Premiership Referees & 'Respect': Do they deserve it?

B Cantona

[/CENTER]

Two years ago, the FA launched their ‘Respect’ initiative, designed to improve attitudes and behaviors shown towards match officials by players and spectators at all levels of the game. The campaign has been much derided since its inception, the back page spread lamenting refereeing decisions during a game or the managers lambasting of the oppositions ‘twelfth man’ still as regular an occurrence as ever. Yet the requirement for the campaign is still clear; with grass root football in particular suffering – the FA claim “thousands of referees quit football every year because of the abuse they receive from players and from the sidelines”. Given the poor pay at anything but the very top level of the profession, the abuse, the stigma... is it any wonder? These individuals train for such roles purely for the love of the game despite the obvious drawbacks... but are we now finding that love of the game simply isn’t enough anymore?


Football is necessarily a passionate, tribal affair; it’s understandable that supporters lose their rag with the men in black (green, pink, yellow… hard to keep track these days!) in the heat of the moment. They may justifiably resent key decisions they believe went against their team on the day. But we should also be fair; often our views are obviously bias towards our own side. It’s trendy and frankly too easy at times to scapegoat the referee, but in all bar the most exceptional of cases, they are doing their job fairly and to the best of their ability. We sometimes forget just how much scope for individual interpretation there is built into the laws of the game – how often we find sane, reasonable observers of the game swearing blind that their view of the incident is unquestionably the ‘correct’ one, even when there are sane, reasonable observers elsewhere claiming the exact opposite? How often we deride a decision only to learn later it’s the law that’s the ass, not the referee’s interpretation.


In the rules of the game lie both its strength and its weakness. At its best, football has a constant ebb and flow, a tempo which makes for the most exciting sporting entertainment possible. That flow is aided by the referee’s ability to let play progress despite a clear foul, or affording players a little extra leeway in a feisty derby affair to maintain a grip of the game. Much of the luster of football is talking the game to death with friends afterwards, reciting the many talking points thrown up over ninety minutes action. If football officiating was a completely cut and shut affair, we’d surely be missing out in this regard? Yet while referees continue to get scolded for their interpretation of the rule book, there surely is a case for looking at the laws, and perhaps adding some extra detail, a few more hard facts and letter of the law decisions perhaps.


As always with these things, problems at the top of the game trickle down the pyramid. It’s not rocket science to understand, when a young player in a Sunday morning park game barks at the referees face and flicks him the ‘V’, they’re emulating the example their professional heroes have set the previous day. It’s not just the players though; the pundits who analyze the game have due culpability. I don't particularly rate the standard of the profession currently, because pundits are simply not doing their jobs properly. Few if any of them do any serious proper research into the topics they're talking about. Few seem to have advanced knowledge of rule changes, or the interpretation of rules. When slagging off referees, few bother to analyse factors such as where the ref was stood and the view he had of a given incident. It's such a poorly executed discipline that really ought to be performed so much better, and the broadcasters ought to exert more responsibility in the editorial decisions they make.


We deride British standards, but it’s possible to get a fairer reflective opinion of our domestic referees when we compare them to those officiating in other domestic leagues. Despite the less physical nature of La Liga, it’s not rare to see a game there end with twice the cards of an English match, with a couple extra red cards to boot. One of the major criticisms aimed at Uefa is their policy of allowing referees from weaker domestic leagues, such as Tom Henning Ovrebo of Norway, to take charge of the most important games in European football (perhaps the solution there is to relax the rules regarding refereeing in foreign leagues, it’s preposterous to demand a referee can’t officiate a top level European game essentially based on their birthplace). Referees today are unquestionably fitter and better prepared than they used to be, especially since the dawn of the professional age in 2001. But it remains a tough job, particularly as the pace and physicality of the game increases, and technology is increasingly used to analyses each and every tiny aspect of the game.


