The whole point of the programme Ref Watch is to present a dispassionate analysis of the major (especially debatable) decisions from the weekend's matches. The key word in that statement is 'dispassionate' and, in my opinion, Dermot Gallagher is not.
He most certainly fulfils other requirements for the role admirably. He is a highly experienced, top-level referee, his knowledge is undoubtedly up-to-date and his communication skills are excellent.
The problem, which constantly frustrates me, the presenter, guest ex-pros and, no doubt, the majority of regular viewers, is that he Is too wedded to whatever decision was made by the officials at the time and far too reluctant to say when they get it wrong. Dermot sees his job on RefWatch as explaining why the match officials (including the VAR team) have arrived at the decisions they have and is extremely reluctant to offer any criticism. He is only prepared to offer his own opinion forthrightly when it concurs with the officials at the time.
So my point about Dermot not being dispassionate is nothing to do with bias, towards or against, any particular clubs or players. I've never detected any such thing. However, his unwillingness to criticise decisions made during matches totally undermines the point of RefWatch as a show. If he cannot find it in himself to critique refereeing decisions dispassionately then it's time to find another ex-official who is.
