who would be a referee?

[david in sweden]

I agree with much of what has been said. The level of tolerance by pundits and commentators for kidology is ridiculous. Whether it is a player diving, making more of something than it is, arguing for a throw in / corner or trying to influence the ref - it's all cheating.

 

I'd introduce three fundamental things into football :

 

1) Any chat back to the ref or linesman - regardless of the justification or the referees tolerance - results in a yellow card. The captain is allowed to ask for an explanation, but not challenge the decision. But players need to understand that genuine mistakes will happen. The Ref is always right, even when he's wrong.

 

2) The FA stop the pretense that the Refs decision cannot be questioned after the event using television evidence. Situations where a player is judged to either have been too lightly or too harshly punished can be rectified. Where someone has kidded the ref to get a major decision (penalty, opposing player punishment etc.), that player is punished after the event (by double the amount they'd normally get). 3) Punishments are quick (none of this waiting for months before reviews / defence). Decisions ideally should be made in the following week. Financial punishments should be significant and be payable to charity, not to the FA's coffers.

 

That and give pundits a good slap for excusing poor behaviour.

 

 

Of course you can punish the offender in retrospect, but " the goal " may still stand, and the other club may still lose the match. Why not have a points deduction...or a prolonged suspension for such offences?.

 

Points deductions are made to clubs on "non-playing " grounds; going into administration, playing unregistered players, fans running on to the pitch type-offences:

Denmark forfeited a game v. Sweden some years ago when a drunken Danish " fan " ran on the pitch and aimed a punch (he missed) at the Swedish keeper. The ref. abandoned the game and UEFA gave a 3 goal advantage to the Swedes.

 

but more often... the " real footballing crimes " go unpunished.

Edited 14 September, 2011 by david in sweden

[VectisSaint]

Sky loves to flog to death any marginal offside or offical's decision. Watching football abroad, these events are hardly if ever replayed.

A debate on Sky after a game can be spent on what a ref did or didn't do, it's pathetic. Every interview with a manager always has the ref's performance in

it, rather than their teams deficiences, usually as the result of the interviewer.

If TV ignored the referee and let the paper media report it (any contentious decisions) and their own body manage them, the blame culture would go i'm sure.

My pet hate on Sky (as well as the Beeb and ITV) is that many pundits do not seem to actually know the laws of the game. They think they do and analys/criticise referees and other officials and show complete ignorance of what the laws actually say. Many don't seem to know that free-kicks for handball should only be given if the offence is deliberate, and many really do not know or understand the offside law. Players and supporters alike are then fooled into believing what these pundits say - the TV people have a lot to answer for when it comes to respect for referees and officials. I wonder how many of these so-called experts have ever read the Laws of the game, and would question whether any of them have ever taken a refereeing course, maybe if they did they would understand and respect officials.

[MOSaint.]

Since I ve been refereeing I do see games in a different light even with my red and white goggles on, sometimes I ask myself why I do it but hey if I didnt like many others we wouldnt have any football

[Dr Who?]

of course it's true that some refs. ought never to be allowed to referee anything above schoolboy level, but in the main the standard is surely quite good (even allowing for the cheaters) - mentioned above.

 

However, I do feel that some refs. are more than pedantic and have " a bee in their bonnet " over quite small things.

10 meters from the ball....EXACT placement of free-kicks.... physical contact between defenders..and IMHO... worst of all the

so-called "penalty " situations. Was it hand-to-ball? ..or ball-to-hand. However, I do think that an attacker who deliberately plays the ball onto a defenders arm, is just as guilty of an offence as the one who " dives " in the area at the slightest contact deserves a yellow card, especially when a wrong decision might mean a RED for the opponent...and should an offending goalie always get a red card as well as conceding a penalty?

 

..but I can't help feeling that some refs. do favour the home side " unfairly " sometimes..perhaps in the hope, or anticipation that he'll still find the wheels on his car when he makes his way home.

 

The worst fault though, is a human one. I read an article some years ago from a Spanish researcher who categorically proved that the human eye is not capable of making the FIVE different physical adjustments necessary to follow the ball from dead ball situations to calling an offside, or penalty ..in the time it takes to kick the ball! Was that really offside, ref ?..

 

Roll on CCTV, and let's get it right every time . The camera cannot lie, well most of the time anyway!

 

Most of what you mention above is the rules that referees HAVE to follow, so really they are being made to look this way. I have made huge progress and want to carry on making progress and to do this I have to do really well when accessed. They are the rules, and we have to carry them out. Using one of your examples from above, if a free kick was taken from the wrong place and the team score, what sort of reaction do you think ref's would get from a) the oppo players b) the crowd?

[Dr Who?]

I never could understand why anybody would want to be a referee? Is it because they were bullied at school and want to get off on the power of bossing people around?

 

In my experience quite the opporsite, the players seem to do the bullying.