Jump to content

Mike Dean

Saint IQ

By Saint IQ,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Saint IQ

Saint IQ

Posted
Posted

After Nigel Pearson was saying he was arrogant in his post match interview I googled his name and found 3 articles in the last 20 days slating his performance.

 

He bottled two clear sending offs and gave a poor pen decision today. Why is he still reffing at the top level?

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/428602/West-Ham-Sam-Allardyce-Mike-Dean-Crystal-Palace

 

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/referee-mike-dean--bottles--sending-off-nemanja-matic-as-he-keeps-card-in-pocket-144847894.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/leicester-city/11487920/Leicester-City-news-Nigel-Pearson-blasts-referee-Mike-Dean-as-arrogant-after-penalty-decision.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hasper57saint

hasper57saint

Posted
Posted
Because refereeing is incredibly difficult. The Premier League has the very best in the world.

 

And I wouldn't rely on the whinging of men who are about to be sacked when evaluating a referee's performance (Pearson, Big Sam).

So RK had no reservations about the performance of a certain Mr.Friend after Saints v The Liverpool twelve? Oh!For Christs sake grow up!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david in sweden

david in sweden

Posted
Posted
You've obviously never seen me in operation ��

 

Whitey ....you have a fairly good (if not unique) view of refs. who come on this site.

 

What is your view of those refs. mentioned above.....and were the " bad" decisions ...so bad ..or just difficult.

 

I assumed the ref's creed is ....when in doubt - do nothing ..or is that a wrong assumption ?

 

also ....would you (as a ref.) welcome the help of technology during a game (that all TV viewers have at present) .....or carry on regardless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Whitey ....you have a fairly good (if not unique) view of refs. who come on this site.

 

What is your view of those refs. mentioned above.....and were the " bad" decisions ...so bad ..or just difficult.

 

I assumed the ref's creed is ....when in doubt - do nothing ..or is that a wrong assumption ?

 

also ....would you (as a ref.) welcome the help of technology during a game (that all TV viewers have at present) .....or carry on regardless?

 

I think that until you've actually refereed a game you don't realise how difficult is the need for 90 minutes of full and absolute concentration. Switch off for a moment and something will happen that you haven't seen. You have to stay on top and in control the whole time or the game will get away from you with all sorts of things going on behind your back. It's a bit like when you were at school and you knew which teachers you could mess around with and which had a natural air of authority.The players don't help with all the moaning, whinging, cheating and diving. This is far worse in the professional leagues because more is at stake. One of my last Sunday games at Hamble involved a few ex-professionals who didn't know the meaning of the word 'sport'. SOme were brilliant and just accepted my decisions and got on with the game, one was flinging himself to the ground at every opportunity but never complained, another (a midfielder who had played for Bournemouth and Portsmouth) was nothing but moans and sly attempts at cheating.

 

It should be easier for the League referees because they at least have a fourth official to handle the substitutes and the benches and give an extra pair of eyes for disciplinary matters and at least they are now miked up which should improve communication between the ref and his assistants. Maybe this hasn't helped, you rarely see the ref go for a chat with his colleagues these days. It more difficult to understand why there should be cases of mistaken identity but being verbally assaulted by a crowd of players doesn't help your concentration and these incidents seem to happen when play carries on to another phase. On balance, I think that the referees are being oveloaded but I don't think that video assistance is the way to go. The best view of any incident is in the middle of the park, in real time and with two eyes. I also believe that we should have the same laws for all levels of the game from World Cup Final to Sunday mornings. Television has paid a lot of money and thinks that it has bought the game. Too many commentators and pundits don't actually know the Laws of the Game and make the most stupid comments. There is too much exposure given to the cult of the manager, who actually has no actual standing in the Laws yet gets disproportionate coverage both during the game and after.

 

So, after all my ramblings to get back to your questions. I don't think any of the decisions are actually 'bad', most fall within the range of 'within the opinion of the referee' and just because you or I might think otherwise doesn't actually make them 'wrong'. As for 'when in doubt', there was a good article in The Times recently by Matthew Syed and I risk their wrath by quoting it here in full but I think it's worth reading:

 

Radiologists, like everyone else, make two kinds of mistake. Sometimes, they look at a radiogram and spot a tumour. They recommend that the patient is opened up so that exploratory surgery can be undertaken. It is then that they may discover that there was no tumour after all. This is a type I error: an error of commission.

But radiologists can make a different kind of mistake too. They could look at a radiogram, decide that there is nothing wrong with the patient, and give them the all clear. No exploratory surgery is undertaken. The patient goes home reassured. And yet, the radiologist may have failed to spot a tumour that really is there. This is a type II error: an error of omission.

Errors are important in life, because they show us where we are going wrong, and how we can put things right. But the curious thing is that, across most parts of the world, we often have a very different attitude to type I compared with type II errors.

In the legal system, this difference is rather obvious. Most societies have come to the view (rightly or wrongly) that it is worse to put an innocent man in jail (type I) than to allow a guilty man to walk free (type II). This is why we have a whole range of institutions (presumption of innocence, “beyond reasonable doubt” as a threshold to conviction, etc) to guard against type I errors.

In football, a similar type of reasoning applies. Referees are acutely conscious of type I errors. They hate to blow the whistle for a foul, particularly a penalty, only to find out (when the decision has been analysed exhaustively on Sky Sports) that there was no foul after all. They are far more inclined to let a foul go, because the consequences to their reputation are less severe.

