They say that the best referee is the one who does his work quietly and efficiently, the one you don’t notice. At least, that’s what they used to say.

These days, referees hit the headlines far too frequently for any such idea to be credible. The thought of a modern referee as an invisible presence during the game seems quaint, if not downright ridiculous.

The widening scandal involving match-fixing in Germany sensationally underlines the fact that referees are now very much in the spotlight.

At a less dramatic level, there is the ongoing polemic in England that goes to the very heart of the problem that confronts all referees: how to impose their authority. Is it better to be aloof and stern with the players, or does the friendly method, complete with smiles and short chats, work better?

The English have always preferred the chatty way. They like their referees to be approachable; referees who don’t explain things to the players and the coaches, maybe joke with them, are considered arrogant or stuck-up.

A referee with a human face sounds desirable, but such a figure is looking increasingly untenable in the money soaked, high-pressure world of the modern game.

Chelsea’s coach Jose Mourinho had this to say after a 0-0 tie against Manchester United last month: “I know the referee didn’t walk to the dressing room alone at halftime. He should only have had his two assistants and the fourth official with him, but there was also someone else.”

The someone else was Manchester United coach Alex Ferguson – who was talking to the referee Neale Barry. Influencing him, claimed Mourinho, so that in the second half, Barry gave United “dozens of free kicks … it was whistle and whistle, foul and foul, cheat and cheat.”

Mourinho’s use of the word cheat – which he later conceded was unwise – has landed him with an improper conduct charge from England’s Football Association. But that does not weaken the validity of his criticism of Ferguson’s conduct.

Ferguson is reported to have told Barry “When are you going to give us a decision? You gave them everything,” which is clearly an attempt to influence the referee’s attitude. Shouted from the touchline during the heat of a game, such “advice” would not even be noticed. But delivered face to face, almost privately, at half time, it has a totally different aspect. At the least, it arouses suspicions.

A ban on coaches talking to referees would eliminate the problem – but it would be a large step away from the human-referee concept.

As for the players, it could be argued that they are constantly trying to destroy any idea of a player-friendly referee by their almost universal flouting of FIFA’s Rule 12, which states that they should not “show dissent by word or action” – players who do must be given a yellow card caution.

Players yelling abuse at referees is a repeated feature of every pro game, yet the mandatory caution rule is widely ignored by referees who prefer to feign deafness or to use the chat approach. A glaring example last week featured Arsenal and – yet again – Manchester United. This was seen as a potentially inflammatory game, and the assigned referee, Graham Poll, is rated one of England’s best.

Whenever it looked like things were getting out of hand, Poll’s style was to halt the game while he talked to the players. The delays caused by these frequent tete-a-tetes became increasingly irritating. What was Poll saying? Did he feel he had to explain the rules to pro players? Why didn’t he simply hand out yellow cards and be done with it? Wasn’t he, in effect, subverting the rules by giving the players too much latitude?

He certainly did that when dealing with United’s wunderkid Wayne Rooney. Having received a belated caution from Poll, Rooney promptly directed a stream of invective toward one of Poll’s assistant referees. Poll beckoned Rooney, and as everyone waited for the inevitable second caution – and expulsion – Poll proceeded to chat and chat, while Rooney nodded and nodded. The dissent rule was totally ignored and Rooney stayed in the game. Poll had done his best to “keep 22 players on the field,” something that is still considered by many to be more important than a strict enforcement of the rules.

But there are signs that such leniency may be falling out of fashion. What amounted to a cry of “Enough!” came last week from England’s FA, which warned clubs that they will be held responsible if their players abuse match officials. Fines as high as $470,000 could be levied against the clubs. Keith Hackett, a former referee now in charge of training and appointing referees in the English pro game, commented: “It is a heavy penalty, but we had to do something.”

Agreed. But fining clubs is the indirect approach and comes across as a way of dodging the direct method, which would require Hackett to order his members to strictly enforce the rules.

To do that would require Poll and his fellow officials to drastically alter their traditional English chatty, finger-wagging approach. It might also be a difficult change for Hackett who, according to the FA, is “actively involved in ensuring English referees remain the best in the world.”

That’s a highly questionable assertion, not least because the English referees’ chatty approach cannot be used too frequently on the international scene. Yet Graham Poll may well be selected as a referee for World Cup 2006, where he could be assigned to a game between, say, Argentina and China.

Trying to control a game by chatting in English to non-English-speaking teams is not going to work. A major shift in technique is required. Soothing chats are out, strong signals and gestures are needed.

Most English referees are able to adapt quite well to the loss of their language approach – a promising sign, for it is quite likely that verbal communication, whether it be referees chatting, players swearing, or coaches giving advice, will be increasingly frowned upon. And the English referee will have to learn to live with an image change, from low-key to noticeable, from approachable to aloof.