Why aren't referees asked to explain their decisions?

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by noodlehair, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. Oct 16, 2011
    #41

    JazzG Resident Arse.

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,880
    Yup lets add more pressure on referees, their job is hard enough as it is. Unlike armchair viewers don' have the 20+ camera angles and hindsight to go by. On top of this footballers these days are a lot quicker and the game is played at a much higher pace than before and physically these refs will never be on the kind of level the players are so it is hard to keep up.

    TV replays need to come in imo, Sky usually has a replay up within 10 seconds of an incident and at most it will take 1 min to review the decision.
  2. Oct 16, 2011
    #42

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    Huh? Referees can't be faulted? Since when? The only difference is they are not asked to justify their decisions because it is completely pointless to do so.

    Well this is my point, isn't it obvious that the referee saw it differently to those who have had the benefit of numerous multi angle replays, on which to base their decision? Many of which, even after such scrutiny are still subjective in interpretation determined by the perceptions of the viewer.

    That's all very commendable, but i do not see the need to apologise for any decision as long as it was reached by fair means.

    If a referee can give only what he believes has occurred, according to his honest interpretation of any particular incident, then why should he feel the need to either explain himself or offer an apology to those who have had multiple views from a variety of angles, upon which to base their judgement?

    If we are honest, how often would we ourselves be proved wrong in our initial belief, based solely upon a single viewpoint, seen from one specific angle? More times than not i would suggest. Those that were then castigated for their errors, would undoubtedly feel a little aggrieved at the injustice of having their integrity questioned by those who have enjoyed the benefit of numerous replays, from numerous angles before offering their criticism.
  3. Oct 16, 2011
    #43

    Wowi Rød grød med fløde

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,652
    Location:
    Denmark
    The point is that it's not always pointless to do so. As pointed out in this thread it would be interesting to hear why Downing wasn't booked because of his horrendous dive and why Rio wasn't sent off for a free kick (according to Marriner) on Adam who was at full speed going into our box. I'd also like to hear why Rodwell was sent off the other week, but Atkinson is busy refereeing another PL game this weekend.

    You don't see the need to apologize when you've just cost a team a win? We're not talking about borderline decisions here, we're talking about clear-cut decisions which the referee should see, unless he's in a bad position (which would be his fault).

    Why are you assuming they would be aggrieved? If they did what they thought was right, why would explaining themselves be a problem? It's not really about questioning their integrity anyway. It's about giving the referee a chance to see the situation from different angles and explain himself.
  4. Oct 16, 2011
    #44

    noodlehair "It's like..."

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,842
    Location:
    Flagg
    This interpretation nonsense bugs me. It's not open to interpretation at all a vast majority of the time. The rules are there and it's the referee's job to apply them. Most of the time it's pretty black and white, and the difficulty lies more in being able to see the incident clearly in the first place...not interpret it in some creative artistic way that no one else would think of.

    My view on incidents would simply be more biased if I didn't have the benefit of a replay...I'd still find it beneficial if I could listen to the ref actually explaining his calls...in fact no replays would just make things even more baffling.

    I think you're missing the point mate.

    "It's not about the rules, it is about applying the rules to what they see"

    ...yes. that is pretty much the whole point of having rules and someone to enforce them. Why again does this prevent a referee from being able to wear a microphone as he applies the rules exactly?







    The change was made because someone sensible thought "hey look, here's a way we can improve how the game is officiated" and then implemented it...instead of coming up with a load of nonsensicle excuses about interpretation and such shite, and then leaving it as it is.

    Take rugby for example. Referees get things wrong all the time....they apply the rules correctly, but things happen that they don't see, or only see part of, just the same as in football, and just as often. The big difference I noticed from playng rugby and playing football, even at pub level (where video refs don't exist), is the rugby ref wil always explain to you what they see and why they've called something, and then you can maybe say to them "yes but this guy was doing this" in the hope they'll keep an eye out the next time, but that's it. Their say is final.

    At the top level you can listen to the ref do this, you don't always agree with him but you're never left confused why something has been given the way it has. There's absolutely no reason why football at the top level can't adopt this. It wouldn't put more pressure on the referees at all. People could disagree with their decisions but their integrity would never be in question so long as they were applying the rules, and there'd be no excuse for players to verbally abuse them as we'd all know about it (Rooney would probably end up missing a few more games).