Yes, technology. No discussion of referees would be complete without that topic rearing its head. Sepp Blatter is firmly against anything that further alters the difference between football at the top level compared to its lower rungs, and it’s difficult to see anything changing while he’s in power. But football does now lag behind most other major sports in its resistance against such change – even cricket, with its rich traditions, has relented and brought technology into in-play decision making, as an umpires aid. Why not the football referee’s aid too? Harking back to the importance of the ebb and flow of football… there is also drama to be found in the suspense felt before a key match changing decision. Has it crossed the line? We don’t know, the referee doesn’t know, he’s walking over to consult with his linesman… has he seen it clearly? What will they decide between them, this has taken a good thirty seconds now and the suspense is too much… he’s given the goal!!! There are ways and means of ensuring any technological use occurs much faster than that existing officiating process. Football will always retain its accessibility and appeal at the lower level regardless.


So to conclude; who do I think are the greatest exponents of their discipline? Martin Atkinson. He delivers a calm authority to a game, rarely gets a key decision blatantly wrong, and appears to have more of a rapport with the players during a game than most. Andre Marriner. Excellent at managing a game without appearing to forget we’re watching the game for the entertainment of the football and not to see him perform. Mark Halsey. Unfortunately out of the game since the start of the season, Halsey is on the verge of his return (delayed due to adverse weather on Tuesday), and everybody involved in the game wishes him the best of success in his continued recuperation.


We can of course learn the lessons of poor officiating though, and hold them to account – in a fair and objective manner. While we should be more tolerant of the referee, there should still be recriminations if the form of demotion if their performance hasn’t been up to scratch. So who do I think need to work harder to cut it at the top level? Peter Walton. Appears too limp and inconsistent in his decision making to have a grip of the games he officiates, and command the respect of the players involved. Stuart Atwell. In fairness, the fault here lies with the system which has fast tracked Stuart, aged 27, to the top of his profession, when he clearly needs more experience learning his trade. Mark Clattenburg. A controversial career which has involved an 18 month suspension from the game for non-footballing matters often isn’t aided from some peculiar key decision making in prominent matches.

askabob

As both a referee and a fan myself, I can understand where both sides of the argument come from.

As a referee, you are part of the game, you are part of the pitch; in essence, you dictate the game. It is within your jurisdiction to call the game off or alter the outcome. You are considered part of the pitch -- if you accidentally get in the way of a shot that is going into the back of the net, it doesn't matter as you are considered the same thing as a goalpost. With such a level of control, it is only inevitable that officials demand respect. However, as a supporter, you want what is best for your team, and bad calls that consistently affect the outcome of your games gets irritating after a while. Of course, every human is prone to error, which means that while you can never fully eradicate controversy, you can minimize it. In a sense, this is a good thing as games would become a tad bit boring if there was no controversy-- a sending off or a wrong decision 'spices' up the game and makes it more interesting.

That being said, I do think that the amount of incorrect refereeing decisions need to be decreased. However, I do not think that video technology is the way to go about doing it (read this article for an excellent argument against video technology). Instead, some sort of promotion system similar to the leagues could, in a sense, force referees to be more attentive in their job. Experts could analyze a game after it is over and award or deduct points based on correct or incorrect decisions. Referees with the lowest points would be relegated to a lower league while the best referees from lower leagues would officiate higher games. This could work on a monthly basis instead of a season-long basis so that inept referees would not referee games at the highest level until they fixed their problems.

In the end, regardless of the decisions that referees make, they are referees and they are in control of the game, so they have to be respected.

Excellent article Brad

Christofaux

Haven't read it but as long as it ends somewhere along the line of "they are the fucking referees and in control of the game and are therefore required to be respected, like the players they are there because they are considered the best in the business." then i agree. If not... read my quotes and thats my opinion.

moyesmyhero

I've always had a problem with the 'respect' campaign. It doesn't hold much accountability for refs and their performance, but instead focuses on the players to not get upset if a ref makes a horrible decision. If they focus on making better referees, the respect will follow.

Alwyn

It should fall within the rules of the game to give the refs utmost respect, regardless of the level of their performances.

Many might not "deserve" it as such, but they should all be treated with it. Nobody could ever have a refereeing career without mistakes or debateable decisions - it's just the nature of the job. Sometimes you're going to have to make calls that you know will anger thousands of people, while simoultaneously endearing yourself to thousands of others.

