Referees

[Professor]

Of course referees get decisions wrong. They are human and they have to reach conclusions about incidents in a matter of seconds. Over time, and even over one game, errors will often even out. The unhealthy thing that seems to be happening at present, more than usual, is that some managers seem to be trying to intimidate referees into favouring their club. Mourinho has been accused of that with his claims of bias. It is perfectly acceptable for a manager to say he disagrees with a decision but that should not then be linked to accusations of favouritism or discrimination. The latest manager to have tried verbal bullying of a referee appears to be Tony Pulis. Swearing at a referee in the tunnel or after the game isn't going to change as decision, which suggests that the objective is to influence that official's future behaviour when officiating that club's matches. Or maybe, some football managers are just a bit thick and are in the wrong career. How refreshing that at Southampton, we have a thoroughly reliable and honest manager.

[derry]

Of course referees get decisions wrong. They are human and they have to reach conclusions about incidents in a matter of seconds. Over time, and even over one game, errors will often even out. The unhealthy thing that seems to be happening at present, more than usual, is that some managers seem to be trying to intimidate referees into favouring their club. Mourinho has been accused of that with his claims of bias. It is perfectly acceptable for a manager to say he disagrees with a decision but that should not then be linked to accusations of favouritism or discrimination. The latest manager to have tried verbal bullying of a referee appears to be Tony Pulis. Swearing at a referee in the tunnel or after the game isn't going to change as decision, which suggests that the objective is to influence that official's future behaviour when officiating that club's matches. Or maybe, some football managers are just a bit thick and are in the wrong career. How refreshing that at Southampton, we have a thoroughly reliable and honest manager.

 

Time for technology to confirm the few vital decisions as in Rugby, who cares if it adds another ten minutes if the decisions are right.

[Batman]

Time for technology to confirm the few vital decisions as in Rugby, who cares if it adds another ten minutes if the decisions are right.

 

Agree. Just give each team 1 review per half.

If they dont use one in the 1st half, they still only get 1 for the 2nd

 

 

leave it at that

[The9]

The stuff about "errors evening out" has absolutely no basis in fact.

 

What are the chances of Kevin Friend going to give us two completely unwarranted penalties against Liverpool?

 

Rather than "evening out", what actually happens is that bad decisions just happen, sometimes in your favour, others not.

 

Depending on when and how they happen, they have a completely arbitrary impact. Friend giving the early penalty for the foul on Djuricic last season means Liverpool have 10 men, Coutinho doesn't score a minute or two later, we're probably two points better off, and if everything else stays the same, we go directly to the Group Stages of the Europa League.

 

Fonte getting penalised for handball in the last minute against Newcastle costs us two points, but why would you take that incident and not Friend giving us a wrong free kick decision on halfway against Liverpool later in the same match as the "evening out"?

 

It's completely arbitrary - and also ignores the evidence that attacking teams get more penalties, etc so are more likely to benefit than "worse" teams too. There aren't even an equal number of decisions made for and against the different Premier League teams in a season, so there is no possible way they "even out".

 

As for managers intimidating, it's been going on for years, different refs will react in different ways, some will probably even be harsher on the intimidators to prove to themselves they are "fair".

[sadoldgit]

I don't think that poor decisions necessarily even themselves out and obviously it is very frustrating to be on the end of a wrong one. But there is no excuse to harangue the officials and any manager doing so should be heavily disciplined. More use should be made of the 4th official - perhaps put him behind a screen so that he has a better view and review facility. It is often used as an argument against using technology that it cant be used on the pitches on Hackney Marshes. So what? The highest level of the sport deserves the highest level of refereeing and decision making.

