The English Premier League is only two weeks into its season. But with some 34 games yet to be played, there is talk of a “decisive” moment having already taken place on the field during a game between Liverpool and Chelsea, two teams considered to be a part of the league’s Big Four of possible champions: Liverpool and Chelsea (the other two are Arsenal and Manchester United). With four games played, Chelsea is the current leader. Arsenal and Liverpool are three points behind, but each has a game in hand. ManU. has had a shaky start, but everyone expects it to soon claim its accustomed place among the leaders. Given the apparent parity among the four clubs, the championship race seems likely to go down to the wire.

The “decisive” incident occurred a week ago. With 30 minutes remaining, Liverpool was leading Chelsea 1–0 and appeared to be heading for victory. Then came a collision between Liverpool defender Steve Finnan and Chelsea forward Florent Malouda; a clumsy encounter, but surely an innocent one as neither player showed any evidence of seeking the clash.

It did not seem innocent to the one man whose opinion mattered most, referee Rob Styles. As Liverpool coach Rafa Benitez clutched his head in disbelief and the stunned Liverpool players protested vehemently, Styles walked slowly forward, looking unswervingly ahead, his right arm outstretched, pointing to the penalty spot.

Chelsea’s Frank Lampard scored from the penalty kick, and the game finished 1–1. The math is clear. A 1–0 win for Liverpool would have given it 3 points and Chelsea none. The 1–1 tie gave each club 1 point. Liverpool had been deprived of a three point advantage over Chelsea — points that might make all the difference in a tight finish next May.

There was widespread outrage at Styles’ decision to award the penalty kick. Most opinions concurred with Benitez’s view that it was “unbelievable”.

The day after the game, it was clear that Styles was on his own, condemned even by his fellow referees, for what was seen — quite apart from the penalty award — as an erratic performance.

Keith Hackett, who heads the referees’ group in England, said, “I have spoken to Rob. He has looked at the video and obviously he is extremely disappointed. He has admitted he got it wrong.”

Styles was quickly forced into making a humiliating public apology: “In mistakenly awarding a penalty, I accept that I may have affected the result of the match, and for that I apologize.”

Worse followed for Styles. Before the season began, Hackett had announced a get-tough policy, making it clear that referees would be held responsible for their errors, and might face disciplinary measures. “We do expect referees to get the big decisions correct,” Hackett said. “Therefore, Rob will not be refereeing this weekend.”

So this past weekend’s games were played without Styles, who is one of the most experienced — and is widely regarded as one of the best — of the EPL’s referees.

The controversy over Styles’s actions has highlighted a perennial problem for soccer: Is there too much pressure on referees? Liverpool coach Benitez — the victim in this case — came surprisingly to the referees’ aid by drawing attention to the way in which players increase tension during games by their aggressive attitude to referees.

Constant questioning of referee calls, even on minor decisions, has become almost routine in the sport. Major decisions are quite likely to be greeted by a group of yelling, snarling, arm-waving players who surround the referee in an intimidating fashion.

Benitez, after stating that “I say to my players to try to be nice,” admitted that his own Liverpool players are sometimes guilty of such behavior, and that those actions make it “difficult for [the referee] to be calm and do the right thing all the time.”

Benitez might well have included coaches in his criticism of referee intimidation. His Chelsea counterpart, Jose Mourinho, is well known for his attacks on referees.

The Styles case has also thrown some doubt on the wisdom of the referees’ new policy of public punishment. It is hard to see what has been accomplished by coercing Styles into openly admitting his error and apologizing for it — except that he will now surely be ruled out of refereeing any more Liverpool or Chelsea games, certainly for this season.

The EPL, as with most professional soccer leagues, is hardly awash with top class referees. Styles is among the best — it was for that reason that he was given the high-pressure Liverpool and Chelsea game. But the EPL has now deprived itself of his services (it remains unclear how long his suspension will last) and has damagingly undermined his authority. On the face of it, this was a far too drastic punishment for one error, albeit an admittedly serious one. There has long been a defense used by referees accused of errors to point out, either half jokingly or half seriously, that in the course of any game, the players make many more errors than the referee does.

True enough. But players are never forced to wear the sackcloth and ashes of a public confession and apology. It is quite possible that the threat of public exposure could be counterproductive, and could cause refereeing standards to deteriorate. It might mean that referees will become more cautious and seek to avoid making possibly contentious calls.

The furor over Styles’s error will no doubt soon be replaced by other EPL controversies involving players or coaches or referees. But when May 11, 2008, rolls around, and the EPL season comes to a close, it will be forcefully recalled if Chelsea takes the title by finishing less than three points ahead of Liverpool.

If that happens, Styles’s apology that his decision “may have affected the result of the match” becomes worse than ill-judged. It will be inadequate, for his decision will be judged to have decided the entire championship.

pgardner@nysun.com