    I don't think you're understanding this. Why would there need to be a referee interrogation at all if the ref is wearing a sodding microphone? There's a slight difference between officiating with clarity, and holding a public criminal investigation into why Gareth Bale wasn't awarded a throw in.

    I'm not sure exactly how having clarification serves no purpose. The opposite to having rules and clarification is having officials just make it up as they go along. But ok then.



    You're making it sound like some kind of NASA experiment.



    and now we're off again with the interpretation stuff. Referees don't intepret how to apply the rules, they interpret what they see and apply the rules to it.

    For example, if a referee thinks he sees a player dive, there's only one way he can interpret it, and that's as a dive. It doesn't change according to the temperature, or colour of the opposition player's shirt, or who the referee is. There's no actual reason for how the rule is applied to this offence to change from one incident to the next as it seemingly does...I'm suggesting that if the ref has a microphone, and explains the decision to the players, and we can listen to it, we then know why the rule is applied differently...or much more likely, it wont be applied differently, because outside pressures such as the crowd and whiney players suddenly become less relevant to the officials than applying the rules correctly.

    It has to go hand in hand with giving the referee the same level of respect as he'd get in other sports, obviously, but that happens by part of the clarity being that if you question, threaten, or try to influence the referee's authority, you get punished.

    At the moment you're asking them to do a near impossible job AND take all the flack for it without having any defence. It'd actually be hard to make the system any worse than it currently is.
  5. Oct 16, 2011
    #45

    surf Full Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,733
    Location:
    In the wilderness
    I think some are getting carried away by the information age's need for excessive transparency and public explanation/scrutiny of every little detail. Referees apply the laws of the game, sometimes get it wrong on either matters of fact or matters of interpretation, and remain accountable for their performance to the authorities. Dalglish claiming that Evans's ball to hand should have been a penalty shows just how ridiculous the public questioning of refereees has become.
  6. Oct 16, 2011
    #46

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    Interesting maybe, but a completely irrelevant enterprise after the fact. The result has already been decided, so what difference does it make? Rodwell was sent off for a challenge the referee at the time, deemed serious enough for a red card, whether he was right or wrong changes nothing. He made the call as he saw it, do you honestly think he would tell you anything other than that?

    Why should Atkinson not be refereeing? See this is my point, you don't want clarity out of interest, you want it for punishment. It is blatantly obvious from that statement that you feel Atkinson should not be officiating because he made a clanger. Would an admittance ease your frustration, or simply give you more solid ground to demand punishment?

    I somehow suspect it's the latter.

    Once you open the door it will be all decisions, don't pretend people will be satisfied with one particular incident and everyone will be appeased.

    Your last statement is quite telling imo, it seems you are more interested in how best to assign criticism, rather than preventing it. You want the referee, not only to clarify that he did not see an incident as a basis for his decision, so you can then question and assign blame instead for him not being in a position to make what you see as the correct call! Sounds productive, and you can see from your own example, how the clarity does not alleviate blame, instead it simply provides more specifics to assign it to.

    Because people would find cause for criticism regardless of what explanation was given, as each fan has a particular bias to their own team.

    No it isn't, why does the referee need a chance to see a situation from different angles after the fact. It would surely be a better idea to give him the benefit of a second look while the game is still in progress. At least then he has a chance to either reaffirm or alter his original decision before it costs a team one way or the other. After the fact debating solves nothing.
  7. Oct 16, 2011
    #47

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    Well this is my point, if the problem lies in not being in a position to make the right call, how will hearing he was not in a position to make the right call make any difference?

    How could they be, when you cannot be certain you was right? It is usually only upon the viewing of the replay, which gives us the cause to criticise the ref. If he gives an decison it is because he has seen it, if he does not it is because he hasn't. What more explanation do you need, and furthermore what other explanation do you think he could give other than that?


    No mate, i get the point just fine it is you who are missing the point. It doesn't prevent him from doing so, there is simply nothing to be gained by doing so. Let's not forget in Rugby the referees do not even decide the potentially controversial decisions, they allocate that responsibility to some unseen official who views video evidence. So what's next, do you want him miked up as well? By the same logic why should he not be held responsible for his decisions?