They have a hard job. As for anyone who'd say "I could do a better job." etc. No, you really could not. I used to have that attitude with regards to porn stars, but I was deluding myself.

Tumbling-Dice

Probably the only job in the world where you can be utter shite week in week out, still get paid and still have a job to go to.

Tumbling-Dice

Probably the only one worthy of any credit.

The vast majority of referees are incompetent, inconsistent idiots sadly.

B Cantona

Not quite getting into the spirit of things there TD

Alwyn

I heard he's against the Kick It Out campaign, too.

MUFC1902

He became a bit of a parody of himself toward the end of his career though.

Tumbling-Dice

What can I say Brad ? I agree with most of your football posts full stop. I agree with you about the introduction of technology, I've been a big advocate of it myself for a long time. It was me who first said we put a man on the moon so we should be able to tell if a fella is offside or not. I agree it's a tough job and I think they should be given all the help they can get which should help to stop twats like me moaning at them all the time.

The one thing I do disagree with you on is Martin Atkinson, he makes me more nervous than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

What's that then ?

askabob

TD and Brad, you should read this and tell me what you think (I'm against video technology):

When Saturday Comes - The Half Decent Football Magazine - Video technology is not the answer

Tumbling-Dice

I don't agree with the piece, video technology has the potential to help referees get more major decisions right which would make your job (being a ref) a whole lot more pleasant both for you and for me.

I agree there are decisions to be made in football that are subjective but done properly the farcial miscarriages of justice we see from time to time would be avoided. Video technology should be used at certain levels of the game to help a referee make the correct decision, not do away with referees altogether.

Sam.G

There is not another sport that I can think of where the players get away with the abuse of the officials that they do in football. Most sporting bodies come down on it like a ton of bricks.

It is a huge blight on football in my view.

Tribec

Respect, where did it go? We can all hark back I guess to times where we never used to get all these complaints about referee's, but I'm sure that pre 1966 we had some strange decisions which cost games, and people got upset.

I use 1966 as an obvious starting point, as the debate over was the ball over the line get's dragged up every time we play Germany. We can then move forward 12 years to yet another World Cup, when Clive Thomas disallowed a Brazillian goal as he'd blown for full time straight after a corner was taken. Why bring these two subjects up, well one advocates the use of technology and the other was just a poor decision. They have happened and do happen occasionally, but in todays saturated coverage of football, I'm awaiting the day we hear that because a ref sneezed it was obvious he wasn't fit to manage the game as he was unwell.

Being the ref isn't an easy job, I for one don't envy the pressure they are under, at all levels of the game. It is rather random how they come to make the decisions, as no two games are alike, and being possibly a yard further back, further left or right at any one point could potentially make a huge difference in the interpretation of any incident. Additionally the likes of FIFA and its regional confederations like UEFA, haven't helped the referee, by changing the rules of the game to make the game much quicker than it was about 20 years ago. Whilst the referee's have got fitter and are now professional it still doesn't make the job any easier.

However, as much as the ref's job is a hard job, they do have to earn the respect of the players, it shouldn't be automatically granted. It is a two way thing and some of the best ref's we've had in this country had it. I'm sure if you watch some of the old matches you'll see the ref's talkng to the players, explaining why the decision was made, rather than just blowing the whistle, and moving them out of the way. A good referee, should be willing to listen to players, explain decisions if questioned, should understand the nature of the match he's officiating rather than being robtic in style. Accept if he's made an error in judgement, and whilst that sounds like madness, if a ref accepts he's done something wrong, even if it just to the teams either at half time or full time, animosity wouldn't build up between themselves and the teams.

At the end of the day, each team will have a bad decision against them in a season, they'll all have a fortunate decision in there favour too. Yet, we the fans can only see for our team, we only see the bad decisions, and it's they that make good news stories, not the good decisions, which doesn't help the perceptions of referees at all.

B Cantona

Nice, catchy! The problem with offside is obvious, the linesman has to be looking at two different points on the pitch simultaneously, and it's an impossible job! And then if they get a marginal call wrong, the pundits after 3 views of their slowed down technology berate them for being inept! It's just not giving them a chance really

GlastonSpur

What are you on about?