[shurlock]

Of course referees get decisions wrong. They are human and they have to reach conclusions about incidents in a matter of seconds. Over time, and even over one game, errors will often even out. The unhealthy thing that seems to be happening at present, more than usual, is that some managers seem to be trying to intimidate referees into favouring their club. Mourinho has been accused of that with his claims of bias. It is perfectly acceptable for a manager to say he disagrees with a decision but that should not then be linked to accusations of favouritism or discrimination. The latest manager to have tried verbal bullying of a referee appears to be Tony Pulis. Swearing at a referee in the tunnel or after the game isn't going to change as decision, which suggests that the objective is to influence that official's future behaviour when officiating that club's matches. Or maybe, some football managers are just a bit thick and are in the wrong career. How refreshing that at Southampton, we have a thoroughly reliable and honest manager.

 

If Whitey G, Les Tender and SOG formed a supergroup, even they couldn't have written a ditty as spectacularly self-congratulatory as this.

[sadoldgit]

If Whitey G, Les Tender and SOG formed a supergroup, even they couldn't have written a ditty as spectacularly self-congratulatory as this.

 

[davefoggy]

I having been saying for ages that i wish our captain would get in the ref's ear during a game. Ref's have it far too easy reffing Saints. Just think how much influence Roy Keane used to have on the ref. we need to stand up for ourselves against these terrible referees

[lickierambert]

It honestly evens itself out. Fonte gets away with a lot in our own box and Targett has been under-penalised in the games he's played

 

Notwithstanding, it's time to introduce technology to the game in the form of referrals. All other major sports have it now pretty much and it doesn't seem to harm them too much

[mrfahaji]

The problem with using technology is that decisions are still partly subjective. Admittedly, some are less than others, but it stills requires people to make a judgement call. What's the betting that somehow the big clubs would still end up getting more dubious calls awarded in their favour?

 

I think the NFL basis of "significant reason to overrule" is decent, but I don't think it's good to have the game stopping for long periods - that's what makes the goal-line technology good, it is almost instantaneous and is based on fact.

[cambsaint]

When I played rugby, the captain and the captain alone could politely request the referee to explain a decision.

Personally I think that any player other than the captain or offender trying to influence the referee should be immediately yellow carded, and if the captain or offender is aggressive or abusive (I don't mean using the f word as an illiterate descriptor btw) they should be yellow or red carded.

I also think that when the game has stopped technology can be used, each manager having one appeal each half, and the referee can be allowed to review any incident as long as play has stopped.

It's a difficult area, but if we get decent administration in UEFA and FIFA- probably hoping for too much in the latter, then headway can be made.

The current situation that a weak little bit of retaliation leads to an instant red, but a number of players surrounding and haranguing the referee isn't punished is ludicrous.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The problem with referees isn't the lack of videos but of consistency . More and more they are being encouraged to " manage " the game , rather than follow the rules . Once they start " managing " the game , you end up with unfairness and inconsistent decisions . Lucas committed a yellow card offence against Chelsea which should have resulted in a sending off . Tough decision to make , which maybe changes the whole game, so clattenburg " manages " the game and keeps 11v11. Much easier for the same ref to send Palaces Gayle off for 2 yellows or for Sundays ref to send Victor off with minutes left . Funny how in the interests of keeping 11v11 the big clubs seem to be the ones benefitting .

[Whitey Grandad]

If Whitey G, Les Tender and SOG formed a supergroup, even they couldn't have written a ditty as spectacularly self-congratulatory as this.

Did somebody call?

 

In my opinion TV has too much influence already and I blame Sky as much as anybody. Their so-called analysis just consists of trying to make a controversy out of something that doesn't exist. Football as it exists is a wonderful game but the laws are by their very nature imprecise and depend on an individual making a quick decision and I see nothing wrong with that. From what I have seen of cricket and especially rugby I don't think that the TV referee does anything to enhance the game and only leads to delays and confusion.

[sadoldgit]

It honestly evens itself out. Fonte gets away with a lot in our own box and Targett has been under-penalised in the games he's played

 

Notwithstanding, it's time to introduce technology to the game in the form of referrals. All other major sports have it now pretty much and it doesn't seem to harm them too much

 

So Fonte and Targett commit 5 fouls which should have been penalties but are not given in a season and we have 5 nailed on penalties for us denied in a season? It really doesn't work like that.

