This weekend saw a number of refereeing decisions that contemplated where the consistency lies with referees in the modern game.
Chelsea's 1-1 draw with Manchester United was a high talking point for pundits based around a number of penalty appeals and challenges.
The weekend's action began with West Ham hosting Manchester City, defeating the reigning champions 2-1 at home, and there was one real talking; should Sergio Aguero have been sent off?
In the first half the Argentinian striker deliberately stamped on Mark Noble's ankle right in front of the referee Martin Atkinson, yet no decision was given.
The 26-year-old had no part to play in City's goal, but this wasn't the first time this great striker has deliberately stamped on another player and got away with it.
- Vido Loncar attacks referee after losing amateur fight
- Dejan Lovren's wife rips into World Cup referee
- Romeo Mitrovic filmed punching referee in Bosnia
The main factor being that it would have been interesting to hear what the referee had to say, and what he saw, instead of both manager's thoughts on the event, as the ref's opinion matters.
Wrestling at Old Trafford
Another example was the recent Manchester United v. Chelsea match.
In the first half we saw Branislav Ivanovic and John Terry being wrestled to the ground in the box from a corner, yet no decision was given.
But in the previous week Wilfried Bony won a penalty for Swansea in the same situation, after being wrestled to the floor by Ryan Shawcross. Yet on this day nothing was given by Phil Dowd, why?
Later in the game Ivanovic goes on to get sent-off for two, said to be, bookable offences when Angel Di Maria fell theatrically, leading to United scoring the equaliser in the 93rd minute through Robin van Persie.
Again why can't Dowd step up and state his notion on why he gave the two yellow cards to the Serbian, and what he saw from that free-kick, instead of leaving it up to us to decide who is in the wrong.
Where's the consistency?
There seems to be no consistency with decisions in the modern game, as one week a tussle in the box is seen as fair, while the next week it leads to a penalty and yellow card.
This stands with challenges as well, an elbow to the face can be seen as a free-kick with no booking, while a 50/50 contest to win a header while leading in with your arms could be deemed as dangerous and result in a sending off.
It is something the FA have to look into; we have goal-line technology and the new spray to prevent players cheating from a set-piece, so why can't we have interviews with referees?
We have retired officials giving their views on incidents, but this isn't good enough because they say the same thing; "Maybe he gave it because of this," or; "Maybe it was due to this..."
Maybe isn't good enough in one of the best leagues in the world, it is about getting straight answers from the officials who can change a game in an instant; someone who determine whether a team dictates the game or sits behind the ball for 90 minutes.
Referees are important, there is no disagreeing that point, and they need to be shown respect.
For sometimes they are the Achilles heel in a fans' pipe dream, but hearing their views would go a long way in progressing the already growing game of football.