First there's Bolton.

Premiership geriatric Gary Speed is quick to point out that, "we never like to blame referees". How painful it must be for him then to whine on like he does. What a martyr.

"...but the lads were discussing it in the changing room that they got every little decision and we didn't get them. It's a continuation from the Wigan game I suppose where the big clubs get all the decisions and it happened again."

The basic point to make here is that, like in the Wigan game, Bolton were beaten by the better team. Better in all departments. They can focus on one or two decisions that they feel didn't go their way, but it wasn't "every little one". What about Nicolas Anelka whose foul on Emmanuel Adebayor towards the end as he approached an open goal produced a penalty but only a yellow card. If ever a foul denied a goal-scoring chance, this was it. Was he the last defender? Hell, there wasn't even a goalkeeper.

Big Sam says that the referee Chris Foy "should take a good look at himself."

"I don't see any point after a match in going up to talk to a referee because he isn't going to change anything but, from our point of view... we're disappointed with some of the decisions he's made and I'm particularly disappointed in the fact that when Ben Haim got sent off it was only the third yellow card in the whole of the game up to that point. There were three bookings in the game and somehow, Tal has picked up two of them."

The first booking, to be fair, was for a foul that wasn't worthy of it in itself. But Haim had already gotten away with a few bad fouls without a booking, including the one that denied Julio Baptista a shot at goal and produced the first missed penalty (Gilberto's). Foy made it clear when he produced that first card that he was doing so because of a series of bad fouls. The second was harsh though, I thought. Baptista knocked the ball past Ben Haim and ran into him. These always look harsh to me. I guess it's a foul technically but to penalise a basically static player who can't get out of the way of a rampaging Beast with a yellow card seems a bit much.

It happens, though. It happens to us, too.

I don't know if it's true that big clubs get more decisions going their way. But if it is, how about applying Occam's razor: the simplest solution that fits the facts is most likely the true explanation. And to my mind, the simplest solution is that we're better at football and don't have to resort to hacking at our opponents as much as teams like Bolton and Wigan do. It's just a thought.

Oh, and surprisingly enough, it turns out that sometimes things don't go for the big clubs.

The other day, Big Sam accused Arsene Wenger of "waging psychological warfare on referees". Make of that what you will.

Meanwhile, speaking of double standards, Paul Jewell who's already been charged with improper conduct for his actions at Ashburton Grove on Sunday, is thought to be the possible recipient of a second charge: foul and abusive language, which relates to comments made about referee Phil Dowd.

He says that this 'smacks of double standards', following a statement from Wigan statement alleging that some of their players were verbally abused in an aggressive and menacing manner by the ref.

"But if he can eff and blind with them does that mean I can't eff and blind with him?", says Jewell, "I'm not saying two wrongs make a right" (well, to be fair, if this is the basis of your denying the charge then that's exactly what you're saying Mr Jewell), "but if he's reporting me for foul and abusive language, that smacks of double standards."

"I didn't character-assassinate the referee, I didn't say he was the worst referee in the Premiership. I did say someone else said that, but I didn't say it."

It's a cunning and subtle way of accusing someone, a brilliant verbal device which it's amazing no-one has thought of before.

I'm not saying that Allardyce and Jewell are sore losers, but I have heard others say it.

Hey, this is easy!