[sadoldgit]

Did somebody call?

 

In my opinion TV has too much influence already and I blame Sky as much as anybody. Their so-called analysis just consists of trying to make a controversy out of something that doesn't exist. Football as it exists is a wonderful game but the laws are by their very nature imprecise and depend on an individual making a quick decision and I see nothing wrong with that. From what I have seen of cricket and especially rugby I don't think that the TV referee does anything to enhance the game and only leads to delays and confusion.

 

Apparently we are going to be the new Emerson, Lake & Palmer. We are Grandad, Tender & Git.

[Jimmy_D]

I wouldn't give any sort of review to the teams personally.

 

It's ridiculous though, that the referees don't have some sort of access to the technology themselves.

 

People would still end up feeling hard done by, wrong calls would made, but the right calls would be made more often.

[Cosmic]

Football has much to learn from rugby. For a start, we should adopt (and enforce) the same approach to interaction with the ref - i.e. everyone shows some actual respect and only the captain can query decisions. The refs should were mics too. The refs should also be allowed to give interviews again to explain decisions, which would also help humanise them. As for technology/referrals, I'm fairly open to it. Max one per side per game I think though or it'll be too disruptive. But I generally think referrals in other sports work best when the decision to refer is made by the ref himself rather then the captains though. Perhaps refs could have licence to review decisions relating to penalty appeals and possible red card offences...?

[The9]

I wouldn't give any sort of review to the teams personally.

 

It's ridiculous though, that the referees don't have some sort of access to the technology themselves.

 

People would still end up feeling hard done by, wrong calls would made, but the right calls would be made more often.

 

It seems fairly obvious to me that every significant decision is being conveyed from tv to the 4th Official and directly to the referee where there is time for the referee to appraise the situation (e.g. melees, delay between foul being given and card being given where there is significant arguing from either side about the decision). They're all getting the Zidane Headbutt treatment - someone sees a video near the technical area and the ref does as advised, but only where there's time to get the judgement back first.

 

I'm still completely against piecemeal technology (apart from the proven goal-line stuff which we've seen to be flawless), it's got to be all or nothing more for me - get refs off the pitch altogether and rule everything using big screens and ONLY video tech.

 

FWIW I've been watching a lot of College American Football this year and the number of on-field decisions that are being reviewed is getting completely out of hand - any big decisions can be reviewed by the TV booth, and there are 3 coach's challenges per team which cost a timeout if wrong. But that's a sport with a clock that stops between plays, takes 3 hours to play and has a LOT of natural stoppages. There aren't enough breaks in football and numerous potential "double jeopardy" situations which it would be difficult to explain to a lot of fans who have no idea what's been given at the best of times.

[The9]

Football has much to learn from rugby. For a start, we should adopt (and enforce) the same approach to interaction with the ref - i.e. everyone shows some actual respect and only the captain can query decisions. The refs should were mics too. The refs should also be allowed to give interviews again to explain decisions, which would also help humanise them. As for technology/referrals, I'm fairly open to it. Max one per side per game I think though or it'll be too disruptive. But I generally think referrals in other sports work best when the decision to refer is made by the ref himself rather then the captains though. Perhaps refs could have licence to review decisions relating to penalty appeals and possible red card offences...?

 

Doesn't work, penalty appeals could go 5 minutes before play next stops - what if the opposition scores? Disallow the goal and award a penalty for 5 minutes ago? Reset the game clock? Too much needs to change to make it viable.

 

The "respect" stuff, well that's down to refs having the balls to actually enforce existing regulations, when was the last time you saw a yellow card for waving an imaginary yellow card? Or a free kick for someone who didn't have to fall over first when being fouled?

