Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Referees: How can we stop utter in-competence throughout the game.

Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I think for that to work, the referees have to actually explain the decisions though. Something which seemingly never happens in football.
    But I do agree, I think having the referee talk to the captain, and say this is why I gave what I did is the best way to go about things.
    How we get to that state - I have no idea.
    Yellows cards for dissent should already be given. Indeed it is something linked to what I mentioned about about consistency. Some refs will give yellows for dissent, and some will not.

    (Original post by Deshi)
    I genuinely don't get why they don't do this, if you keep punishing players for diving sooner or later players won't do it anymore.
    I think the way that it works in rugby could do a huge amount for football. Only the captains can talk to / question the referee. It doesn't work all the time but for a good 90% of the time, it means that we get action instead of teams mobbing the ref AND the teams know why the decision was given.

    If football referees could book any player other than the captain for dissent when they try intimidating him, players would end up getting two yellows, an early bath and an ear-bending from the boss for leaving him with 9 players on the field. Teams would very soon decide they'd rather spend their time playing football with 11 men than cheating with 9 (or 8, if they're really dim). The fans get more (and eventually better quality) football, the players make a small step towards being better value for their obscene salaries.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shabalala)
    It's like this in every league every league in the world complains that they have the worst refs but in reality the job they do is very hard under all that pressure the dinasours in charge of FIFA/UEFA have given no valid reason as to why there shouldn't be video's and technology used to help the refs they are a bunch of corrupt ********s who are desperate to hang onto power we should just put them down.

    In my opinion an official should be in room in the stand with access to TV and replays and he should be relaying the correct desicion into the refs earpiece it would make 99.9% of decisions correct and it wouldn't hold up the game much either. There is no reason to adopt a Tennis style limit to video replays there are allot more than 3 wrong desicions each game we could minimise that to 1 or 2 a year if a 5th official is sitting in the stand giving the ref the correct decision.
    Dunno whether I'd want him sitting in the stand; a bit too close to all the fans for my liking. The rugby video refs are sitting in the broadcaster's producer's truck out in the car park where he can instantly tell the producer which camera he wants to see again and how often before getting on the intercom back to the pitch ref. That way he's detached from any influence inside the ground whilst still being able to provide an instant (or nearly instant) decision.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Why give the teams the option of calling for a review? That'll just become a manager's tactic and will damage the game. Give the refs the proper training in when they should go to the video ref (same as in cricket and rugby) and the technology will work fine. As you say, most decisions will only take a matter of seconds and the really close ones that take a bit longer will just build the sense of anticipation.
    Because the ref might think they are right and therefore not review a decision and yet still be wrong. It's why you give the referee the discretion to review but give the teams a limit opportunity to challenge the refeeres decision not to review.

    In cricket, teams can ask for a review (even if the umpire doesn't ask for one). In tennis, it is assumed that a right call has been made unless a player challenges a decision.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    http://freeonlinesurveys.com/app/ren...6h96i9yda34903

    Please fill in the following questionnaire if you wish it relates to Referees and the Media.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The sooner football accepts the technology the better, and i also agree with other posts made that the ref's should be able to discipline players for the abuse they give them. Rugby has been made better since it embraced the tech., as have hockey and cricket.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Why? What makes you think that rugby fans don't have arguments? Trust me, there are still plenty of England fans complaining about the video ref disallowing an England try v SA in the World Cup final in 2003.
    Do you not mean 2007? I'm not moaning because it was the correct decision.

    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    One might equally ask how a cricket umpire looks at a bowler's front foot, the angle of delivery AND the position and stroke of the batsman, all at the same time but he does it for hours on end. What's more, your average cricket umpire has a much greater percentage of correct decisions than most football referees. It's just down to the quality of training and making sure that the officials are regularly checked for their ability to do their job.
    I can speak as an umpire too (Cricket; Football and Snooker are my three sports) - but in general terms umpires in cricket are ex players - I was the youngest in one league by at least 25 years. - So they can place themselves in a batsman's shoes - something I couldn't do.

    Me not having played cricket found it much harder to adapt and still do as I'd be giving batsmen out (and being technically correct) whereas an umpire with more experience on a playing side would not be giving out batsmen for those decisions (I'm talking about marginals here - not blindingly obvious catches etc.)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Because the ref might think they are right and therefore not review a decision and yet still be wrong. It's why you give the referee the discretion to review but give the teams a limit opportunity to challenge the refeeres decision not to review.