    If our refs are given the same opportunity for the major decisions to be affirmed or denied using video evidence then i'm with you. Until that time there is no logic in what you suggest, other than satisfying your curiosity and more often than not, giving you something more specific to moan about.


    If you are advocating the use of video evidence then i am 100% with you on that, but until that time comes what's the point really? It will not improve the standard of officiating, and realistically will only lead to even more criticism and more pressure on officials.

    Fair point but completely irrelevant to football. Rugby is nowhere near as high profile as football and therefore the interest and pressure put on by the media is not comparable in the least. Football is a solely results based business now rather than a sport and with so much riding on every result, the players will happily cheat to gain an advantage. The referees need more help, not more criticism.

    Of course it would put them under more pressure. If not their integrity, then their positioning or their fitness, or even how they saw to interpret the incident in question.

    In your mind maybe Noodle, but can you vouch for others remaining as easily appeased. One will undoubtedly lead to the other with some people at least.

    No the opposite to having rule clarification is based on trust in the referees. Unless you are suggesting the officials are not making their decisions honestly, why the need to suggest they are making it up as they go along.

    I am with you on introducing better ways to imporve the standard of officiating, but i really do not see how your suggestion, (which i am not particularly against but only in conjuction with other rule changes) will solve anthing. On its own i don't really see the point, apart from satisfying curiosity and providing specifics to demand accountability.


    Yes but you are using a clear cut incident as an example. how about a contentious penalty? That can be interpreted either way dependent on your view. He will explain his view and we will contest it or agree with it, and those who disagree will then question his judgment or his ability to ref.

    So i don't see how we are any better off.



    And you are asking them to offer a defence which will be subsequently be scrutinised and criticisied just as much, if not more so, than without clarification. So again what has been gained?
  8. Oct 16, 2011
    #48

    Wowi Rød grød med fløde

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,652
    Location:
    Denmark
    First of all, if you want a proper discussion then feck off with all your "you mean this", "you're really saying that". Read my post as I write it or don't read it at all. I don't need your shit analysis to come up with various ways to interpret my posts so it fits your point.

    I'd like to know what on earth went through his head when he thought the challenge deserved a sending off. If he stands by the red card I'll know he's incompetent but if he says he got it wrong and explains his reasons for it I would respect him more (depending on his reasons obviously).

    First of all, it's been common practice that referees who make a big mistake are demoted the following week. So given that history it's was a bit odd to see Atkinson refereeing another PL game next time he got the chance to do so - and I'm not the only one finding that odd. Yes, I think a small pause from the PL would've been fine based on that, considering it was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. The fact that the red card was overturned tells you that his superiors thought it was a big mistake too.

    I don't see how him explaining himself could possibly make me want extra punishment, unless he doesn't know the rules of the game obviously, but I hardly think that's the case. If anything, clarity in this case would possibly make me want punishment less.

    I think you're ignoring the fact that criticism has already been assigned in the clear cases. I'd rather hear why a referee didn't whistle rather than assume that he's blind.

    This thread isn't about using video-technology though, but obviously that'd possibly remove the need for what this thread is suggesting.
  9. Oct 16, 2011
    #49

    BazzaBear Definately Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,988
    Yeah, I see your point - and the discussion about whether we think it is a yellow or not is largely immaterial to your point on refereeing decisions being explained afterwards - which I generally agree with.
  10. Oct 16, 2011
    #50

    noodlehair "It's like..."

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,842
    Location:
    Flagg
    I simply think a lot of problems and confusion would be solved if the referee had a microphone feed...something which has been implemented succesfully in other comparable sports. Some of you make it sound like I'm calling for all decisions to be subject to public enquiry within a court of law.
  11. Oct 16, 2011
    #51

    noodlehair "It's like..."

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,842
    Location:
    Flagg
    Hearing what call he has made and why is better than not having a clue how he's come to the conclusion he has. It also helps understand if he's got the decision wrong, and if so why...which in turn makes it easier for people to look at and say "here's how we can avoid this happening again"

    It's a pretty simple trail of logic really.

    In some cases it's just down to unavoidable human error or it'll be near impossible to make an undebabtable or correct call, but the later situation is actually quite rare.

    Are you sure? Do fans at the game only become angry or critical towards the ref after going home and seeing the replays on MOTD then?

