Thing is, in a court of law, you'd HAVE to hear both sides of the argument to make a reasoned judgement on who was to blame. Why is football any different?
Yes, Poch over reacted... but to WHAT? He was pissed off about the (non) corner, as well he might... but even he must've realised we got an equally lucky break with the Rose throw in that led to the goal...
Whatever was said by Dean was separate from that... and if he DID say anything that would question his loyalty/bias/ability to Ref another game involving us fairly, then surely they should throw the book at him.
Refs HAVE to be impartial, not have a vested interest in the outcome...
I can understand that football pundits can be skewed, or biased, based mainly on who they played for/support... but THEY can't directly affect the outcome of a game, they merely comment on it!
Refs have to be 100% impartial, or else what's the point??