too. They spent about five minutes describing some of the flags fans has brought into the stadium...)

The only real downside is that some entrepeneur would probably start selling disposable radios for fans at the game like they do at the rugby (and, somewhat ridiculously, at the snooker!). That would definitely kill the atmosphere at many clubs. So perhaps they should trial it at Old Trafford or the Emirates Stadium. The atmosphere is so poor there, no one would notice the difference.

Let's end this 'king debate

KFF has had enough of the Ledley King debate. Yet it rumbles on.

We know his knee is shot. We know it swells with fluid after every game. We know he can only play once a week. But columnists like Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail are still writing the wrong thing:

"There is nothing in King's recent history to suggest that he could sustain a tournament, or even back-to-back internationals... To rely on King now... is lunacy". (Click here and scroll down a bit for full article.)

Samuel therefore argues that King should not be in the squad if England qualify for South Africa. I propose that this is lunacy. And KFF doesn't expect him to play every game.

A squad of 23 is selected for a World Cup. Managers usually take four centre backs and a sackful of midfielders. Many of these midfielders never kick a ball. KFF proposes that England take five centre backs to South Africa and one of them should be King. The fact that he can cover as a defensive midfielder strengthens this argument.

KFF recently discussed this with friends at a pub in north London. An Irish gentleman who was sitting near us jumped in before it could finish its point. He said that a country of England's size shouldn't have to rely on a defender with a severe knee condition.

KFF's first response was to point out that if that logic were true, England would have a decent left-footed midfielder...

It then returned to the main point to say that we wouldn't be relying on King. If KFF were Capello, it would pick King for the squad and say to him: "You are definitely not playing in this tournament unless I need you for a big game."

John Terry and Rio Ferdinand would be the first choice pairing. Say England win their quarter-final but one of these two picks up a booking that bans them for the semi-final. Or picks up a slight knock and can't play for one game.

KFF would rather have King effortlessly slip into the team than Matthew Upson, Phil Jagielka or even Jonathan Woodgate. He has international experience and nothing fazes him. He is a big match player - his performances at the last two Carling Cup finals have proved he can do it.

Managers need to be braver when picking tournament winning squads. Why pick a raft of 'almost-there' players when you can have impact players on the bench? KFF is not saying Capello should exclusively pick gambles, but this is one risk worth taking.

(It pains KFF to know that without King's cursed knee, Terry wouldn't get in the England team. And he wouldn't be the England captain. Perhaps Terry knows it and that is why the nasty little beggar said what he, allegedly, did to King when he got sent off against Spurs in 2006.)

Where have all the strikers gone?

Has a substitute's substitute ever had to be substituted for England before? In England's 4-0 defeat of Slovakia yesterday, Emile Heskey tripped the ball into the net then pulled his hamstring. Can't Control entered, didn't control it for a bit and then departed. Peter Crouch lanked around for half an hour or so and then pulled his calf. So Darren Bent has been called up to run away from the ball and down blind alleys.

Are these the best strikers England has to offer? Wayne Rooney is the only striker I would definitely book a seat on the plane for if England was assured of qualification to the World Cup now. And he isn't a classic out-and-out striker.

England doesn't have a poacher. And it doesn't have an (excuse the expression) old fashioned English forward. Well, it does: Michael Owen and Dean Ashton. But should Fabio Capello take them? Owen has lost his pace and since he actively changed his game a couple of years ago hasn't had a long enough injury-free run to be judged fairly on. Ashton is similarly susceptible to injuries. And he is unproven at international level.

So which four strikers would you take to the World Cup if it was tomorrow? It is a tough one. But maybe England doesn't even need four.

When Capello first got the job, KFF fully expected a switch to 4-5-1 with Steven Gerrard in the middle / second striker role. Behind him would be Gareth Barry or Michael Carrick and Frank Lampard. Naturally, Rooney would be up front.

