Glenn Moore: FA's video seminar helps to understand how a referee must think

The hands went up. Some held a blue card, some a green, some a yellow, some a red. Already it was clear to the participating media that refereeing is not quite as easy as some of us tend to suggest.

There were 10 of us, representing all but one of the national dailies plus a conscientious Sunday hack. We were in the media suite at the Football Association's Soho Square headquarters attending a simplified version of a referee's seminar. Keith Hill, National List referee and an FA regional manager of referees was showing a video made by Uefa, the governing body of European football, featuring 18 tackling incidents. Our job, based on a single, normal-speed viewing, was to decide whether the official should have played on (blue), given a free-kick (green), given a free-kick and a caution (yellow) or a free-kick and dismissal (red).

The first clip seemed easy enough. It was certainly familiar. Phil Neville, labouring at left-back, attempts a misconceived tackle on Romania's Viorel Moldovan in the penalty area. We had the advantage of knowing that this incident, in the last minute of England's ill-fated Euro 2000 campaign, resulted in a penalty. Everyone gave the spot-kick but some showed yellow. Not so, said Hill and once again went through the thought process with which every referee must judge every decision.

"You have to ask: was it (i) careless, (ii) reckless, (iii) with excessive force. You also have to consider if there was any malice involved, the speed with which the tackle was committed, the position of the tackler and whether he had any chance of getting the ball. In this case it was careless but no more. He was unlikely to get the ball but the fouled player was unlikely to be hurt. He certainly would not have intended to bring him down as he was in the penalty area."

As may now be apparent we were at the FA, at our request incidentally, to understand why so many red and yellow cards are apparently dispensed on a whim, seemingly dependent on whether the referee had a row with the wife that morning. The brief was specific, Sunday's events at Old Trafford were off the agenda, even though the general consensus among us was that Steve Bennett had had a good game. For us it was educational, for the officials, keen to improve the image of refereeing as part of their recruitment drive, it was a chance to explain life at the sharp end of the whistle.

On to clip two and it immediately became trickier. Another Euro 2000 match. A player running with the ball is tackled. Up go the cards, every colour. Slow-motion video reveals the challenge to be excessively strong, high, and late. The eagle-eyed few waving red look smug.

A penalty decision arrives, Edgar Davids turning into the box in the semi-final against Italy. "Clean tackle" suggest a few, "book Davids for diving," add some. "Red card, he's denied a clear goalscoring opportunity" is the opposing view. Even those giving a free-kick cannot agree whether it was in the box. Cue the slo-mo. It's a foul, but it is not reckless or dangerous. Penalty, no caution. It was not, adds Hill, an "obvious" goalscoring chance. Neither Davids nor the ball were going directly towards goal and there is a covering defender.

The verdicts improve. We are getting the hang of it, going through the thought process just as a referee, in more trying circumstances, would. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, to our surprise, is shown lunging into a tackle for Norway. No one can recall him being dismissed so few of us raise red. The few are right, the match referee was wrong. Being airborne Solskjaer had "lost control" of his actions. He had endangered his opponent, had no chance of winning the ball, and did so at high speed.

Then we see Gheorghe Hagi on the ball for Romania. As he lays it off Demetrio Albertini comes in from behind. To me it looks deliberate, malicious and dangerous but I am the only one to raise red. Asked why I explain my reasoning but add that I raised red with reservations as Hagi was noted for his propensity to make the most of things (a topic much in the news).

Joe Guest, the FA's referee's manager who is sitting in, applauds me for being the only man to make the right decision but cautions: "You should not let your knowledge of Hagi affect your judgement. A referee should assess every decision on its own merits. He is just a yellow shirt, not Hagi." I now notice that Hill has never mentioned a player's name, only his shirt colour.

By the end we are getting most decisions right. There is recognition that referees operate within fixed principles even if not everyone agrees with the parameters. The thought occurs that most TV pundits would benefit from a similar experience.

Interested in refereeeing? E-mail newrecruits@thefa.com