James Lawton: Referees reveal hint of humility amid controversy

As the 17th, and arguably most astounding World Cup of all, headed into its final stages with England's quarter-final against Brazil this morning, there was a lurking fear of ambush. Not by terrorism in the stands or skulduggery on the field, but by madcap, egocentric and – is has to be whispered out of the hearing of the gods as Beckham and the Boys go out against the world's most influential football nation in Shizuoka – maybe even tainted refereeing.

This morning's referee is Felipe Ramos Rizo, of Mexico, a country that has been firmly in Brazil's debt ever since the former Fifa president João Havelange swung the 1986 World Cup away from the drug wars of Colombia and returned it to Mexico after a break of just 16 years.

The appointment of Ramos Rizo came just after Peter Prendergast of Jamaica, who were given significant help by Brazil, including financial assistance in the appointment of a Brazilian coach, in their successful campaign for a place in the last World Cup in France, ruled out what looked like a perfectly good goal for Belgium against Brazil in Kobe on Monday. Another worry this morning was that one of Ramos Rizo's assistant referees, a group of officials whose work has been heavily criticised over the last few weeks, comes from the football backwater of the Maldives.

But such doubts about the experience and competence – and impartiality – of World Cup officials have long been endemic – just ask the Germans about the Soviet linesman who ruled Geoff Hurst's shot in the 1966 final good – and the deeper question concerns the overall effect of referees on the current tournament. Have they been a benign influence – or an accumulating disaster?

There is still another 10 days of evidence to go but at the moment the debate is split down the middle. The list of official error is certainly long and, in places, lurid. At least on the face it, some of the details are highly supportive of the overwhelming Italian view that was perfectly expressed in one banner-headlined word directed at the Ecuadorean official Byron Moreno, who sent off the darling of the nation, Francesco Totti, for an alleged dive.

"Thief" screamed the headline, and the Italians were not that much more complimentary about the earlier performance of England's Graham Poll, who, with extremely questionable assistance from his linesman, ruled out two Italian goals, wrongly according to television evidence, which would have beaten Croatia.

They would also have relieved the Azzurri of much of the stress which surged uncontrollably to the surface under the pressure of the fateful round of 16 match against South Korea.

Did Señor Moreno simply miss the fact that Totti, though theatrical in his fall, was indeed caught by the South Korean defender, which meant that not only was Totti's dismissal an injustice, so was the failure to award the penalty. Italy believes so en masse and from Parma to Palermo the fury is compounded by the suspicion that Moreno's Fifa bosses would not have been displeased by the progress of one of the co-hosts on the day that Japan fell to unglamorous Turkey.

Other referees weighed down by controversy include Kim Young-Joo of South Korea, Gamal Ghandour of Egypt, Antonio Lopez Nieto of Spain and Vito Melo Pereira of Portugal.

Kim Young-Joo allegedly joined the Friends of Brazil Society when he sent off Turkey's Hakan Unsal for a second yellow card, a decision, it was claimed by the Turks, which came under the influence of Rivaldo's suggestion that Hakan had deliberately kicked the ball into his face. The awarding of a decisive penalty to Brazil also shot up a forest of eyebrows.

Ghandour provoked the rage of a less celebrated South American football nation, Paraguay, when he mistakenly awarded a clinching penalty to Spain in a group game. Most notoriety, though, has gone to the Spaniard Lopez Nieto who, in a burst of censure that would have been remarkable in an enraged, frustrated housemaster, handed out 16 yellows and two reds in Germany's 2-0 victory over Cameroon, a match which was at times unpleasant but did not, as Lopez Nieto seemed to feel, threaten to bring down the walls of civilisation. Melo Pereira simply, and humanly, failed to noticed that the American player John O'Brien punched away a Mexican corner.

But what, it is essential to ask, did any of this prove other than the established fact that referees who disdain the help of technology will always be prone to errors of sight and judgement?

For many the most important truth about referees here is that the officious Lopez Nieto is very much the exception rather than the rule. According to the distraught Belgian captain Marc Wilmots, whose perfectly conceived and executed goal against the Brazilians was ruled out, the offending official at least had the grace to apologise.

There have been other welcome hints of humility. The sensational opening game in Seoul, which saw Senegal rampant in the belief that the world champions and their former colonial masters, France, were ripe for the fall, was played at a thrilling pace and with a marvellously sharp competitive edge. But there were just two bookings in a game which crackled with electricity.

That, mostly, has been the tone of the majority of matches despite the fact that many of them turned into memorable battles of will between old, cynical powers and thrusting new contenders.

The course of cheating, which became such a massive shadow over the last World Cup when Croatia's Slaven Bilic shamelessly contrived the dismissal which cost the great Laurent Blanc his place in the final, has been firmly addressed and, it seems reasonable to believe, checked. A similar approach has been adopted in the matter of shirt-tugging in the penalty area.

It was a practice which had become a widely tolerated vice, at least in the view of the Spanish veteran Fernando Hierro, who came close to yanking off the shirt of Ireland's Niall Quinn at a critical point in a titanic second-round match. Hierro was punished by the awarding of a penalty which could easily have destroyed the Spanish challenge. We have to believe he will not do it again.

Much more likely, though, is the possibility that referees will go on displaying copious evidence that they continue to be members of humanity rather than some whistle-blowing deity. The good news here is that, give or take a few individual aberrations, such a humble view of themselves may never have been quite so widespread.

It is a development which could, with the elimination of Italy, be nicely crowned by the appointment of Pierluigi Collina to the the final in Yokohama. Collina, who in the opinion of many aficionados is the world's best referee, recently offered his most basic working principle.

"I never want to start a match without trusting the players because I just couldn't have good relations with a man in whom I didn't have trust," said Collina.

"It's impossible otherwise. I wish it could be like this all the time. Sometimes something happens that makes it difficult to maintain this trust. But basically I trust players."

In the pressure that comes with the approach of the final, such sentiments ring with a vital and encouraging truth. They are also, despite the burning rage of the Italians and the less spectacular, but still deep-seated, anger of the Belgians, not entirely out of step with the broad spirit of this World Cup.

Referees have been no more perfect here than anywhere else, and this is not new. What may be is that an increasing number of them have begun to accept the fact.