On the wings, KFF expected Capello to be braver. With Aaron Lennon, Gabriel Agbonlahor, Ashley Young and Theo Walcott, England is blessed with pace. To a certain extent, Capello has experimented with these players. But he has never gone for a such a pacey 4-3-3 going forward and 4-5-1 when defending structure.

Perhaps Rooney isn't quite the player to lead the line in this system. Perhaps Capello has concerns about the defensive capabilities of the pacey quartet. But surely it is worth an experiment?

Because England is not going to win anything if Can't Control is the first option on the bench. He is essentially Heskey version 2.0. There is no variation. Or maybe England was spoilt in the 1990s. Shearer, Sheringham, Owen, Wright, Fowler, Le Tissier, Ferdinand...

KFF is going to ponder the demise of strikers and report back later this week.

Bespoke joke

A friend of mine writes a blog on men's fashion (the rather excellent Permanent Style) and he recently received an email from a PR company representing Umbro. It was requesting coverage of the latest England kit on his site.

Funnily enough, he didn't want to waste blogspace usually reserved for hats, shoes, suits, shoes, ties, shoes and shoes on Umbro's latest polyester offering.

The email that he was sent was hilarious though. Apparently, "each player of the England national team was fitted and measured individually - in the same manner that a bespoke suit would be tailored". Firstly, I love the concept of Can't Control, sorry, Carlton Cole getting a fitting for a kit he will wear for 10 minutes once every six months if he is lucky.

I also wonder if the tailor will be in the dressing room at half time just in case Rio is finding the chest too tight or Wayne could do with half an inch off the long sleeve cuff.

What is the point of all this? Football kits are a curse of the modern game. They are a tax on football fans and are only changed frequently to milk the public further. So will the 24-stone fan that goes to all the England away games get a bespoke fitting?

Apparently not. But "in keeping with the tailoring theme, the kit will be available to fans for the first time in chest sizes, instead of conventional small/medium/large". Phew, that will make it easier for England fans to drink lager, eat pies and run from the filth.

A lazy stereotype I know, but only a few percent of England shirt owners over the age of 14 actually wear the kit to play football in.

It is a gimmick. And an odd one considering the times we are living in. Perhaps it would be more apt to get Primark to run off the new away kit for a few pence a go.

Red rag to a ball

Last week the law-making suits at Fifa sat down to talk about the future of the game. One of the most interesting things to come out of it was Sepp Blatter suggested more referees or more assistant referees.

It is just hot air at the moment, but ideas being floated include a ref for each half of the field, refs for the penalty areas or four assistant refs. What a mess. Who would have overall control? What happens when two assistants disagree? One area that immediately highlights a problem would be offsides. Imagine a situation when one assistant flags and the other doesn't.

The separate refs for each half is ridiculous too. When does the power shift? What if one of them sees something in the other half, does he have jurisdiction to stop the game? Again, more questions than answers.

My issue with more officials in the professional game is more fundamental. Football prides itself on being the same game anywhere in the world. Okay, your pub team doesn't have thousands of people watching you, TV cameras or lucrative sponsorship deals. But it does have 22 starters, 14 subs, a pitch, two goals, six flags, two assistant referees and one referee. Well, it should do.

And that is my point. When the FA launched the laudable Respect campaign last August, it revealed that more matches kick off without a referee on a Saturday afternoon than with one. A terrible statistic. So why pretend that it is the same game at every level? If Fifa is considering more officials, that means it accepts delays to the game. With six or more referees and assistants on the pitch, they will have to convene to discuss decisions like they do in the NFL.

So why not steal another NFL feature; video replays. This is one of the most talked about topics of the last decade or so. I'm not sure I would want to see it, but I do feel it is inevitable and should therefore be brought in carefully.

Firstly, there has to be an experiment. Therefore, it cannot be trialled in league football. For example, if the Premiership had it, the Championship would want it. Also, to be fair, the experiment would have to be for all teams, for all games. It should therefore be tested at a cup final. A one off event where all teams have equal opportunity to benefit from (or lose out to) instant replays. A cup final would also render the outcome of the experiment more important.