    I've given examples just from one game. Replays didn't explain why Downing wasn't booked, why Rio wasn't sent off. The ref saw and called the incidents correctly, but the action taken wasn't consistent with other examples of the same offences being committed. It's perfectly reasonable for people to want to know whether there was a legitimate reason for this, or whether it's a grey area that needs clarifying so the rules are applied consistently from now on.

    You make it sound like it'd be impossible to do this. It wouldn't be. In fact it'd be incredibly simple.


    Erm, Rugby referees make crucial match winning/losing decisions all the time without the help of video referees. There was pretty much THE example of this only yesterday. Every penalty they give is a potential 3 points or more to someone. If anything they have more responsability to the result than football referees...and the video referee is miked up, obviously, otherwise the referee wouldn't be able to talk to him.


    How's that? If a referee makes a decision and nobody knows why, does nobody criticise it?



    People cheat at Rugby all the time. It's pretty much half of what playing Rugby is about.

    Also, you're the one claiming I'm asking for more criticism of referees. I'm actually asking for more accountability in turn for more protection. The absolute silliest thing with football in England is that at the moment, nobody is allowed to queston a referee's integrity, and yet nothing is done if people try to test or question his authority. Other sports prioritise it the other way around...for the simple reason that there's no reason to question his integrity, because his authority is final and he's accountable to explain his decisions.


    Well to be honest, they SHOULD be as fit as the players, which they clearly aren't in some cases, so that would be a valid gripe.

    People can and will whine invariably. Integrity and authority are the only important things. If neither of those are questioned (which both are freely atm), then an officials job is ten times easier.

    You can't question a ref's integrity as easily if you know he's calling it as he sees it and in accordance with the rules, and you can't question or threaten his authority if he has the means to punish you for doing so.


    No it wouldn't. The referee wouldn't need to come out and explain himself further just because some bloke called Richard from Salisbury was angered by the reason Bolton were awarded a penalty. Richard would be just as angry if it happened yesterday and yet I don't see referees being paraded out in front of Geoff Shreeves every week.


    You can't just take the most high profile, mony spinning sport in the world and say to some guy with a whistle "here you are, I trust you"

    You need a system in place that ensures the integrity of the guy with the whistle, and which whilst doing so, also protects his absolute authority and makes his job as easy as possible.

    At the moment we have neither of these things. The current system is pretty much what someone would design specifically to avoid them.


    Wet over this at the start. You're better off knowing why decisions are made and where mistakes happen, because just as with every other thing in life, it helps you understand and also helps stop mistakes being repeated.

    Avoiding doing so is what stupid animals do...the ones they can't even use for lab experiments.
  12. Oct 17, 2011
    #52

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    Fair enough noodle, i understand your reasoning, although i have my doubts about the media (who make fortunes from covering both points of view in any controversy) being any less sensationalist with more defined reasoning for why decisions were made, than they are now.

    Let's face it, the controversy is what keeps many of them in work.

    I think they would simply use specific facts to create headlines rather than speculation. But although i see little point in it without the added aid of video evidence, from your explanation of it i would not be against it.

    If it has half a chance of improving the standard of officiating, then i suppose it would be worth a try, but ideally my personal choice would be to combine the mike with some manner of video evidence, so we can cut out many of these errors while the game is still in progress.

    Without the right conditions for making the right call, wrong decisions will still affect the outcome of many more games than is acceptable, whether we have better understanding of how these decisions were reached or not.
  13. Oct 17, 2011
    #53

    RedDevilCanuck Quite dreamy - blue eyes, blond hair, tanned skin

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,626
    Location:
    The GTA
    Absolute disgrace how the biggest and most global sport doesn't have video technology for on-field decisions.

    Such ignorance makes me feel that there is some shady business going on behind the scenes.

    Seriously, what's wrong with video technology?

    Takes too much time? NO IT DOESN't.

    The NHL, NBA, NFL, Tennis, and track and field have it and it hardly slows down the action.

    A ref cannot get all calls and it's impossible to expect them to.

    Each manager should get to challenge one call per half or per game. Basically if the manager feels a call is incorrect he can ask the official to seek video technology for the right call.

    Such challanges should be for red cards, goals crossing the line, and offside goals.