Without a referee, the game of professional football becomes impossible - they are thus the most vital element of the game and as such they don't need (or shouldn't need) to "earn" respect: it should be automatic and unquestioned.

There are three unchangeables: Refs will always make mistakes (it's inevitable in a live-action game), some players will always complain about decisions (regardless of whether those decisions are right or wrong) and it will always be easy to criticise some decisions with the luxury of hindsight and multiple slo-mo replays from every angle.

noodlehair

Whether they deserve respect or not is beside the issue.

The players on the pitch should be forced to respect the ref by the laws of the game. It's the first thing that needs to happen if anyone wants the perceived standard of officiating to improve. It's bizarre how football has got to the stage it has.

Referees deserve more protection and power than they have during the game, and there should be more scope to evaluate and revisit their decisions afterwards, for things like yellow cards and suspensions. That way you eliminate the childishness and petty squabbling during the game, and crap refs would be quickly found out by how often their decisions are being changed afterwards.

B Cantona

His first main point is about technology being good for establishing 'facts'. Yes, that's true. So for a start we've established that factual decisions would be better and more consistent if we turned to technology. But he points to different sports as examples of how non-'fact' decisions aren't aided by technology - I disagree. In cricket, with the hawkeye system they use now, there's a built in level of 'doubt'. So if the ball would only have brushed the bail, the decision depends on the umpires initial judgement. If he gave it out initially, the ball would have hit the stump, so he's gone. If he gave it not out, there's enough doubt there that he's actually given not out. I don't see any reason why technology couldn't be used as an aid in the same way, to help the referee make correct decisions, not to replace him

Obviously you'll still get things that aren't clear, and it'll still be down to interpretation, and that still means we have to give our officials more respect to make these tough calls in a pressurised environment

That all probably gives the impression I'm dead set on more technology, in truth I'm not, and there is something to be said for the simplicity and accessibility of football... I would at least like to see the potential investigated, and proper trials carried out. This bloke behind the goal idea in the Uefa Cup is an utter joke really. They just freeze their arses off and they still miss things and make wrong decisions anyway!

Dumbstar

They need the respect as they're the only line between order and chaos. However, they've far from earnt it, specially in the premiership, as the jester has sadly been made king.

Spammy

I haven't read any of the long posts in here, so I'll reply with a one word answer. Do the prem refs deserve respect? No.

B Cantona

Lengthy posts are just beyond the capabilities of many Cafites! And you wonder why at times the site can get filled with dross, long threads with no posts longer than a sentence

Mister Jeebus

Good article Brad. I agree for the most part with the points made. I think one key factor that seems to be regularly overlooked by the more ardent critics of referees, is that respect does not need to be earned. Referees should be respected automatically on the basis that they are a person, respect for their decision making is a separate matter. Players should respect the referee in the way that they should respect any random stranger walking down the street. Nothing gives a player the right to scream invectives or shower spittle one inch from a referee's face, simply for a disputed decision. Regardless of what a player thinks of a decision, fundamental human courtesy and manners should mean the referee is treated with respect as a person. I would like a similar approach as used in rugby transposed to football, whereby the captain is the only one who can speak to the referee. This wouldn't mean that players can't appeal decisions, e.g. 'our ball', 'free ref', etc., but in the case of a hotly disputed decision it is only the captain that can discuss it with the ref. Bookings, either instantaneously or retrospectively, should follow for players who accost the ref or the linesmen, and clubs should be sanctioned when groups of players verbally and physically intimidate the officials. The bottom line is, no matter how incompetent you consider a ref, regardless of whether you respect his decisions, you should still treat him with respect as a man.

crappycraperson

I think, firstly you do need to impose a certain respect for referees in football. In no other sports you see players getting away so often after abusing the referee. Authorities are reluctant to hand our harsher punishment because it seems to have become a part of the football culture to allow players to be more abusive to refs.

Then the paranoid of using technology in football is ridiculous. Already too much time is wasted with ref having to deal with complaints of one side when a controversial penalty or red card is given.

