I WROTE a few weeks ago about the need to give referees a break and, in the midst of more controversy about their performances, I’ve been having a think about what may help to take some of the heat off the people in black.

It’s an idea that has often been mooted but I think now may be the time for referees to be given the right to explain their decisions.

One of the reasons given against it has been some referees may be more comfortable than others when faced with a microphone. That’s understandable. After all, when players are put in front of journalists there’s a chance that they may actually have something positive to talk about. A great piece of skill, an assist or the match-winning goal – all things that a player could conceivably find themselves being asked to expand upon.

For refs, they’re either not going to asked about clearly correct decisions … or if they are, they’re not going to be allowed to express any satisfaction in having made them! Or at least, it’s really best if they don’t express pleasure in a decision. In England, Mike Dean once celebrated his application of the advantage ruling when it resulted in a goal for Tottenham against Arsenal. While it’s nice to see people taking a pride in their work, it probably wasn’t the smartest move and is certainly one, which sends a shudder down the spine if imagined in the context of a certain Glasgow derby.

So, yes, there are potential pitfalls to referees being given the opportunity to express themselves. Some of them may also see themselves as being on a hiding to nothing but I do think we’ve reached a point where they’re more damaged by post-match silence than strengthened by it. Even if it doesn’t become an obligation for them to speak after the match, should it not at least be an option given to them?

Those not comfortable in front of a microphone could have the opportunity to produce some form of written statement giving an explanation of any particularly controversial or important decisions.

The risk, of course, could be that too many of their decisions begin to be subject to over-the-top scrutiny. I think we all know when a decision has been important enough to demand some form of response though.

The fact that – at the time of writing – Caley Thistle are in a situation where they’re considering legal action to ensure Josh Meekings is available for the Scottish Cup final suggests that the referee’s thinking (and that of his assistants) was significant enough to merit a few words. That’s not to justify the soap opera going on around that match, more a way to have tried to nip some of it in the bud.

Refs face a tough enough job as it is so I don’t suggest this to make their role any harder or to give them ‘enough rope’. I think that there will have been situations in the past (and will be again in the future) in which some match officials would have welcomed the opportunity to clarify a decision (or even the absence of a decision) rather than be the subject of speculation from fans and media alike, often driven by the ‘sources’ that spring up in the absence of an official statement.

Let’s give them the right of reply.

Agree or disagree with what Teddy has written? You can tweet him @RossTeddyCraig or online via his website, ascottishwriter.com