The procedure is that the FA Compliance Unit will contact the referee and simply ask him if he didn't see the incident. If he says that he didn't then they will ask him if he had seen it what action would he have taken. If he says he saw it and was happy with the challenge then the FA's hands are tied.

In most respects yes. A lot of the decision making process it is down to good positioning, anticipating and reading play and bloody hard work. Franco is really poorly at the moment after suffering a stroke before Christmas.

Having seen them play you are correct. I know who you mean but I am not him.

Having refereed probably 1000 games and 500 of these involving professional clubs I think I know the refereeing business. I have also worked with all the current Select Group of referees in various forms. I also played in a tough competition for several years before injury forced me to give up. Trust me there is a complete understanding of the game by a lot (not all) of referees. I have been in seminars and changing rooms all over the country and disagreed with many of my then colleagues. I have also spoken to many players who told me that they have to change the way they play when certain referees were involved in their games. They were wary of making a challenge in case it was mistimed and certain referees couldn't understand that. So I will reiterate that too many referees don't know the game but can probably recite Law in parrot fashion. There is a distinct difference between the two.

100% correct. All tactical/technical fouls which deny the opposing team any potential advantage should be cautioned. This is where too many referees are found wanting, probably due to a lack of understanding of the game as opposed to the Laws.

Unless you are going to tell me differently I doubt whether Andy Cryer has ever spoken to Mike Dean. Any referee at that level has to sign on to a code of practice and any media interviews have to be authorised by the PGMO. Mike didn't send a Chelsea player off at Newcastle this season (Luiz I think) and saw the DVD and rang Pardew to apologise for his error. Pardew then went public about the call. Pardew accepted his apology and moved on. Not all referees would be as forthright in admitting their errors and some will even justify clear mistakes by convincing themselves that they are right. I have seen this at first hand and been in meetings and seminars where this has happened despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you be as bad as the cheats yourself if you took that attitude onto the pitch with you? Having been at the sharp end for 500+ games at the top level you can't 'privately' say anything remotely like that. Referees are fair game - the solution lies with the authorities who should be able to retrospectively punish players for clear acts of simulation that go unpunished during the game. Also managers and the PFA should be heard more in such cases. I can assure you that it doesn't work that way. I am pretty sure that none of the referees are even aware of the song.

Of course referees don't want to be conned but the simple fact is they are and ultimately they accept that. If the match assessor and delegate saw that as a penalty he will lose marks (no consolation to us though). I will guarantee though that Andre Marriner can't remember that 'Martin Olssen took a dive' against Burnley two seasons ago. I thought he was average on Saturday but my gripe would be the ridiculously low amount of stoppage time he played in the second half. I counted three lengthy injuries, numerous substitutions and some blatant time wasting by the Bolton keeper. There should have been six minutes rather than the three he played.

Hello all, I'm a Darrener (although not by birth) and as a fifty something now I have followed Rovers for the majority of that time. I was a referee for many years and officiated (before I retired in 2006) at all but six of the then 92 Premier and Football League grounds. On Saturdays and mid-weeks when I didn't have a game I watched the Rovers with an embarrassing lack of control when a decision went against us. I have had a season ticket for many years, 'lending' it to friends and family when I couldn't go due to refereeing committments. I once refereed Burnley in a league match with my season ticket in my pocket, not quite in Simon Garners (allegedly) league though. I have two kids (now adults) and how I juggled all these at once makes me shudder now. I recently became a grandfather and when I am with my beautiful little grandaughter I can forget about Rovers current plight and almost become normal again. However the anger soon returns when I think about our owners or the imposter. I have worked for the same company for 32 years now in a purchasing role.

In all my years I can't remember a board sacking an assistant manager. Can you imaging that with Alex Ferguson or Sam Allardyce. On principle I think they would go to. Usually there is a code of loyalty and a strong bond between a manager and his coaching staff. The imposter is a snake of the highest order but why can the players not see this. Surely if he played a part in Jensen going and the players held Jensen in high esteem they wouldn't be too happy. The imposter showed all his usual shiftiness in his press conference today, displaying all the traits of a very poor liar. A few days ago I disliked him as a football manager, now I dislike him intensely as a person.

Does anybody know if the imposter has done his Friday press conference yet? If so has he mentioned Jensen or the mystery surrounding his departure.

So Kean has (alledgedly) played a part in the removal of a fellow SEM client from his position. I wonder how Anderson views that. Something really stinks about the whole affiar and it seems to me that Venkys could be as culpable as Kean.