As Howard Webb, arguably the finest English referee of recent times, put it in an interview on these pages yesterday: “There is a feeling in refereeing that it is a bigger mistake to give something that wasn’t there than to miss giving something that was there.”

But why is this? It is not difficult to see that referees are responding to public sentiment. Fans and commentators detest type I errors. Indeed, pundits will often say: “You should never give a penalty unless you are 100 per cent sure.” They also say “referees should never guess”, which amounts to the same thing. The idea is that there is something worse about mistakenly calling a foul than in mistakenly missing one.

I suspect that fans are also more sensitive to type I errors because of the analogy with criminal justice. It seems unfair, almost morally affronting, for an innocent player to be penalised for a foul he did not commit. It offends deep sensibilities. Observe Match of the Day or Twitter after a type I error, particularly one that sways a result, and you will notice a level of outrage that rarely attaches itself to type II errors.

But I would argue that football should try to eliminate this imbalance. After all, the consequences of missing a foul are no less serious than wrongly awarding one. There are behavioural consequences, too. When referees are nervous about type I errors, they avoid blowing the whistle unless they are certain of a foul. But this provides scope for tugs on the shirt, pulls on the shoulder, kicks to the ankle, and the wider arsenal of subtle fouls that have come to dominate football. You see them all the time — and they militate against the beautiful game.

Football is, of course, a contact sport. There is no denying that players should expect a strong tussle out on the field of play. But what I am talking about are genuine but covert fouls, often committed against the most scintillating players, such as Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and David Silva. The consequence of the prevailing attitude of referees is that players have a huge incentive to commit precisely these kinds of foul.

Indeed, defenders are often eulogised for crossing the line without getting noticed. Modern coaching is directed at teaching how to commit offences that exist within the margin of doubt. But this seriously undermines the flow and aesthetic of the game. How could it be otherwise?

We should acknowledge, here, that the job of the referee is hardly helped by simulation. Diving is custom-designed to coax referees into type I errors. This is a scourge that needs to be kicked out of the game. But even if there were no diving at all, the question of a reasonable balance between type I and type II would remain.

Moreover, forwards are far more likely to stay on their feet when confronted by subtle fouls if they believe that referees will have the confidence to blow the whistle, or bring the play back, if they don’t hit the deck.

At present, forwards are incentivised to tumble when they are tugged because they are all too aware that it is the only way to win a penalty. It is yet another direct consequence of the present phobia towards type I errors. I am not saying for one moment that referees should blow the whistle willy-nilly; I am merely suggesting that a threshold of 100 per cent certainty, so beloved by pundits, is ludicrous. We need more balance between these two types of error, something that would subtly alter the dynamic of the game and encourage referees to clamp down on shirt-tugging and the like that have become endemic in the box. It would also encourage more dribbling at the expense of fouling.

Of course, the most important objective of all is to cut down on both types of error. This is something that Webb and Mike Riley are working towards as they lead a team who, contrary to the present slurs, are impartial, talented and eager to improve. My sense is that they would be helped in this task by the judicious use of video technology. Certainly it would be sensible to conduct more trials.

But until that day, referees could do the game a favour by focusing a little more on type II errors. Radiologists who have taken this approach have significantly improved their performance, and nudged the culture of their profession in a positive direction. One hundred per cent certainty is an absurd threshold for action — whether in healthcare, football or life — when the consequences of inaction can be just as damaging.

 

© Matthew Syed, The Times, March 4th 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted

I've said this before, and I'm sure some will think I'm daft but here goes.

 

Refs need more help. They simply cannot cope with the speed of play, on a pitch that big with that many players.

 

I'd add 2 extra lino's - meaning there will always be an official on the correct side of the pitch.

 

Increase the role of 4th officials, actually get them talking to Refs and consulting. As said, this doesn't seem to happen enough.

 

A video ref, in theory a 4th official could help clear things up by viewing a replay - but my concern is benches of both teams getting in their ears the whole time. Having an independent video ref separate from everyone could help somewhat.

 

Possibly even an extra ref on the pitch.

 

Something needs to change I think, and I don't think just saying the refs aren't good enough isn't going to change much I don't think. Imo, they need a lot more help than they are getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dman said:

Him announcing retirement says a great deal about his persona and ego. Desperate to be a celebrity. He’ll end up on a tv show, 100%

 

I'd vote for a kangaroo or alligator to eat his testicles if the opportunity arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BERMUDASAINT

BERMUDASAINT

Posted
Posted

Perfect ref for VAR, he has been most loyal to the PL brand, he will make sure VAR will have a say on the league table. The FA have neutered VAR to be anything but fair a reliable, just like the match refs, they have gained control "when needed" to accomplish their goals. Was always rigged, now they have ensured the VAR is as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Posted
Posted

I can only assume Mike Dean's retirement is a cunning ruse to earn him more money. In his own mind he probably believes the Premier League will implode without him leading to inevitable calls for him to return and save our national game, thereby maximising his earning potential and cementing his position as one of the all-time legends of English football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
64saint

64saint

Posted
Posted

In today's online Sun it says how Mike Dean is going to be presented with a gold card when he retires at the end of the season.  Almost believable until It goes on to say how he will hate the fuss !!!  I checked the date and yes !!! It's April first. 🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...