    Then we never will have to talk about blown calls etc.
  14. Oct 17, 2011
    #54

    Ramshock poster of nonsense

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,391
    Location:
    Eat Sh*t Dwarf
    The solution is simple yet incredulously demonized at the highest level. Within the amount of time the referee has in dealing with arguing players after an incident an official in the tv room can tell him almost immediately what the correct decision is. Its not fecking rocket science after all.
  15. Oct 17, 2011
    #55

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    I agree, i have been trying to make this point without digressing from the OP's initial question. The only reason i can think of why Fifa will not allow it, is that controversy breeds interest, the more controversial the incident the more interest it creates.

    I think the challenges are the best bet, it would allow for limited use of video analysis, but most importantly, it will probably stop that one or two major bad decisions in the game from unfairly influencing the outcome.

    If we couple that with Noodle's proposal we will have increased clarity, an ability to prevent major errors, and it takes the pressure off the referees.

    Everyone's a winner in a sense, the game is fairer and surely that is what we should all be striving for.
  16. Oct 17, 2011
    #56

    eric le roi Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    London
    This is it. Refs have always been respected in Rugby anyway, but it also helps that from a very early age it's drummed in that only the captains generally speak to refs and everyone calls them 'sir', and that they give out a constant stream of what their thoughts are on the game. They even give players a 'heads-up' that they might be about to transgress e.g. "Get behind the back foot number 7". That doesn't really apply to football, admittedly, but it demonstrates to the players that they can see what's going on (even if they can't see everything in reality) and that they understand the game and the rules. Also they've got the "10 yard" rule that they use liberally in case of any back-chat or dissent.
  17. Oct 17, 2011
    #57

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    The only problem i have with the Rugby comparison is that in Rugby it has always been that way. Whereas in football the mindset is completely different, they will not accept a referees decision because they are cheats, it is now part of the game. A player who blatantly dives, or fouls another player will argue and protest his innocence for as long as he is able, despite knowing full well the referee has made the right call.

    How will a mike combat that? When just like with the Eduardo incident, the powers that be are not even prepared to make a firm stand against cheating. I feel this is one of the most important factors in why a referees job is becoming increasingly difficult, because the stakes are so high the players generally have absolutely no integrity, will do anything to gain an advantage for their team, and their managers do not discourage it with any real conviction.
  18. Oct 17, 2011
    #58

    RK Full Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    15,383
    Location:
    Attacking Midfield
    I can't see noodle's idea being useful practically:

    - You can't put the ref in front of the media directly after the game - he'll be tired and needs time to remember all of the incidents.

    - By the time he's explained the decisions (e.g. the next day at the earliest for an evening game or even 3pm KO) the media and fans have already had time for an outcry.
  19. Oct 17, 2011
    #59

    alastair overrated

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    15,070
    Location:
    The Champions League
    A lot of refs want to speak to the media about decisions, but Riley at the top doesn't want them to. In fairness to Mark Halsey, for example, he rang up Talksport to explain a decision which cleared everything up, and then Riley criticised him as a result.
  20. Oct 17, 2011
    #60

    Red Dreams Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Messages:
    31,458
    Location:
    Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
    perhaps they should announce the decisions on the field of play like they do in American Football.
  21. Oct 17, 2011
    #61

    Marching Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    37,516
    :lol:
  22. Oct 17, 2011
    #62

    RedRonaldo Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,403
    You can't challenge the authority. The whole system wouldn't allow us to do so.
  23. Oct 17, 2011
    #63

    RK Full Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    15,383
    Location:
    Attacking Midfield
    I probably didn't word that right. But be realistic. I've heard enough fans complaining that their manager gets put on right after the game and has to answer questions in the heat of the moment. It's not right to do that for a ref, who will be actually be saying something important and has just run infinitely further than the people bollocking them. You could argue players have to answer questions but rarely anything controversial, and they wouldn't usually dare anyway.
  24. Oct 17, 2011
    #64

    noodlehair "It's like..."

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,842
    Location:
    Flagg
    I'm not asking for anyone to challenge anyone's authority or speak to the media after the game. The whole thing works by just giving the ref a microphone...if anything this would STOP players challenging the ref's authority.

    Christ, it's not that difficult to grasp, yet on here it's like trying to explain quantum physics to a swarm of wasps.
  25. Oct 17, 2011
    #65

    Marching Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    37,516
    This whole discussion is going way off the thoughts I had on the subject.

