If Diogo Dalot deserved a red card then so did Darwin Nunez – where’s the consistency?

“Keep the foot on the gas”: this was the diktat delivered only last week by Howard Webb, the Premier League’s chief refereeing officer, in his implacable campaign against dissent. Except Michael Oliver seemed, in an ill-tempered final act at Anfield, to interpret the instruction a little too literally. No sooner did Diogo Dalot protest the failure to award Manchester United a late throw-in, when the ball had clearly come off Mohamed Salah, than the referee sped over to show him a yellow card for dissent. Five seconds later, he brandished a second. And in that moment you wondered if Webb’s crusade was truly best served by such a gratuitous power trip.

Oliver has form for this blink-and-you-will-miss-it two-card trick. He also performed it last year, to the detriment of Gabriel Martinelli, booking the Arsenal winger for a shove at Wolves and then, within a couple of heartbeats, sending him off for a crude foul. On that occasion, you could argue it was a suitable sanction for the rarity of a rapid double offence. But this time, Dalot had every right to look dumbfounded. The United full-back reacted mildly to the initial mistake, certainly by comparison to Erling Haaland’s bug-eyed antics against Simon Hooper, and found himself sent off for his trouble. For anyone hoping for consistency, it was not an edifying sight.

You did not even have to invoke the Haaland example to see that Oliver had overreached. You only had to judge by his own earlier actions in the same game. In the first half, Darwin Núñez reacted to being cautioned for a body-check on Jonny Evans by petulantly kicking the ball away and then sarcastically applauding. This was quintessential dissent, on a par with the imaginary yellows for which Webb has urged the harshest response, and yet Oliver let it slide. By what metric does an innocuous tantrum invite two bookings, while a brazen piece of provocation merits nothing?

It is a paradox that needs clarifying if fans’ faltering faith in referees is to be restored. Defending the dignity of their profession is a noble enterprise. And there is no doubt the game has been disfigured for too long by too many instances of wanton abuse. Dalot’s fit of pique, though, did not belong in that category. It was a reasonable reaction to an erroneous call, which gave Liverpool a dangerous attacking platform with only a minute left. And unlike Haaland, who had turned on Hooper for refusing to play advantage by screaming in his face, Dalot did not even appear to be directing his ire at Oliver in particular.

If this is now the standard for a red, it is tempting to ask whether future games of this magnitude will end with any players left on the pitch. One of the many problems with Dalot’s dismissal is that there is no obvious sign of two separate transgressions having occurred. Granted, his initial flounce, throwing his arm out in contempt, was aggressive and worthy of a yellow. But where was the escalation? Gary Neville was none too sure, reflecting: “It all feels like it’s the same thing to me. I think Michael Oliver has maybe created something that he didn’t really need to.”

Oliver’s peers could be forgiven for concluding the same. This is a point in time when many referees believe that they are not receiving adequate protection. They worry when they see Haaland escape any Football Association action for tweeting “wtf” (“what the f—”) over Hooper’s decision, and they are nervous at what more might await them when Mikel Arteta is cleared of a misconduct charge after describing Var as “embarrassing” and a “disgrace”. In this climate, what they can do without is one man’s over-zealousness giving legitimate grounds for grievance.

One snap response by many United fans was to accuse Oliver of trying to make himself the story. But what referees would seriously consider inserting themselves into the narrative any further than necessary? Their job is already one of nightmarish sensitivity, with the slightest misjudgment inviting a cascade of abuse. The most logical interpretation of Oliver’s severity towards Dalot is not that he was courting publicity, but simply that he was seeking to implement Webb’s crackdown on dissent to the letter.

Being anti-dissent is a just cause. After all, Halil Umut Meler is still recovering in Turkey from a despicable on-pitch assault by a club president. The trouble comes when, as in Oliver versus Dalot, the punishment patently does not fit the crime. While the idea of penalising dissenters more severely is a laudable one, the execution is becoming alarmingly haphazard.

At the start of the season, Howard Webb, with the full support of the authorities, published a Participant Behaviour Charter which was shared in the media and with all stakeholders in the game. It was aimed at value, respect and protecting the reputation of the game. Since its launch, we have seen the average number of yellow cards rise from around 3.3 per game to 4.98. I would suggest that this is running at a record rate since the formation of the Premier League.

In 160 games this season before this round of fixtures, we have seen 798 yellow cards issued. I am sure that this is the result of Webb’s clampdown and it is likely that this increase is a reflection of the action taken against dissent kicking in early as we are already witnessing suspensions under the totting-up procedure.

Diogo Dalot was clearly unhappy that a throw-in had been awarded to Liverpool. His very public, verbal and animated show of dissent was unacceptable and after being shown a yellow card by Michael Oliver he continued with his outburst. This show of dissent was clearly unacceptable and he should have little sympathy from his manager for his loss of self control. The Liverpool vs Manchester United game is always a challenge for the match official and Michael Oliver, our No 1 referee, handled the game well.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.