Why don't referees have to explain their decisions? (part 2)

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
18,276
Location
Flagg
Sorry but after today this has to be brought up again.

Is there any even remotely valid reason today why a refereee for a premiership game can't be hooked up to a microphone and instructed to explain his decision (when asked or deemed appropriate) to the team captain/captains?

Swearing/abuse being heard is a non issue. You can't swear at or abuse a referee in Sunday League or any other sport, so professional footballers can abide by the same rules. The microphone provides indesputable evidence to punish anyone who can't.

Taking Howard Webb as a case example:

- Why was Janujaz booked for diving today and Danny Welbeck not booked?

- Why wasn't a penalty awarded for the Ashley Young incident?

- Why is using your hand to scoop the ball gradually over an opponent's head in full view of both the referee and linesman, no longer deemed to be handball?

- Why was a penalty not awarded to Luis Suarez against Chelsea?

Personally, I think if Howard Webb is micked up, he awards both penalties, gives the handball (and a yellow card), and books Danny Welbeck, because I think the reason he doesn't give these decisions has nothing to do with the "speed of the game" or difficulty of refereeing correctly. I think he doesn't give them because the current system encourages him to be a coward. For a start, he clearly saw the Suarez foul, because he pointed at it.

I think he takes the easy way out with Suarez and Young because he knows they have reputations. The same reason he was willing to book Janujaz for an, at best dubious dive, but not Welbeck for a far more obvious one. He referees based on what he thinks the easiest decision for him is, rather than the correct one...and regardless of whether that's what he does or not, the fact that the current set up would allow him to do that without so much as a raised eyebrow, is an absolute fecking farce.

No one is saying referees have it easy or should get everything right, but there should be a system where they are required to be transparent and clear with their officiating, and where players are required to respect them appropriately for that.

Aside from dodgy goings on, is there ANY justified reason for this not to be the case when it could be so easily and quickly achieved at every single high level game and has already been implemented in a number of other sports in which officials are under similar pressures?
 
I don't now what useful purpose this would serve during a game. All it would do is just compound potential errors and it's not going make the refs job any easier or get them to call big decisions correctly. The idea sound like a pointless gimmick.
 
Well I guess the only reason is that their decision is final, and any questioning of refereeing decisions calls their authority into question. The FA prefer to deal with it behind closed doors, rather than stand a referee who, as far as football is concerned, is the law, in front of a camera to have their decisions picked at.

Now, whether that's a valid reason or not is another thing entirely.
 
psychdelicblues said:
I don't now what useful purpose this would serve during a game. All it would do is just compound potential errors and it's not going make the refs job any easier or get them to call big decisions correctly. The idea sound like a pointless gimmick.
Click to expand...


Would you be in favour of referees explaining decisions in a post match interview?
 
Amethyst said:
Would you be in favour of referees explaining decisions in a post match interview?
Click to expand...

Not really. What is Howard going to say?

"After now seeing a replay for the 17th time in super slow-mo from 3 different camera angles, there is quite clearly contact with Welbeck in the box and I should have given a penalty. Apologies to Welbeck, United and their fans through out the globe"
Click to expand...

Nah, not for me.
 
Did you see that I mentioned part 1 in the Webb thread or is this just incredible timing? :) The first thread can be found here, if anyone cares about what some posters thought back then. It also contains a few stories about refs (both in football and other sports) speaking out on matters after the game and managing to look better.

My stance is still the same as it was two years ago - I really don't see why the referees can't explain themselves. We're not talking about an hour-long program after each game discussing every step, every throw-in and so on - we're talking about the controversial game-changing decisions. Young's penalty claim today is one particular incident I'd very much like to hear Webb explain, because I honestly can't figure out any way that he could do so without admitting to being a coward.

I understand that being a referee is largely a thankless job, but I genuinely don't think that keeping them locked up from the public is helping them. Besides, what's the worst that could happen? People already moan about pretty much every (PL) ref and talk about how they've never been worse. Unless they're complete idiots there's no way they can feck that up even more by speaking to the media. Give it a trail-run, and if it doesn't work then they can at least say they've tried it.
 
The Neviller said:
As for your Welbeck example, that was a foul.
Click to expand...

It takes an extreme amount of bias to not see Welbeck throwing himself on the floor needlessly there. He should have been booked...but then Janujaz was booked for what was far less of a dive. Webb called both but only booked one?

Did the rules somehow change in between the two offences? Did he think Welbeck just fell over?