    There will be at most a handful and usually no incidents where a ref needs to explain his decision...usually a penalty, red card...maybe a goal.

    The thinking behind this is that it makes the ref's seem more human and part of the game rather than an untouchable whose decisions, that are often proved wrong, who can't be questioned....what harm would it do for them to come on after the game (after a lie down of course ;)).

    Or we can go with apotheosis's head-in-sand way of thinking that "...they [players] will not accept a referees decision because they are cheats, it is now part of the game."
  26. Oct 18, 2011
    #66

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    Oi, this is not my way of thinking it's a fact. Furthermore, my comment was a direct comparison between the mentality of footballers and their attitude towards officials compared to that of rugby players.

    If you think footballers accept decisions and do not attempt to con the referee, then that is upto you, but imo it is a very naive point of view.

    I have had my debate with Noodle, and have already conceded despite my doubts about it's effectiveness, that there would be no harm in trying it. So don't try and make me sound stubborn or obstinate, i stated my concerns, voiced my doubts, but in the end i was also fully prepared to soften my stance, as a result of Noodle's argument.

    All i said was the analogy between Rugby and Football is irrelevant because of the differing mindsets that the players and managers have towards the officials. The footballers cheat shamelessly at almost every opportunity, in many cases to con the ref, and even when they have failed to con the ref they still protest their innocence. Am i wrong in that assessment?
  27. Oct 18, 2011
    #67

    eric le roi Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    London
    No you are not wrong, but my argument is that by changing the way refs operate, that will change players' attitudes towards them. Sanctions have to be introduced and then enforced. What happened to refs booking players waving imaginary cards? It's crazy, they were given this sanction and then they never use it! Also the 10 yards rule for backchat/dissent? Or were they just 'trials'?

    And why is football not using video refs in exactly the same way as rugby? The argument that it slows the game down is fallacious. And even if it does add a few minutes on to the overall duration of the match, would anyone really mind that if it means correct decisions are made? It will never entirely remove errors but it will mean the 'howlers' are avoided.

    I'm sorry but the governing bodies have brought the antics of footballers upon themselves by refusing to enter the 21st century.
  28. Oct 18, 2011
    #68

    apotheosis O'Fortuna

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Praying for Carrick's ongoing fitness
    I agree completely with everything you have said, and i have even advocated as much in my previous posts.

    My point on the rugby was only that they have always been respectful to the officials, whereas footballers and managers have been increasingly disrespectful. Players con refs to gain an advantage, then deny it, and for the most part are defended by their managers.

    So my point was just because it works in Rugby does not guarantee it will work in football. We need to help the refs better avoid the game defining howlers you speak of. A mike may help, i am not against it after having it clarified by Noodle, but imo it would be much more effective if combined with some additional technology, to enable the ref to either reaffirm or alter his original decision.

    Only by reducing the amount of game defining errors will the criticism of referees be alleviated. Managers are under huge pressure to get results, and if their team is robbed of vital points by refereeing errors, their frustration will continue to be vented towards the officials.

    The challenge system seems the best bet for me, 2 challenges per half for each team, the referee gets another look and that decision is final. It takes away the doubt about whether incidents have been missed, and like it or not at least no-one can say the ref made an error. They may still disagree with him, but he will at least have viewed the incident in it's entirety before reaching his decision.
  29. Oct 18, 2011
    #69

    eric le roi Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    London
    I don't like the challenge system. I'd rather they just used the same system as rugby uses (both codes) which is that except for absolutely clear-cut decisions, the ref refers to the video ref. I really don't see why they couldn't do this for red-card offences, dives in the box (the ref blows the whistle and if it turns out it was a dive, yellow card the diver), challenges the ref only sees out of the corner of his eye (so Rooney would be off for that elbow last season, for example) etc etc.
  30. Oct 18, 2011
    #70

    Walrus Oppressed White Male

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    5,199
    If anything I think explaining a decision and having retroactive punishments etc would take pressure OFF the ref. They know they will have a chance to explain and that if they have made a mistake they can correct it, rather than being stuck with it.


    Problem is unless it was common practice, the FA would likely just punish any referee for admitting to making a mistake, as it stands.
  31. Oct 18, 2011
    #71

    fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    17,820
    Location:
    UK
    I didn't see that game or the tackle, so being honest I can't comment on the incident in question, but the refs do have four basic criteria that yellow cards fit into.

