Referees
- Thread starter fatletiss
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
are the PGMOL obliged to release stats on their refs performances? I'd love to see them! would be good to have access to match reports, that'd give us even more to talk about.
Some of the refereeing in many of our games home & away this season has been baffling, and at times bloody annoying. Always tried to give refs the benefit of the doubt as its very easy for us in the stands to be experts, but this season i have become exasperated with quite a few of them. It seems Mr Hackett , plus FLT of course, agrees.
Never ever do this. If a ref decides in our favour he is right otherwise he has got it wrong.
sensible, intelligent chap, that Hackett
Clearly, FLT!
It is interesting to note that the BBC article begins to quote bloody stats. As I have argued for years, the qualitative experience is also valid. "Right decisions" will include booking a player for removing his shirt - bloody hell, that must be a difficult one to call.
But the big issues have to be around the ability to change a decision and technology. On the first, if anyone has the time to find this story then good luck to them, but I recall a top ref in an FA Cup tie between Chelsea and Arsenal reversing the decision to award Chelsea a penalty on the not unreasonable grounds that the foul had taken place outside the area. To give it an era, Peter Osgood complained that the ref had "bottled it". In fact he changed his mind as his linesman called him over and told him he'd got it wrong. It was a big call, and could have made the ref look like an idiot. It didn't because as football fans, even Chelsea ones on this occasion, we want refs to get it right.
Technology could be used as a "super-assistant". The ball had gone dead when Liverpool were awarded that first penalty against Leicester. A quick glance at a TV monitor and the ref would have realised his penalty call was wrong. Given the value of a goal in our beloved game, getting a penalty call right is critical. By definition, as soon as the ref makes his call the ball goes dead. He could ask for a review which would take seconds. He could then either award the penalty or a goal kick.
In cricket, when a batsman is dismissed it is possible to check whether the the ball was legitimate. Surely, if there is a suspicion of offside or a foul in the lead up to a goal it wouldn't be that difficult for a ref to check on the monitor. Why not go the full hog and give the two captains three referrals each before the game? It might even stop the scrum of players around the ref after a decision.
In my view, it definitely is broke and needs fixing. It is no good saying refs get over 90% of decisions right if they are getting the big ones wrong. Saying it's a corner not a goal kick is a pain in the arse; saying it's a goal when the scorer is offside or awarding a penalty when the ball strikes a player's face dramatically changes the game.
I know the FA say the same rules must apply for Sunday League, but this is nonsense. The bad penalty call at Anfield could cost Leicester City a fortune. When I played for the "Dog and Duck" a bad decision cost the referee a pint after the game!
I have a very simple solution to all this. Two steps.
1. The Premier League should adjust their broadcasting rights contracts to forbid broadcasters from discussing refereeing decisions while replaying footage at anything other than full speed. Quite quickly, the pundits and wheeled-on "experts" would get bored with not being able to analyse every single event frame-by-frame in order to pillory the referee who will have seen it from a different angle, once, at full speed.
2. Football needs to man up and accept that you win some and you lose some.
Vin
1. The Premier League should adjust their broadcasting rights contracts to forbid broadcasters from discussing refereeing decisions while replaying footage at anything other than full speed. Quite quickly, the pundits and wheeled-on "experts" would get bored with not being able to analyse every single event frame-by-frame in order to pillory the referee who will have seen it from a different angle, once, at full speed.
2. Football needs to man up and accept that you win some and you lose some.
Vin
Anyway it's somewhat hard to take Hackett seriously when he says Probert should be gone, having reffed er...3 football league games this season. He is right about one thing though, that Mike Riley should take responsibility, he can start by getting on the phone and telling Keith to f*ck off.
He's bang out of order having a go at Probert when he's been injured all season.
Nonsense. Mane got fouled in the build up to Hazard's goal. The ref gave us nothing second half. Mane got fouled by a swarm of Chelsea players multiple times late in the game when he tried to run it out of defence and got nothing. Fabregas did get tripped, but he was already looking for it. The ref didn't look like he had money on us not to lose at all.
Two challenges per game to a video ref need to be given to each team. It also needs to be used to help the referees like Lambo mentions above. Like they use the third umpire in cricket.
That only works if the game has stopped and as sure as eggs are eggs, it will get abused to stop momentum.
I agree with this, however, there is no problem in identifying that a standard is slipping and something needs to be done to improve it.
As usual the devil is in the detail. I've asked this some time ago in a separate thread but you need to be very clear about what you're suggesting. One example might be if you're talking about a challenge by a manager, what time limit are you putting on it? I remember Man C scoring about nine or ten seconds after a Saints corner the other year. If there'd been an infringement at the corner (I seem to recall there was one), how long would our manager have had? Would the goal have nullified his challenge? If not, he has nothing to lose by challenging. If the goal might be nullified, then it's in his interests to press the button when he sees Man C breaking away.F
Football's fast flowing, so challenges would be abused. Cricket has a natural dead ball break after a ball and in rugby it's after a try or suspected try, when the ball is dead. In football it could be five minutes before the ball is dead.
This might all sound picky but it's one thing to say "we must use technology". It's another thing entirely working out a way to use it that doesn't kill the game or leave challenges open to abuse.
Vin
That's just about my position, I'm not morally opposed, just don't think it will work. If someone (Platini) comes up with a workable idea and wants to start trialling it, then I'm all in favour of that. I also think goal line technology has set the bar in terms of the amount of actual interference with the game flow they will allow technology to have (i.e. none), so don't expect rugby style TMO reviews to enter the conversation.