[skintsaint]

The problem with referees isn't the lack of videos but of consistency . More and more they are being encouraged to " manage " the game , rather than follow the rules . Once they start " managing " the game , you end up with unfairness and inconsistent decisions . Lucas committed a yellow card offence against Chelsea which should have resulted in a sending off . Tough decision to make , which maybe changes the whole game, so clattenburg " manages " the game and keeps 11v11. Much easier for the same ref to send Palaces Gayle off for 2 yellows or for Sundays ref to send Victor off with minutes left . Funny how in the interests of keeping 11v11 the big clubs seem to be the ones benefitting .

 

See, most of us watching the game last weekend thought it wasn't a yellow card. It was an innocuous tackle in the opponents half, but due to the Chelsea players all surrounded the ref waving 'imaginary cards' about people thought it was worse than it was.

 

I'm sure Fifa or Uefa tried to get the rule about arguing with the ref and the ball was moved 10 yards forward going, whatever happened to that?

 

Maybe we can adopt the NFL hankies and throw one on the pitch if the team wants a review of the decision once the ball is out of play.

[hans gruber]

I having been saying for ages that i wish our captain would get in the ref's ear during a game. Ref's have it far too easy reffing Saints. Just think how much influence Roy Keane used to have on the ref. we need to stand up for ourselves against these terrible referees

 

was just thinking similar, i remember the days when Keane and a few others would surround the ref and seemingly "threaten" them, not necessarily for poor decision making though, but because they could and with no ramifications, and damn right it made a difference... gosh i would have thought they were red card situations

[Cosmic]

Doesn't work, penalty appeals could go 5 minutes before play next stops - what if the opposition scores? Disallow the goal and award a penalty for 5 minutes ago? Reset the game clock? Too much needs to change to make it viable.

 

The "respect" stuff, well that's down to refs having the balls to actually enforce existing regulations, when was the last time you saw a yellow card for waving an imaginary yellow card? Or a free kick for someone who didn't have to fall over first when being fouled?

 

Agreed - there is no clear solution at the moment. Just saying I'd be open to a bit of experimentation. The respect stuff is so easy to fix though.

[hutch]

Completely off the subject, but one thing we could learn from rugby is the 10 minute sin bin.

[shurlock]

Apparently we are going to be the new Emerson, Lake & Palmer. We are Grandad, Tender & Git.

 

Not Blind Faith?

Edited 5 November, 2015 by shurlock

[mrfahaji]

FWIW I've been watching a lot of College American Football this year and the number of on-field decisions that are being reviewed is getting completely out of hand - any big decisions can be reviewed by the TV booth, and there are 3 coach's challenges per team which cost a timeout if wrong. But that's a sport with a clock that stops between plays, takes 3 hours to play and has a LOT of natural stoppages. There aren't enough breaks in football and numerous potential "double jeopardy" situations which it would be difficult to explain to a lot of fans who have no idea what's been given at the best of times.

 

Doesn't work, penalty appeals could go 5 minutes before play next stops - what if the opposition scores? Disallow the goal and award a penalty for 5 minutes ago? Reset the game clock? Too much needs to change to make it viable.

 

In a nutshell. (well, two nutshells)

 

Plus a lot of the reviews in NFL tend to be for more objective things like "did the ball hit the ground?", "did the ball break the plane?", "was his foot out of bounds?" Imagine how difficult it would be to judge whether an incident is a penalty or dive, a yellow or red card, accidental or deliberate handball etc.

[sadoldgit]

Not Blind Faith?

 

Better!

[sadoldgit]

Completely off the subject, but one thing we could learn from rugby is the 10 minute sin bin.

 

This is long overdue I think. Every now and again it is mentioned but for some reason they never bring it in. I also agree that only the captains should be allowed to dispute decisions and that the "Keane" type haranguing should be an instant red card. Don't know what happened to moving the free kick forward 10 yards but it obviously was dumped some time ago.

[badgerx16]

In one of the Rugby World Cup games, a player went down after a knock on the head. He was a bit dazed but wanted to continue playing, so the ref went over to ask how he was, and then checked the player's level of awareness by asking "What's my name ?". The player responded "Sir", and the ref said "That's good enough".