Secondly, the infringements that can be referred must be set. I suggest, ball-over-the-line claims, penalty shouts, red card decisions and offsides. To ensure the flow of the game, play continues after controversial moments (unless the ref himself has blown his whistle) until the ball goes dead. Therefore, a ball-over-the-line claim could be result in a clearance that sets up a goal at the other end. That goal would not count if the video referee found the original ball-over-the-line claim to be... over the line!

Finally, when is a decision referred and who refers it? This is the most crucial element. No one wants to ruin the flow of the game. (Incidently, please click here to read a funny comparison between football and the NFL). So I suggest that each manager gets a red flag. When they want to appeal a decision, they throw the flag on the pitch. Just like in the NFL.

If they are right and the decision is overturned, they get the chance to throw the flag again. If they are wrong, that is it. No more referrals. This would weed out spurious appeals.

I'm not saying this would definitely work, but it is the best basis for an experiment. Please comment if I have overlooked something or if you have any suggestions. This is a thorny topic and if Fifa suits need this much time to natter about it, what chance has KFF got? Then again, perhaps Blatter reads this. In which case, can I add that the video ref will obviously be a good looking blonde in tight clothes. Have we swayed you Sepp?

An open letter

Dear Mr Riley,

Thank you very much for (almost) making my previous posting redundant only after one week.

By sending off Frank Lampard for a challenge where he got the ball (and arguably got fouled himself), you answered my question very quickly: "When was the last time there was a bad decision that decided the result in one of these big games?"

However, in your defence I may be stretching things a bit - more than any of the wide players on Sunday did in any case. Liverpool were the only team that were going to win, so perhaps you didn't decide the game.

Also, my last post implied that bad decisions don't happen in title deciders. Seeing as Manchester United will run away with the Premier League this season, it is a stretch to say that Liverpool and Chelsea are in the title hunt.

Is it too ambitious of me to ask for a last minute penalty against the home team at Old Trafford? I would be very happy if you were to oblige. Or perhaps you can just leave the game changing bad decisions at the foot of the table. We wouldn't want to ruffle Sir Alex's feathers would we? He might choke on his chewing gum.

Yours in hope,

KFF

P.s. Maybe you just thought Chelsea were owed a red card from you. Remember when you bottled it with Ashley Cole against Spurs last season? (See picture.) Thanks for that.

Please share the refs

When flicking on Sky Sports to watch the Manchester United versus Chelsea game a couple of weeks ago, inevitability was in the air. And I'm not talking about the super-hyped VT that precedes every 'Super Sunday' game on the channel. ("Shall we go with super slo-mo highlights with classical music boss?" "No, go fast paced and put the new Kings of Leon single on it.")

I am, of course, talking about the referee. I knew it would be Howard Webb. I just knew. It was obvious. Now, don't get me wrong, I like the police sergeant from Sheffield. I think he is by far the best referee in the league and have been touting him for a long time. Whenever I see that he is reffing a Spurs game, I am pleased because I know he is fair.

But that is exactly my point. Whenever Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United or Chelsea play eachother, they always get the best referees. This annoys me. The standard of reffing can never be completely the same across a whole league, but the distribution of referees should be random. By always having the best referees for the best games, this randomness is lost.

When was the last time there was a bad decision that decided the result in one of these big games? And why are games at the top of the table deemed more important to have good refereeing in than games at the bottom? A relegation battle has equally emotional consequences to a title decider.

In cup competitions, I support rewarding the best referees the bigger games as badges of honour. But in the league, this should not be the case. Everything else in the league is fairly weighted. Random allocation of referees would even out bad decisions and make refereeing fair too. Most importantly, it would result in younger referees getting valuable experience earlier.

Incidentally, I thought Webb was quite poor in the game. Not only did he play a part in the disallowed goal that should have stood (see below), he helped ruin the first half. By booking Frank Lampard for his first foul in the third minute, he set a precedent. The players were fearing an early yellow card for the slightest mistimed tackle.