    In cricket, teams can ask for a review (even if the umpire doesn't ask for one). In tennis, it is assumed that a right call has been made unless a player challenges a decision.
    That's why the training (especially involving video refs) would need to be significantly improved. Get that right and you won't need to give the teams the chance to break up a period of sustained opposition pressure by calling for frivolous reviews. That doesn't happen in cricket because there's a natural break after every ball so calling for a review doesn't really interrupt the flow of the game. In rugby, where the flow might be interrupted, teams aren't allowed to call for reviews.

    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Do you not mean 2007? I'm not moaning because it was the correct decision.
    Yeah, my bad, 2003 was the year we won it. Doesn't alter the fact that we wuz robbed.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    On the note of consistancy another point is pulling and tugging of shirts in the penalty area.

    Mike Williamson conceded a penalty for pulling (slightly) on a shirt against Sunderland, Argubly one of our biggest games of the season. Yet how many times do you see penalties awarded for that?

    In the same game Sunderland had a hold of Newcastle's shirts on every corner, So surely every instance in the case of it not being 50-50 should have been a pen.

    Also v Bolton. Williamson was tugged away from the ball during a corner blatantly. Nothing done.

    Apparantly today FIFA have given permission to all the seperate countries that they can conduct reviews whatever way they deem fair. Meaning if a ref does spot a player make a foul (Balotelli v Arsenal) they will still be able to issue a ban.

    The FA will ignore this though more likely.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jilebinator)
    it wouldn't be a few minutes, a minute at max, you just have to see a replay once or twice to know whether it was a foul or not.
    The problem with reviewing for fouls as opposed to offsides and disputed goals is that for the most part they are a matter of opinion. You can't go around giving a video referee precedence to overrule the on field referee just because he gets to see the same incident from a different angle. Also, it would really interfere with the flow of the game. Say one team wanted to take a quick free kick when the other team was still up in their box. If a review was called the whole game would come to a halt for long enough to prevent any momentum building. At other times teams have periods off holding possession and attacking, reviews would interfere with this.

    But I do think the idea has some promise for goals which have been given by the referee when there is some doubt over an offside or where the referee needs some advice on something he didn't see.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    That's why the training (especially involving video refs) would need to be significantly improved. Get that right and you won't need to give the teams the chance to break up a period of sustained opposition pressure by calling for frivolous reviews. That doesn't happen in cricket because there's a natural break after every ball so calling for a review doesn't really interrupt the flow of the game. In rugby, where the flow might be interrupted, teams aren't allowed to call for reviews.



    Yeah, my bad, 2003 was the year we won it. Doesn't alter the fact that we wuz robbed.
    It doesn't matter how much you train anyone, there can still be misjudgment from a referee who can't see everything from the perfect angle.

    That's why you limit teams to 3 reviews (can introduce a fine system if you think it can be abused) but the video ref can probably review a decision within 5 seconds if it's straight forward.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, my bad, 2003 was the year we won it. Doesn't alter the fact that we wuz robbed.
    Not really as the right decision was made.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Technology should never be used that requires it's own reason for stopping the game.

    Imo technology should only ever be used for things like specific penalty calls or 'was that a corner or a goal kick' calls. Things that someone watching via a feed can decide on in a few seconds, seconds that would be used in games anyway after the whistle has gone or when players are complaining.

    The day technology is used and decides everything and takes more than a few seconds each time is the day football is ruined.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Not really as the right decision was made.
    How can you possibly say that? He clearly got the ball down before he went into touch. I mean, it'd be entirely wrong of me to suggest that my fair, balanced and objective statement of the facts might in any way outmerit your two-bit opinion. But we wuz robbed.


    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Technology should never be used that requires it's own reason for stopping the game.

    Imo technology should only ever be used for things like specific penalty calls or 'was that a corner or a goal kick' calls. Things that someone watching via a feed can decide on in a few seconds, seconds that would be used in games anyway after the whistle has gone or when players are complaining.

    The day technology is used and decides everything and takes more than a few seconds each time is the day football is ruined.
    What makes you think that all the players' cheating and all the refs' inconsistencies aren't ruining football anyway. The point I've been trying to make is that a vital part of introducing video technology would be making sure that the refs are thoroughly trained in the ability to avoid calling for too many reviews.

    However, that shouldn't be too difficult. Take the Wigan v Chelsea match last week. A gross miscarriage of footballing justice that could have been much better handled with the use of a video ref. There were, however, no more than half a dozen incidents in the match where the video ref might have been used and the right result would have been obtained by just looking at (and disallowing) the Chelsea goals. And that's one of the more extreme examples. There would be an increasing number of matches where the video ref would be available but wouldn't be used.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered football threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.