[sadoldgit]

In one of the Rugby World Cup games, a player went down after a knock on the head. He was a bit dazed but wanted to continue playing, so the ref went over to ask how he was, and then checked the player's level of awareness by asking "What's my name ?". The player responded "Sir", and the ref said "That's good enough".

 

I guess had he been a footballer he would have replied with "bastard."

[The9]

Agreed - there is no clear solution at the moment. Just saying I'd be open to a bit of experimentation. The respect stuff is so easy to fix though.

 

Mic'ing up the refs would be a good start, no-one wants to be caught sweary-swearing on tv.

 

As a general rule all this "rugby players are so good" thing really annoys me - they have other outlets for their annoyance so they can repress it for a few seconds and channel it appropriately in the general direction of an opponent, footballers doing the same just get sent off immediately. So I think what I'm saying is football needs a life-sized tackling dummy at the side of the pitch and all players should be allowed to run over to it and punch it in the head when the ref gives a dodgy decision.

[The9]

This is long overdue I think. Every now and again it is mentioned but for some reason they never bring it in. I also agree that only the captains should be allowed to dispute decisions and that the "Keane" type haranguing should be an instant red card. Don't know what happened to moving the free kick forward 10 yards but it obviously was dumped some time ago.

 

It was removed from the laws about 5 years ago because "some countries didn't understand it". From my experiences if we got rid of every new law because other countries didn't understand it, deliberate obstruction would be as legal as one ref thought it was in New York state when I played there in 1994...

[cambsaint]

Mic'ing up the refs would be a good start, no-one wants to be caught sweary-swearing on tv.

 

As a general rule all this "rugby players are so good" thing really annoys me - ]

 

I certainly don't think all rugby players are good, however respect for the referee is instilled from an early age, and disrespect is not tolerated.

A few red-cards would soon sort the problem out.

It will be interesting to see if Mourinho's behaviour changes after his long overdue stadium ban.

The sin-bin would be a great idea, (ensure it was actual playing time), particularly as an option for second yellow cards, and possibly for such offences such as deliberate handball which have already been dealt with by a penalty.

A penalty goal would be worth a trial as well.

[stevegrant]

It was removed from the laws about 5 years ago because "some countries didn't understand it". From my experiences if we got rid of every new law because other countries didn't understand it, deliberate obstruction would be as legal as one ref thought it was in New York state when I played there in 1994...

It also didn't always serve as an advantage to the team with the free kick. If the original foul was 30 yards from goal, it gave the attacking team a genuine shooting opportunity as there's space for the kicker to get the ball over the wall and back down again the other side, whereas the defending team knew that if they delayed the taking of the kick, they'd take a booking and the ball would be marched 10 yards closer to goal, giving the kicker only one half of the goal to realistically aim at.

[The9]

I certainly don't think all rugby players are good, however respect for the referee is instilled from an early age, and disrespect is not tolerated.

A few red-cards would soon sort the problem out.

It will be interesting to see if Mourinho's behaviour changes after his long overdue stadium ban.

The sin-bin would be a great idea, (ensure it was actual playing time), particularly as an option for second yellow cards, and possibly for such offences such as deliberate handball which have already been dealt with by a penalty.

A penalty goal would be worth a trial as well.

 

I don't think the "respect from an early age" thing is really the issue - I played both as a kid with the same and it was only once kids turned into gobby teenagers there was a problem - and I actually stopped playing rugby at school precisely BECAUSE of the complete lack of control and respect.

 

Even though playing football as a teenager was a completely nightmare, the biggest jump in attitudes for me was between school and adult football - suddenly everyone was arguing everything and it normalised the behaviour. Presumably the opposite happens when you get to play rugby with the "grown-ups", but I wouldn't know.

 

There's a big difference between changing behaviours and changing laws.

