As there seem to be several poor refs about of late i thought now would be a good time to do this. Currently all officials are observed and if they have a poor performance they are demoted down the leagues. So if a premiership ref has a bad performance then he gets dumped in the championship and so on. This just means that more games get ruined and no-one learns anything. This has to change and soon!!! My idea is for a rating system. Each manager, the players and the fans have a vote of how well (or badly) they thinks the ref and his officials did in the match. They rate the officials out of 10. If the officials get 8/9/10 then there are no repercussions as these are reasonable scores. If the officials get 6/7 then they are made to have a meeting with the observer and they must watch the game back and see what they did wrong with help from notes made by the two teams. If they get <5 then they are suspended for a week and made to take an exam and undergo a training day to tell them where they went wrong. If the officials get <5 more than once in a month (4 games) then they are suspended for the next month and made to re-sit their exam to prove that they are competent. This should prevent the officials making the same mistakes week in week out with no repercussions. It damages the game and as Mark Hughes said teams are loosing faith in the officials.
I think its safe to say if a team loses most of their fans would vote against the officials, to a certain extent the same could even be said about the players. How would you stop bias? Also, if a ref gives a penalty, chances are the other team will rate the ref lower. The ref might then give the opposite team a penalty in an attempt to make everyone happy regardless of whether or not they felt it was right. I think there's quite a few issues with a voting system which isn't regulated by a 3rd party.
Yeah I think interviewing them after the game would be good. As opposed to just letting managers moan about it and pundits dictate what should have happened.
I would like to see refs face the media in the same way that players and managers do. I would then hope that they would be more accountable. For me there are too many poor, poor officials and that includes the linesmen.
@ NNW. I think D is right Dan, there's too much room for error when people who have an interest in the game their judging, judge. Interviewing refs is a good idea, there's no reason why refs can't be accountable for the games they've been an official at...and linesmen too. What i don't get is when someone like our ref today, who, if i heard right, has booked 58 more players than anyone else, giving 197 yellows this season (did i really hear that right??), gets to carry on with seemingly no accountability. i'm sure he must answer to someone, but how can his style be justified??
Ok then, it seems people dont agree due to a lack of impartiality. How about we remove the votes from the fans and players, just give them to the managers. How else would you judge a performance? Maybe the accountability will work, but they would never want to be in the spotlight to answer the critics. NNW- How about we stuff them in a rocket and fire them into Syria??
i think the Managers would be slightly less biased. But not completely. Here's an idea. Why don't they have random spot checks. 'Senior Referees' or referee trainers visit grounds, games, and watch the performances and mark them, say, out of 10. 8-10 is fine. 5-7 is a sit down and talk about where things have gone wrong. 3-4 is a retraining course. 1-2 they're out.
No one is going to be completely unbiased. The refs are watched at random games and rated, but all that happens is they get demoted to make the same mistakes at a lower level. They need training to stop making the same mistakes week in week out.
players train for hours and hours a week , refs need to do the same and be paid more maybe in line with players! good ones will get the prem and the championship! the rest will be paid less till they improve Listening to Ollie he wasnt very complimentary to his ref today lol
You cannot pay some more than others. Its not fair. The system works that you can only be selected for the top leagues after so many years of training. You get demoted for a week, but you have to work for years to get promoted. So why punish those who do well. Even i have to admit there are some perfectly good refs out there, but they are few and far between.
I can't agree with a voting system either - far too much bias out there from managers, players and fans alike - but , yes, something has to be done. Personally, I can't see why refs can't be asked to explain any contentious decisions publicly, but certainly not immediately after a match. It would have to be done on a level playing field basis, ie after being given the opportunity to view video footage. I can't think of anything worse than being confronted straight after a match by some of the know-it-all pundits who have had the opportunity to view every incident from ten different angles. But what to do if their decisions are proven to be wrong? I don't see that demoting them makes any sense as that merely passes the problem on down the divisions. I don't know what sort of money they are paid, but surely witholding all or part of their match fees where they are clearly shown to be wrong is an option? And possibly, in cases where no performance improvement is obvious over a set period, a show cause system where they are simply booted out as unsuitable. Mind you, we currently wouldn't be able to finish the season if that were in place now.
If you really wanted to use a voting system, I think random spot checks with about 3 independent officials would be good. Then if they all vote within some bound, fine. If not, take the average of all their scores.
if you start doing well you get promoted thus paid more same incentive as for the players and most folk , ie gain promotion see more money in your pay cheque.
I dont agree with a voting system either , but paid on results (of independant ratings)might help to improve standards and improved education more time spent training as full time pro refs for top leagues etc , use the technology available would help ! granted at grass roots the present system needs to be changed to encourage more people to try reffing
But the system does not work like that. You have to have a certain amount of hours under your belt before you can be considered.
Is this because Watford are perceived to have had another poor referee and linesmen? From reading comments recently we do seem to have suffered more than our fair share of these officials. On the other hand how would a Leeds fan see the officials after losing another player to a red card this afternoon? I don't see Watford being penalised per se, it is the generally regarded low level of refereeing skill across the league. The best of the best end up in the Premiership and if they do not perform they get demoted, so we get the poor premiership referees; or we get some hotshot on his way up. There is no standard standard, either the referee is good or bad, little in between and that will be coloured by how our team has done. Imagine getting Stuart Attwell again, he might give us everything but we will remember him for one incident. He will be a bad refereee for us whatever and a bad one for the opposition if he favours us somewhat. Referees are supposed to be neutral and are only exposed to constant raking over their on field actions because of television coverage, there were never these problems before total TV intrusion. Demotion is not the only answer because clubs will still suffer; demotion, suspension and a re-education course is what is needed. Especially now there is so much money involved.
The Championship, every season, is slowly becoming more and more like the Premiership. I.E a league full of cheats, divers and fairy's going down easily with whistle happy refs who seem to enjoy giving free-kicks and dishing out yellow cards. Give it another couple of years and most of us would rather be in League 1.