I'm no interested in refs getting every decision right. I'm interested in them being consistent and there being some degree of clarity as to why decisions are or are not made.
 
I'm not saying he would have to analyse a super slow-mo replay- that wouldn't be fair, but I think it would be helpful if referees clarified why certain tackles/dives are deemed yellow or red cards, whilst others are not.

Welbeck goes down in the area, Webb waves play on and no yellow is shown.
Januzaj goes down outside the area, Webb waves play on and Januzaj receives a yellow.

Why? Whether the call is right or not is separate from what would appear to be inconsistencies. Maybe Webb saw something we didn't? The point is, we'll never know.

It's also frustrating that referee can have terrible games and the moment any manager says about it they're punished.
 
psychdelicblues said:
I don't now what useful purpose this would serve during a game. All it would do is just compound potential errors and it's not going make the refs job any easier or get them to call big decisions correctly. The idea sound like a pointless gimmick.
Click to expand...

It seems to work very well in other sports and is certainly more than a gimmic. Rugby referees make mistakes all the time, but you always know what they think they saw. The players always know. There's far more respect and far less pressure and criticism on the referees as a result.

If Howard Webb didn't think the Suarez or Young incidents were penalties, what did he think they were? Is that really an unreasonable question for a referee to answer when he's officiating. You're basically just asking him to do his job honestly, which in any other sport is a bare minimum requirement of an official.

Somehow in football a referee can in theory deliberately and repeatedly bottle decisions, and receive protection for doing so, whilst receiving constant abuse whenever he tries to call a decision correctly, with little or no power to protect himself. How people can defend this setup is beyond me. It's an embarassment. You have a sport which needs a strong minded official, and instead encourage cowardice.
 
noodlehair said:
It takes an extreme amount of bias to not see Welbeck throwing himself on the floor needlessly there. He should have been booked...but then Janujaz was booked for what was far less of a dive. Webb called both but only booked one?

Did the rules somehow change in between the two offences? Did he think Welbeck just fell over?

I'm no interested in refs getting every decision right. I'm interested in them being consistent and there being some degree of clarity as to why decisions are or are not made.
Click to expand...
Irrespective of whether Welbeck went down easily or not, there was contact on his foot by a defender making a tackle, who didn't get the ball. It was a foul.
 
It's getting bad on the pitch. Even when someone get's fouled, the offending player moans and gesticulates every single efn time even when they know they caused a foul. The constant crying to the refs along with players with bad reputations has imo made some of these officials wary of giving clear cut foul decisions. Suarez got kicked all over today and nothing was called. His rep doesn't help but a ref has to be fair and unbias and it looks not to be the case.
We should do what you lot and Chelsea used to do and surround the efn ref and badger and intimidate him till the fecking calls go our way.
 
The Neviller said:
Irrespective of whether Welbeck went down easily or not, there was contact on his foot by a defender making a tackle, who didn't get the ball. It was a foul.
Click to expand...

Contact doesn't equal a foul. I don't know when people started pretending it does, but it doesn't.

Either way doesn't explain why Webb decided not to give anything and then book someone for diving minutes later. If he wasn't sure Welbeck dived there's no way he could have been sure Janujaz did.
 
njred said:
We should do what you lot and Chelsea used to do and surround the efn ref and badger and intimidate him till the fecking calls go our way.
Click to expand...


Heh, liverpool do it a lot more, especially in matches with us. There used to be a phase when Keane was around when referees used to intimidated by us, but nowhere close to moaning that Liverpool do, which again doesn't measure against what Chelsea do
 
njred said:
It's getting bad on the pitch. Even when someone get's fouled, the offending player moans and gesticulates every single efn time even when they know they caused a foul. The constant crying to the refs along with players with bad reputations has imo made some of these officials wary of giving clear cut foul decisions. Suarez got kicked all over today and nothing was called. His rep doesn't help but a ref has to be fair and unbias and it looks not to be the case.
We should do what you lot and Chelsea used to do and surround the efn ref and badger and intimidate him till the fecking calls go our way.
Click to expand...

This is one of the big issues for me. Refs referee on players reputations because it's easier for them than giving what they think is the correct call. Or they just make no decision at all and invent some kind of non existent middle ground. Suarez doesn't help himself...he did two ridiculous dives late in the previous game...but that shouldn't mean a ref can pretend not to see fouls on him if giving a decision for them means the other team might shout at him.