 

I'm not keen on sin-bins because of the impact on time management of games (basically more time-wasting until the sin bin period passes) and the need to shift the 4th official to an official timekeeper role - and making the game different AGAIN to grassroots.

 

As for penalty goals. Just... no. There are plenty of possible sanctions which already punish goal-scoring opportunities etc. without giving the power to make up goals to officials.

[The9]

It also didn't always serve as an advantage to the team with the free kick. If the original foul was 30 yards from goal, it gave the attacking team a genuine shooting opportunity as there's space for the kicker to get the ball over the wall and back down again the other side, whereas the defending team knew that if they delayed the taking of the kick, they'd take a booking and the ball would be marched 10 yards closer to goal, giving the kicker only one half of the goal to realistically aim at.

 

Which of course is ridiculous when you think how arbitrary refs often are with free-kick positioning in the rest of the pitch and the onus being on not punishing the fouled-against side.

[Cosmic]

Mic'ing up the refs would be a good start, no-one wants to be caught sweary-swearing on tv.

 

As a general rule all this "rugby players are so good" thing really annoys me - they have other outlets for their annoyance so they can repress it for a few seconds and channel it appropriately in the general direction of an opponent, footballers doing the same just get sent off immediately. So I think what I'm saying is football needs a life-sized tackling dummy at the side of the pitch and all players should be allowed to run over to it and punch it in the head when the ref gives a dodgy decision.

 

I think the rugby method works quite well - any dangerous act during play gets punished but, when the ball is dead, beat the hell out of each other, get it out your system and then get on with the game.

[Cosmic]

I having been saying for ages that i wish our captain would get in the ref's ear during a game. Ref's have it far too easy reffing Saints. Just think how much influence Roy Keane used to have on the ref. we need to stand up for ourselves against these terrible referees

 

Cannot disagree with this more. It used to drive me crazy watching Lallana being a gobby little sh*t. And it really doesn't have any effect on the referees. The crowd does, but not the players.

[Lord Duckhunter]

See, most of us watching the game last weekend thought it wasn't a yellow card. It was an innocuous tackle in the opponents half, but due to the Chelsea players all surrounded the ref waving 'imaginary cards' about people thought it was worse than it was.

 

 

By " most people watching " I assume you mean you, unless youve conducted some sort of poll.

Howard Webb said technically it was a second yellow , but said the ref was " managing" the game and wanted to keep 11v11 & Graham Poll wrote in his article that it was a mistake and Lucas should have gone . I'll take those ex refs views over " most people watching".

 

My point is that is not for refs to" manage " the game ,but to apply the rules. Its not for them to decide whether a game stays 11v11. Swearing at the ref is another example. If the rules are that it carries a red card punishment , then a red card should be shown. If it means games up up being spoilt because its 9 v 8 that's the players fault , not the ref. Refs are not applying the rules consistently , you'll never stamp out mistakes as they're only human, but they are not helping themselves .

[stevegrant]

My point is that is not for refs to" manage " the game ,but to apply the rules. Its not for them to decide whether a game stays 11v11.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. One of the things that came from the creation of the "elite" list of referees who would be full-time professionals is that the Premier League is able to effectively tell them how to referee instead of the FA, FIFA or IFAB (the committee that effectively "sets" the laws of the game). A few years ago, a pre-season briefing from the PL to PGMOL (the organisation that runs the professional referees in this country) said that too many top players were getting themselves sent off because the referees were applying the laws too literally, and that referees needed to do as much as they could to ensure the spectacle of games weren't ruined by top talent missing games through suspension or having taken an early bath.

[FloridaMarlin]

Did somebody call?

 

In my opinion TV has too much influence already and I blame Sky as much as anybody. Their so-called analysis just consists of trying to make a controversy out of something that doesn't exist. Football as it exists is a wonderful game but the laws are by their very nature imprecise and depend on an individual making a quick decision and I see nothing wrong with that. From what I have seen of cricket and especially rugby I don't think that the TV referee does anything to enhance the game and only leads to delays and confusion.