    1) Dangerous play
    2) Ungentlemanly conduct
    3) Persistent offending
    4) Entering or leaving the field of play when not permitted by the referee

    Most yellow cards fit into one of those categories, so by what I've read off here I think we can discount number 1.

    2) Is possible, depending on the refs interpretation of the incident. I'd have to see the actual tackle or incident to comment, but I would guess that this is the most likely thing the referee would have used to justify the yellow card. If he felt that Rio was acting in a manner that was unsporting and did so with the sole intention of stopping the player then a yellow card COULD be a possible punishment.

    3) Again, its possible that Rio had committed maybe 3-4 fouls ( I didn't see the game so I cant say what the scenario was ) and therefore the referee felt that Rio had pushed his luck too far and needed to be warned to control his behaviour.

    4) Not appicable

    So whilst the refs decision may appear to have been unwarranted, there is scope for him to reach that decision but without seeing the game in its entirity its hard to say what the refs thinking was.

    My suspicion was that the ref felt that Rio had been unsporting in his tackle and whilst it wasn't necessarily justified to dismiss him from the field of play, there was enough intent to issue him with a yellow card and warn him about his future conduct.

    ( this is me speaking as a former referee so I am playing devils advocate. )
  32. Oct 18, 2011
    #72

    Wowi Rød grød med fløde

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,652
    Location:
    Denmark
    Exactly my thoughts on this. It won't be a two hours long debate where every tight offside decision, every throw-in and what not are discussed. It will be game-changing decisions, such as the ones you mention. Offsides are by default not worth hearing the reasons for, as they will often be "the linesman saw him as off-/onside", but in some cases where another player might gain advantage from an offside position (jumping over the shot, blocking a defender, blocking keepers view etc.) it would be nice to hear why the referee chose to ignore it.

    Making the referee seem more human is exactly what it'd do for me. We can all make a bad judgement on first viewing, so in my opinion it's nice to hear that the referee would've taken a different action had he seen what really happened. As I mentioned earlier this is used in Denmark now and then and I think it's been great the times I've seen a referee come out after a game to explain some of his decisions. I didn't make me want punishment (as apotheosis suggested), but rather the complete opposite. When you know that the referee actually feel bad about a mistake it's much easier to forgive him, or at least accept it. In the case I mentioned (where a referee apologised to a team for missing a blatant penalty) I know some of the fans of the team that were cheated accepted the referees apology (and reasons for missing it) and moved on.
  33. Oct 18, 2011
    #73

    Cali Red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,873
    This is really only a recent phenomenon. Maybe last 5 years or less. And in the college ranks up until a couple years ago they didn't even call out the players number. Only penalty and offense or defense. You want to talk about maddening.

    You can't have refs having to defend themselves on calls. They would spend forever explaining every last decision. And then even then the fans would still be pissed off. The supporters at the stadium generally let it go after a short period of outrage. It tends to be when you see it a thousand times in slow motion at home in high def that it really rubs gets to you.

    And to use the American football example, how many refs are there on the field? 5 I think. And then at least 1 replay official. Plus the action is more compressed. In footy you have 1 guy running around the field and on a long pass he might be 40 yards from the action.

    I think for the most part these guys do a decent job. Some updating of technology would be nice especially around the goal.
  34. Oct 18, 2011
    #74

    fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    17,820
    Location:
    UK
    The reason football is harder to monitor in such a way is because unlike all those other sports, football is free flowing and doesn't have a start and stop point in certain situations.

    I always use this scenario when discussing the goal line technology.

    Supposing United are playing Liverpool and Liverpool are on the attack. Gerrard shoots and the ball cannons off the crossbar bouncing downward. Vidic hoofs it upfield and Rooney latches onto the long ball rounds the keeper and scores.

    The Liverpool players are adamant the ball has crossed the line and protest to the referee.

    At what point should the referee stop the game to decide if indeed the ball did cross the line. Does he

    1) Stop play the moment it bounces off the line ? If the ball hasn't crossed the line then the ref has stopped play and unfairly penalised United who would then go onto score legitimately, but have been prevented from doing so

    2) The moment the ball isn't in play. Well actually that point is when its in the back of Liverpools net. It could in theory take 20 minutes for the ball to next become inactive. Just how far back would you take it...