Not so sure about that last line. For a start you used to be as bad as anyone else at it. In fact you were the team who pushed it too far and ended up with one of your players being sent off for it. Again though, it's solved instantly by the ref having a mic and being able to punish anyone who fails to respect their authority during a game.
 
noodlehair said:
Contact doesn't equal a foul. I don't know when people started pretending it does, but it doesn't.

Either way doesn't explain why Webb decided not to give anything and then book someone for diving minutes later. If he wasn't sure Welbeck dived there's no way he could have been sure Janujaz did.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but making an error in the box shouldn't go unpunished, Chiriches decided to stick out his leg in front of Welbeck, interfered with his path of running and affected his balance on the ball. It was a penalty to me all day long, but given the crowd in the box I'm not all that fussed about it. I'm more fussed about Young penalty and a red for Lloris.

Yellow for Januzaj was cringeworthy, it's a foul and if somebody would like to talk about 'tough game' and all that shit, then it's definitely not a dive.

As for your idea, I don't fancy this idea of a mic and explaining things on pitch ( NFL style I think ? ) but it would be a good start to make after-game reports from the referee and the spotter viable to both clubs and people interested in it ( fans ).
 
Maybe if refs had mics then players would be more conscious of abusing the refs and swearing.

I'd like refs to have mics, it's not a problem in rugby so why should it be problem in football?

We all blindly call the ref a cnut because he's made cnutish mistakes, so it would be nice to hear things from his perspective.

But yesterday howard was a cnut and a half, fecking cnut. Same with the suarez incident, he saw the foul directly and clearly and still waves it on. cnut.
 
The most frustrating thing I find is that Refs seem to lack any objectivity, they make decisions based so much on the events of the match. It can kind of work in say a derby were a few bad tackles will go uncarded, the ref appreciating the nature of the game. However yesterday in particular Webb seemed to be constantly balancing the scales... Didn't give a Spurs FK so when Danny was tripped in the box it seemed 'fairer' to wave it on as a dive, he didn't book him because he didn't have the conviction that it actually was a dive, that was just the easy decision.

That kind of performance leads to displays like yesterday, i'd love to see Ref's mic'd up and authoritative like in Rugger.
 
It's the same reason they were hesitant about goal line technology, they don't want to remove the controversy out of football as it's a key talking point.

As a united fan it's infuriating as that discussion goes....any decisions we get are down to the bias and any decisions against us are just balancing it out. There's no place for us to moan apart from to each other.
 
Kostur said:
Fair enough, but making an error in the box shouldn't go unpunished, Chiriches decided to stick out his leg in front of Welbeck, interfered with his path of running and affected his balance on the ball. It was a penalty to me all day long, but given the crowd in the box I'm not all that fussed about it. I'm more fussed about Young penalty and a red for Lloris.

Yellow for Januzaj was cringeworthy, it's a foul and if somebody would like to talk about 'tough game' and all that shit, then it's definitely not a dive.

As for your idea, I don't fancy this idea of a mic and explaining things on pitch ( NFL style I think ? ) but it would be a good start to make after-game reports from the referee and the spotter viable to both clubs and people interested in it ( fans ).
Click to expand...

Why don't you like the idea though? What are the negatives to it? I can't see any other than people just "not liking" it.

He barely suck his leg out at all and there's no way Welbeck is impeded unless he wants to be. I think you'd do well to find anyone who thought that was a foul who isn't a United fan.

We will of course never know why Webb thought it wasn't, or thought Janujaz needed to be booked for diving but Welbeck didn't, or why he thought LLoris's challened wasn't a foul. For all we'll ever know, it might be because doesn't know the rules, or has no integrity. There is absolutely nothing in place to demonstrate or even require otherwise.
 
For me the most likely reason is simply if they're not sure, they can't give anything. That would explain the vast majority. If he didn't properly see the Welbeck incident (Which yes, it's his job to but still his positioning might not be the best) then he cannot give the pen, nor can he issue a card for a dive. He only gets one view, at full speed. He has to be 100% sure of his call before making a positive decision, whereas turning an appeal down can be the result of many factors.
 
What would be the point in explaining them? They submit their reports to the FA telling them how they saw each incident. Whether we know or not isn't relevant.

How would the explanation hearing go

"You said you booked him for simulation - explain yourself"
-I thought he simulated contact and went down to gain an advantage
"Oh, fair enough."


...it'd be pointless. If a ref doesn't give a foul the explanation is he didn't think it was one, if he does give foul the explanation is he thought it was a foul.
 
Why not just give him a micophone though?

