Worst refereeing decision of the season

[Paul Waine]

Jake Bacon in S.Times writes that Taylor's penalty award was "one of the worst refereeing decisions of the season."

There were similar views expressed on BBC Final Score yesterday afternoon (and, possibly, elsewhere).

What makes it "one of the worst?" Is a penalty given when it should not have been any worse than a penalty not being given when it should have been? Is a goal being allowed when there was a foul or handball leading up to the goal by the attacking team a better of worse refereeing decision than a goal being disallowed when the attacking player wasn't offside? (To digress, I once played in a game when a newly qualified ref gave the defender offside on the edge of his own penalty area).

What about the occasions when a player falls in the box and is booked (and 2nd booking sent off) for simulation, when in fact the player was fouled and it should have been a penalty?

Referees will always make mistakes (just like footballers make mistakes). Video technology won't fix all of these mistakes (Scotland in rugby world cup comes to mind).

[boiledclaret]

Asking for 100% accuracy without mistakes is impossible, the officials can't be flawless. The only way of changing that is by using proof by TV.

I bet those same people at the BBC bust a gut at the injustice of Arsenals winner at the Turf.