    The reason that you cannot treat football like the other sports is because in most of them games, the action is very quick and involves one off incidents. In baseball you bowl the ball, the batsmen hits it or misses. End of play. In NFL the they huddle, the ball is thrown, they either catch it or they dont. End of play.. In rugby when the ball goes over the try line the ref stops play.

    In football there is no end of play. Its perfectly possible to go 45 minutes without the ball stopping and play ending. OK its highly unlikely, but you get the point. Football doesn't have "plays". Its ongoing... Play doesn;t end until the ball leaves the pitch or theres a foul. If a team loses posession play doesn't end like it does in most other sports.

    Thats why you cannot have the referees handing over power to others because otherwise play would end up getting stopped whilst the game is in full flow, and that would go for or against teams depending on the situation, and if United were prevented a goal because the ref stopped play because he suspected the ball had crossed the line, when it later turns out it hadn;t, you like thousands of others would be screaming your head off asking why the ref had stopped play when he wasn't sure.
  35. Oct 18, 2011
    #75

    Cali Red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,873
    But there are many many places where you could stop the play. Do the review after Roo scores. Now granted they'll be riots if you take one goal off and give another. But if the play was shown at the game fans would know it was the right call.

    The refs can blow the ball dead easy. Everytime Suarez goes down in a heap because the wind changed direction the refs stop play. Why not then? The bigger problem would be keeping time correct. A match could go on endlessly. If you had a situation like you're talking about then the game time would be wrong. So more time would be added. You could easily end up with several starts and stops a match taking 60 minute halves.
  36. Oct 18, 2011
    #76

    fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    17,820
    Location:
    UK
    Supposing Suarez hits the deck as Carrick is breaking with the ball. Does the ref stop play and prevent United attacking, only to find Suarez has dived and there was no foul ?

    As for the first bit, the fact you aknowledge there would be riots suggests the very reason why it shouldn't be done.

    The bottom line is the ref has to make an instant call. He cannot keep stopping play everytime he's unsure. If he doesn't see a foul then the fact is the foul didn't happen. If the ball crosses the line but the linesman doesnt see it ( pedro Mendes and Roy Carrol ) then its not a goal..

    Thats the way it is, and the way it should be..

    OK so Marriner may have got it wrong the other day, as I mention above, what about when Mendez scored a perfectly legitimate goal but the lino missed it, and we ended up getting a draw we didn't deserve..

    It goes for you, and it goes against you. SOmetimes you benefit from refs mistakes, sometimes it goes against you.. Its all swings and roundabouts.

    You can't change the whole ethos of the game just because a ref missed soemthing. THey make mistakes.. thats life..

    All we, as fans can do, is give him a few chorus' of "you don't know what you're doing " whilst living in the safe knowledge that we will never have to be the "wanker in the black"

    All those decrying refs should actually try doing it, and then see how it feels..

    I would bet 99% of those slagging off refs would find they altered their views very strongly if the outcome of games rested on their own shoulders instead of someone elses.
  37. Oct 18, 2011
    #77

    fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    17,820
    Location:
    UK
    In the 1966 world cup final the ref awarded a goal that even to this day, no amount of computer technology or expert opinion has ever been able to provide a definitive answer as to whether the ball crossed the line or it didnt.

    If we followed your example, then 45 years later there would be 22 very old blokes stood at wembley unsure whats going to happen next because no one knows if it was truly a goal or it wasnt.

    Poor Bobby Moore wouldn't be much use in the back 4 now if they were still waiting for the 4th official to make a decision...
  38. Oct 19, 2011
    #78

    Flying Fox Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,902
    Location:
    Ol' Adelaide Town
    Here in Oz we have ref's coming out every so often to explain their calls if anything contentious was done over the weekend.

    For example, at 1:18 and at 1:30 for what I suspect was time-wasting.

  39. Nov 26, 2011
    #79

    Wowi Rød grød med fløde

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,652
    Location:
    Denmark
    Wouldn't mind hearing why the ref decided to change his decision after talking to the linesman.
  40. Nov 26, 2011
    #80

    Edmeiste Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    7,105
    Location:
    In a land far far away....playing Fifa
    We wont. They're protected

Share This Page