Then lastly, refs do need to be more accountable for any bad decisions they make. I can not fathom how likes of Webb get the status of top ref when they dish out so man bad decisions every other week.

Jopub

Bit of a no brainer really - they have to have absolute respect. Without it there will be a complete collapse

I've done a bit of reffing myself many years ago at an amateur level and have to say the harder / firmer you are with players from the outset the better it is.

You really have to gain respect from the off, the first second. I actually feel this is an area that doesn't exist now, you can see some of them are like rabbits caught in the headlights and players are like predators in this respect they will jump upon any weaknesses, looking for anything that gives them an advantage

From that standpoint some refs are their own worst enemies

Interesting as a player I always found a good ref made it perfectly clear at the start that he would send of half a team if he was forced to by players taking the piss persistently arguing, whining, moaning and having got that out of the way you certainly did'nt mess with him from that point onwards.

In respect of modern times they do seem to be crying out for help and why the authorities don't give it Ill never know.

Marginal interpretative things will always be a problem but players tend to accept that as they understand the difficulties

However its the clear cut stuff they get wrong that you know would not be wrong given the technology that is so fking irritating

Not because it was us last Saturday at Birmingham but its a great example of a situation where a 4th official playing that back for 30 seconds on a monitor would simply say nope Blue was 3/4 yards offside when the ball was kicked and being the only forward striker when the ball was kicked was clearly interfering with play - no goal (Id use that if were Utd v pool here)

These are ridiculous decisions that undermine the whole fabric of the refs ability to make a good and rightful call and ultimately lose respect for the officiating

I think clear cut calls can be made quickly with tech help and I believe all players even if they doubted a specific decision based on this would readily accept it as 95% of the calls would be correct

Tackles, handballs are different, you can argue about intent all night long but when its directional or line based judgments why not get readily available help - it's so fking easy its not true and would go a long way to getting the ref some deserved sympathy in my book

theimperialinn

The road we don't want to go down is the rugby route. All that gentlemen bollocks. Football's got soul and passion and it's being eroded bit by bit these days.

I think the refs should maybe give a post game interview, like managers, in which they can explain some of their judgements.

B Cantona

I'll be honest, when I watch the rugby, they always seem to give backchat after a decision now, they do their snide kicks, punches and eye gouges... maybe back in the non-professional day you could contrast the gentlemanliness of rugby to football, but not as much anymore. I even saw one player dive pretending to be tripped the last match I watched!!! Only notable clear difference still is that the players don't swear at the ref

I'm sick of seeing players, even United players, barking at the match official like he's just a piece of shit. We can't play the game without these people, they're that fundamental to the game, sure we all reserve the right to get fucked off with them at times, but there clearly isn't enough respect shown their way. It's a shame the FA have to come up with a half arsed campaign to try and do something. Haven't noticed a whole lot of change really

MrK

While I agree that refs should be respected, attempting to curb supporter abuse of officials with a respect campaign is not a very effective strategy. Packing 70,000 people into a stadium, doing something to make them angry, and then asking them not to get angry just doesn't sound very likely to work. Strict punishments could help reign the players in a bit, but footballers do a lot in the heat of the moment that they otherwise may not do.

People have argued that the levels of respect are much higher in other games, but I'd argue that it's likely football referees have more difficult decisions to make than referees in some of the other sports. In rugby, for example, play doesn't move around the pitch anywhere near as quickly or as constantly as in football, so of course it's easier for the referee to keep up with play and be well positioned to make well informed calls. The majority of infringements in the game happen in mauls, rucks, scrums and other stages of play when the ball isn't moving anywhere particularly quickly. If referees aren't making so many ridiculously bad calls, it's a hell of a lot easier for players and fans to keep a cool head when one does come along. It's just basic human emotions, football referees are asked to make impossible calls with absolutely no comebacks, even retrospectively - the laws are tailored for all the flack to come back on the ref!

With football refereeing it's as simple as this: give a man a thankless task, and he won't be thanked for it.