 

Thank you, nail on head.

 

Sky's adverse effect arises from two source.

 

One, which you alluded to, is the need to fill hours of post-match analysis. The second, is their attempts to curry favour with players by not being critical of them.

 

In either or both cases, the officials are an easy target.

 

And while having 18 cameras at each Premier League game makes for great coverage, it means referees are subject to the sort of minute scrutiny they would not have undergone in the past.

 

Of course Sky want football to adopt technology. As we have seen in cricket, it heightens the tension and makes great television (apparently) as the decision is drawn out.

 

Once broadcasters start to get their way by forcing sports to adopt officiating technology, it doesn't take a quantum leap before they actually take charge of the games.

 

Sky pretty much do that already in cricket.

[davefoggy]

Cannot disagree with this more. It used to drive me crazy watching Lallana being a gobby little sh*t. And it really doesn't have any effect on the referees. The crowd does, but not the players.

 

So Roy Keane or stevie G or wayne rooney have NEVER influenced a referees decision making?? Wake up!

[Cosmic]

So Roy Keane or stevie G or wayne rooney have NEVER influenced a referees decision making?? Wake up!

 

Of course they have, on occasion. But that's not to say that shouting in the referee's face = getting more decisions in your favour. A lot of the time it has the opposite effect on the ref because it just winds him up. The crowd and the atmosphere inside a stadium are infinitely more influential.

[sadoldgit]

I don't think the "respect from an early age" thing is really the issue - I played both as a kid with the same and it was only once kids turned into gobby teenagers there was a problem - and I actually stopped playing rugby at school precisely BECAUSE of the complete lack of control and respect.

 

Even though playing football as a teenager was a completely nightmare, the biggest jump in attitudes for me was between school and adult football - suddenly everyone was arguing everything and it normalised the behaviour. Presumably the opposite happens when you get to play rugby with the "grown-ups", but I wouldn't know.

 

There's a big difference between changing behaviours and changing laws.

 

I'm not keen on sin-bins because of the impact on time management of games (basically more time-wasting until the sin bin period passes) and the need to shift the 4th official to an official timekeeper role - and making the game different AGAIN to grassroots.

 

As for penalty goals. Just... no. There are plenty of possible sanctions which already punish goal-scoring opportunities etc. without giving the power to make up goals to officials.

 

I take your point about being different to grassroots levels but at grass roots level you often don't get a ref, are lucky if you get any linos and I have played in plenty of matches without any nets. Also it isn't much fun trying to tip toe round dog sh*t and I don't think you get a lot of that in pro footy

[The9]

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. One of the things that came from the creation of the "elite" list of referees who would be full-time professionals is that the Premier League is able to effectively tell them how to referee instead of the FA, FIFA or IFAB (the committee that effectively "sets" the laws of the game). A few years ago, a pre-season briefing from the PL to PGMOL (the organisation that runs the professional referees in this country) said that too many top players were getting themselves sent off because the referees were applying the laws too literally, and that referees needed to do as much as they could to ensure the spectacle of games weren't ruined by top talent missing games through suspension or having taken an early bath.

 

Thin edge of the wedge to turning it into WWE...

[The9]

I take your point about being different to grassroots levels but at grass roots level you often don't get a ref, are lucky if you get any linos and I have played in plenty of matches without any nets. Also it isn't much fun trying to tip toe round dog sh*t and I don't think you get a lot of that in pro footy

 

I've never played in a parks match without something resembling a ref - obviously linos are done by the clubs, but the point is that the role still exists - you start making sin-bins a thing and giving the 4th official more to do, it either becomes a ref task at grassroots or it defines a difference between the game people pay to see and the game they play, which can't be a good thing. Same goes for UEFA's ridiculous goal-line officials really.

 

A bit different with goal-line technology; I can't argue that it has been a success, but that's also a task the ref can perform with our without the tech so there's no difference in practical implementation of giving goals at grassroots.