The point is that in situations like with the Suarez incident at Stamford Bridge, currently the best option for the referee is to just ignore it and not make a decision, because that's the only option to avoid a backlash, and there's no incentive to do otherwise.

He can't do that in any other sport except for, bizarrely, top level professional football, where it is basically encouraged. Apparently even by the fans
 
So basically

Scenario 1:

"Ref why wasn't that a penalty?"
"No2 played the ball before he caught the attacker"
"he didn't ref"
"that's the decision no8 no more backchat"

Scenario 2:
"Ref that's a fecking penalty!"
"......."
"feck off ref you cnut it's a penalty"
"play on"
"You fecking biassed cnut. feck off"
"......."
"You're a feckin joke. How is that not a penalty"
and so on...



Can any of you naysayers explain exactly why scenario 2 is the better option here? I really don't see it
 
noodlehair said:
So basically

Scenario 1:

"Ref why wasn't that a penalty?"
"No2 played the ball before he caught the attacker"
"he didn't ref"
"that's the decision no8 no more backchat"

Scenario 2:
"Ref that's a fecking penalty!"
"......."
"feck off ref you cnut it's a penalty"
"play on"
"You fecking biassed cnut. feck off"
"......."
"You're a feckin joke. How is that not a penalty"
and so on...



Can any of you naysayers explain exactly why scenario 2 is the better option here? I really don't see it
Click to expand...
Both are a complete waste of time. The result is the same.
 
That, and it's a stupid idea.

A smarter idea would be to actually hold refs accountable for their mistakes in matches. Dowd and Halsey have regularly gotten shunted to the lower leagues after catastrophic decision in the PL (can certainly remember it happening a few times in the 05-06 season). Not that it helped them much, mind.

For some reason there seems to be a general reluctance to give penalties unless it's as blatant as you can get, and maybe it's to try and cut out the whinging and playacting, but it's just making it worse.
 
As they're already mic'd up between the four of them, why not just record the audio channel and have the ref annunciate during play why he has/has not given a decision. Nothing complex just things like "ball to hand, to close for penalty", "Booked for diving, no contact" etc? Then it can be reviewed post match, it would also deal with things like Southampton have complained of today. And it may also cause some players to think before opening their gobs if they know it can be heard.
 
I can't really see an argument against microphones although it just seems gimmicky and nosey to me. I don't see a problem with a bit of swearing in footy really and microphones would stop that.
 
A post match referee interview would be a nightmare, some of them already have big egos, now imagine letting them on tele with that 'I make the decisions' attitude. Not for me.
 
Neil_Buchanan said:
A post match referee interview would be a nightmare, some of them already have big egos, now imagine letting them on tele with that 'I make the decisions' attitude. Not for me.
Click to expand...

I remember Graham Poll doing it once and then getting slaughtered by the studio pundits, Souness IIRC in particular moaned about him doing it.
 
Managers who can fob off unwanted questions with the usual platitudes or bans of reporters would demand the most absolute and unequivocal answers from match officials, hardly a fair playing field.

Likewise journalists who willingly pedal the line of agents, or whose ties to clubs must leave their objectivity in question [see some Fleet Street's reaction regarding the racism claims against Clattenberg], should be the arbiters of right and wrong?

If football wanted to go part way down this road yet still maintain a degree of privacy, i suppose there could be greater transparency of the assessment process.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Managers who can fob off unwanted questions with the usual platitudes or bans of reporters would demand the most absolute and unequivocal answers from match officials, hardly a fair playing field.

Likewise journalists who willingly pedal the line of agents, or whose ties to clubs must leave their objectivity in question [see some Fleet Street's reaction regarding the racism claims against Clattenberg], should be the arbiters of right and wrong?

If football wanted to go part way down this road yet still maintain a degree of privacy, i suppose there could be greater transparency of the assessment process.
Click to expand...

I don't see what relevance this has to anything? The refs have absolutely nothing to do with the press.

All having referees does is give the fans some transparency and understanding as to why a referee gave or did not give specific decisions. Even if they don't make it live, perhaps publicising the referee's post-match write-up after every game for everyone to read is a step in the right direction, so fans can understand the reasoning behind decisions.
 
I Holland the refs of the Eredivisie are interviewed after the match. It makes for interesting viewing, but it doesn't make any difference.
 
I'm not for the idea, it won't help improve their decision making and it'll be more of a humiliating experience on regular basis.

Accountability isn't the issue here, what refs really need is help making the right decisions, the game is getting too fast for them, i don't mind using video replays to help them but most people seem to hate that idea, but i'm for any help they can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.