Jopub

thank you

jveezy

I agree. It's practically a losing battle in my opinion. I don't believe in the Respect campaign because I don't believe you can just demand respect and receive it. In fact I think it almost contributes to the exact opposite.

Supporters can accept that a referee can get a decision wrong. Referees are human and not everything is clear cut and add to that the speed of the game and having to deal with simulation on top of all that. It's no wonder that there's so many controversial decisions every week. A lot of that is a bit out of the referee's control.

But it's not out of the FA's control. What is the point of reviewing refereeing decisions every week if they're just going to stick with what the referee says despite the video evidence suggesting the exact opposite? I don't believe it undermines the authority of the referee, because the referee is a human being observing from a limited angle, not a god that can see all, yet the FA expect everyone to treat him like one.

If a decision needs to be reversed, reverse it. If a card needs to be rescinded or appended, do it. If someone needs to be retroactively punished for diving, punish him. If it's clear cut that it's wrong, fix it, regardless of what the referee decided in the first place. Show some transparency. Explain rulings and don't hide behind the fact that the ref made the decision so now you can't change it. You're not undermining anyone's authority. You're just acknowledging the glaring fact that everyone already knows: referees sometimes get decisions wrong. The referee isn't the law. The referee is an agent sent to try to preserve the law and fairness, but as an imperfect human being, it doesn't always work out for the best. So why not fill in their shortcomings? The FA should be trying to preserve the referee's authority, they should be trying to preserve the sanctity of the rules and fairness.

You can't fix everything and this probably won't do much for the aggrieved team and their fans. They'll still be angry that the correct decision wasn't made the first time. But it will at least earn the respect of neutrals who watched the match or watched highlights and saw the replay. It sends a message that the FA can acknowledge the mistakes of its referees and will work to preserve some level of fairness, even if it's not immediate.

Human beings can forgive mistakes. What human beings have a hard time forgiving is the refusal to admit mistakes. What human beings respect is a good faith effort by the people in charge to try to make things right. What human beings hate is having respect demanded from them by an organization who is not making a good enough effort to get things right from their end.

You can demand respect all you want by cracking down on those who don't show respect, but that doesn't lead to respect in my opinion. That only leads to fear. Players will only act like they respect you just to avoid punishment, and that usually goes out the window if players and fans get frustrated enough, and then you have nothing.

Sean_RedDevil

League One Referees: Tranmere vs Norwich 3-1 (60 min.)

None of those Tranmere goals should have counted.......and now half the Norwich dug out sent off

MrK

cheers, but I've never refereed a game in my life!

B20

They should just forbid players from talking the ref except for the captain and whomever the ref may determine is involved in a given situation and adresses.

Anyone else, permission to say something to the ref has to be asked from him first.

Anyone who decides to get in there and shoot their mouths off beyond this, it's verbal warning first and a yellow card the second time.

Spammy

That's logical, which is exactly why it'll never happen.

Plechazunga

I agree.

I'd also like to see them give interviews, they could gently explain the rules to managers, pundits and fans, saying things like,

"Intent is not actually necessary for a tackle to be a foul, thickos."

Spammy

Then they'd give dodgy decisions just to get their fat, middle-aged mug on the tele.

Plechazunga

That's true.

Maybe they should do interviews but during them I should be allowed to smash them in the face with a banjo?

Spammy

That's a start.

The Hairdryer

Bit of shit comment, Tumbling-Dice.

I'd like to see how you'd go refereeing 22 overpaid, testosterone fulled primadonnas while being berated by two under pressure managers whose 500K per year jobs (at least) may rest on on a decision you make in front of 40000 (at least) screaming, impatient, one-eyed, irrational idiots while being scrutinised in front of a world-wide audience by two former has beens with the benefit of mutiple angle, slow motion replays.

I'm betting like everyone else here you don't have the bottle for it.

Grinner

Refs have the power to send off gobshite players and those who act like cunts but they don't do it. Why the fuck not? That'd end a lot of the cunty antics that piss us off pretty rapidly.

As far as I'm concerned if you mouth off to the ref you should be punished by surrendering your shorts and having to play the rest of the match in frilly pink knickers.