I can only speak from my own experience. I have no problems with players attitudes but I guess it is all down to decent man-management of players in the first place! It is very easy for people to just blame inept referees and all I will say is that unless you have refereed football you are in no position to criticise those that give up their weekends to do it!
I'm happy to accept your word for it that dissent isn't a major issue at the level you are refereeing Warky. The thing is, I see simulation, play-acting etc., trying to get an opponent sent-off or carded etc. as other symptoms of the same problem (likewise managers trying to influence officials from the touchline or publicly showing disrespect for decisions). It also manifests itself in the way the media display exactly the same lack of respect, and in the spinelessness of the controlling bodies in dealing with it. In football, talent is too often viewed as an excuse for turning a blind eye, and there is a fear of imposing truly meaningful penalties. PS I entirely agree with you that the problem is NOT created or even exacerbated by the referees. Referees and other officials make mistakes in all sports. Pointing the finger at them is just a way of trying to justify or excuse the bad behaviour of players and managers.
I agree with you Robbie on much of what you have said It does annoy me that Referees are often unfairly labelled as inept by people who have no desire in being a referee themselves! It is quite often a pretty thankless task but so long as you explain each decision to the players then you can get through a game unscathed. What players and managers do not like are decisions that are inconsistent. Football is a game of opinions and I find that whenever I give a decision that a player does not agree with, we talk about it and then decide that I was right!
Just for the record JWM, using your criteria, I am qualified to have an opinion on refereeing! What really harms referees these days is, when challenged on a decision after the match, they watch all the available evidence and stand by their original decision! You mentioned Chico Flores, how on Earth did Carrol's red card stand? Terrible decision!
I agree with you Dave and it makes a mockery of common sense but when has the FA ever shown much of that! In my view Flores is a disgrace and his actions have brought the game into disrepute but nothing has been done! Now on the other hand if that was Suarez he would have been banned. I know you guys dont like Suarez very much (putting it mildly) but the principle stinks!
I have to agree with you on Suarez, nasty, horrible little man, but by God he can play football, it seems most really gifted players have a darker side to their nature, not sure what Mr. Barcelona's is, but I'm sure he must have one!
I think it would help if refs were a little more accessible outside of the 90 mins. When we see a contentious call, it'd be nice if the ref had a chance to say why they made it, even if that means simply admitting they didn't have a decent view. Refs are made out to be infallible by the FA, who seem to turn every hearing into a farce so they never criticise their own. As it is, all we ever get is shoddy pundits tearing the ref a new one each week. Perhaps if there was more acceptance at the top that refs are only human, players might cut them a touch more slack?
One conceivable benefit of abolishing transfer fees is that clubs will find it less expensive to off-load players who are an embarrassment to them. Currently, if you've paid £30M to bring in a player you then want shot of, getting rid almost certainly means writing off a huge part of that fee, plus you have the cost of replacing him.
IMO refs are already TOO accessible. The policy of lessening their aloofness has increased the problems, not decreased them. I'm particularly against the fourth official on the half way line to whom the managers and other staff have ready access throughout the game; also, club staff having access to officials at half time is just inviting attempts to pressurise and manipulate. Once again, rugby seems to have got it more or less right. Do you see the officials being harangued from the touchline during rugby matches? For internationals the managers sit in boxes in the stands surrounded by their analysts and the only people pitchside are physios and those overseeing the replacements. Not exactly like that at club matches, but the code of behaviour is the same.
On a similar point Robbie I regularly wonder how the manager can see anything from the touch line, especially as video links and replays are banned there. Would be better off sitting in the stands with access to replays and communicating demands down to an assistant on the bench. However I seem to remember Glen Roeder watching the fist half from the stands regularly which means regardless of the benefits it makes me angry.
JWM, I don't understand why your comments seem to talk about passion and disrespect of referees as if you can't have one without the other. If you don't like rugby as an example you can look to just about any other sport as evidence that this is not true. In ice hockey the players are hardly lacking in passion or fight (quite literally) but players simply cannot challenge a decision. I find the insinuation that football attracts a class of person that is incapable of being educated, or coerced, into showing respect to officials depressing, perhaps demeaning. I wonder if the real problem is that football doesn't have a penalty to fit the crime, i.e. a sin bin.
The female refs will probably give as good as they get. It's a different breed these days. Rep by the way.
Apologies if I hadn't made what I meant clear. I didn't mean for the ref to be more available during the game to the players and coaching staff, but that refs should have a chance to speak publicly after a match, without being shown a replay. I wouldn't mind if it's an FA-approved interviewer who has been warned not to push things too hard, but just an opportunity for him to be asked "So about that sending off...." and respond openly. I think would help players (who would no doubt watch the interview) accept the decision a little more, even if it was later shown to be wrong by TV replays. It might also help refs indirectly tell players the sort of things they look for in contact/handballs, etc, so the players can learn from that.
@DHCanary Nothing unclear about your post DH. I was just saying that IMO having refs talking about their decisions would just be yet another extension of the same "improvement" that has actually made things worse. Instead of referees being "brought closer" to the players, club staff, reporters and public, IMO their former aloofness should be restored.
There are so many nonsensical comments made here that I really don't know where to start. Firstly contentious decisions are rare in Rugby and when they happened was usually confined to whether a legitimate touchdown had occurred. This is now decided by technology so no point in arguing with the referee. The rules of Rugby are reasonably simple to apply and even if the odd bad decision is made it is unlikely to be noticed at the time or have any affect on that passage of play let alone the final outcome. In Football many instant decisions have to be made which could be wrong - even normal play such as corners, throw ins, aerial challenges etc etc. Do players surround the referee every time? - of course not. Major dissent arises in major decisions such as penalties and red cards. If Saurez dives and the ref falls for it and the defenders, especially the one who made the tackle, knows there was no contact what do you expect to happen even if it is unlikely to change the decisions. Adrenaline pumping, passion at full tilt and you seriously expect a reaction of ' there was no contact there old chap but even though it might affect our changes of promotion/relegation/progressing in the Cup and the red card will mean I lose my place in the team for at least 3 games, we all make mistakes so don't worry about it !!! How some of you referred to Rugby made me think you had confused it with Croquet. This is a sport where players have lost sight in eyes due to DELIBERATE gauging and others suffered severe injuries due to DELIBERATE stamping or stud sliding on legs, bodies and even heads. A couple of footballers get involved in a bit of handbags on the pitch and questions are asked in Parliament yet in Rugby hardly a game goes by without a punch up or two and often you get 20 man brawls of real violence and nobody worries. All part of the game they say - really? where does that appear in the rulebook. And then you get the praise of the supporters. All chaps together on the terraces with no arguments or disagreements. Have you ever had the misfortune to be in a Pub visited by these angelic people on the way home - I have. I was in a village pub a few years ago in the Midlands when a coachload of players/supporters pulled up on the way back from a match in London. Having assured the landlord that they were not drunk and would behave he let them in. They were not drunk but clearly this was not their first port of call and much to the delight of the landlord ordered and, out of a kitty, paid for 100 pints of best bitter which they lined up on a couple of tables. One of them found the piano and there then followed an hour of the most disgusting songs you have ever heard, complete with hand actions, and a competition where each contestant had to jump on a table drop his trousers and pants, give the assembled throng a full moonie and drink a full pint in the shortest possible time. By then the Police had been called - something the coachload were obviously used to - escorted them to their coach and on,presumably, to the next stop leaving the landlord with a lot of clearing up and a virtually empty pub as most of his other customers had left as quickly as they could. I could go on but I will leave it there.
