You watch a match like last night's and the referee totally dominated the game. His decision after less than one minute affected the outcome of the whole match. It is often said that the best referees are almost invisible. Is a good referee one who sticks rigidly to the strictest interpretation of the rules or one who has commonsense and interprets the rules slightly more flexibly. Most referees would not be inclined to send a player off in the first minute of a game unless they had no choice at all. Yet when a player is brought down outside the box having probably lost control of the ball and with another defender back alongside the player committing the foul is it possible to argue the ref had no choice but to regard it as a red card offense. I wonder what the FA instructions are to referees - are they to be robots or intelligent people who understand the game and the rules of the game and are not trying to be the centre of attention?
It's hard to say what makes a good ref - but easy to spot a bad one. Such as the ref in the Asian Nations final who just booked Aussie Robbie Kruse for injuring himself, falling over and not being able to get up - left him lying there for three minutes before the physios picked him up and helped him off.
A consistent one - if Angella was a red card then why wasn't Pudli sent off for something much worse? Sky were saying we had won the last 3 games when somebody has been sent off - Tamas v Huddersfield and Angella v Reading I can remember. What was the other?
I think a good referee should intervene as little as possible - but when he does he should be consistent in his decisions. He should be focussed on the game and players rather than upon himself as star of the show. They also need to have a combination of decisiveness tempered by common sense. Good communication skills with both players and coaches - and they need to demonstrate an interest in the players. In other words I am describing Pierluigi Collina (who should be the role model for referees everywhere) - he seemed to see it as part of his role to make the whole thing as enjoyable and relaxed as possible.
In Rugby they have mikes on refs so you can hear them speaking to other officials and taking support and advice - yet it seems to me too many refs in football are arrogant and prima donnas
I'm not sure, Leo, about the arrogance. I think it stems from uncertainty and a lack of self-confidence, and a need to be seen to be strong without feeling it. A sort of 'gulp, here's a big decision, better not be seen to duck it.' A strong ref will have the confidence when to make allowances, and when truly to step in with the big decision. They are the ones who are, as we say, invisible. And they are the ones we admire, whereas, ironically, the uncertain ones who yearn to be seen as strong, we despise.
A good ref is (amongst other things) is someone who understands the game and not a jumped up upstart like we saw last night.
One of the biggest problems is that if one wants to become a top referee then they are actively discouraged from playing the game. The two PMGO's I've spent some time speaking to (Atkinson and Atwell) both hung up their playing boots at 14. I do not agree with the idea of ex-pro's becoming referees per se but I do think they need to have played the game for a few seasons, even if it's just the "Sunday Cloggers 9th Division" it will give them more of an insight than remaining inside the force field of a CFA badge. Simply put, an understanding of playing the game to compliment knowledge of the laws. Referees (and I am loathe to say refereeing instructors) seem to think that without them there would be no football. Well it would be a poor game, you cannot expect players to police themselves. That said, pop down to Cassiobury Park in the summer and you'll see plenty of games of "shirts v skins, jumpers for goalposts" and they will be fun games to play in even watch if the players are even half decent. What you won't find is some bloke running around in a black shirt peeping a whistle on his own. Extreme perhaps but the principle holds: it might be not a very good or particularly competitive game but we'll still play. Until fellow referees understand that we're here to serve the players and the game not be their master then football will always have this problem. Leo makes some good points and asks some pertinent questions. We are taught to apply the law. We are taught to be consistent. Ergo common sense does not come into it alas. It's the way it is but imho if you don't play the game you won't be able to make the credible judgements (like last night) ditto if you're not fit enough. My opinion on Angella's red card is that it never was and should never have been given. Foul? Yup. Yellow card? No arguments from me. Red card? With adequate cover and poor touch through to the goalkeeper that Usaine Bolt wouldn't have kept possession of: Never, not in the Sunday Cloggers League 9th Division and not in a top of the table clash in the 5th best supported league in Europe and live on the telly. Lastly the best referees are ALWAYS invisible. That is not to say conspicuous by their absence. The mark of a good referee is to penalise offences where required; to let players play the game; to punish reckless, dangerous and excessively forceful play.... Get it right then the offence (or otherwise) will be remembered not the poor judgement that punished or otherwise incorrectly. I did well enough to be appointed to middle 6 Cup Finals and assist in many more. Ultimately I did not progress but I didn't stop playing until I was in my late 30's, mixing the two for the last three seasons. A black mark against me for sure from the 'Blazers'.
There have been many occasions in the first few minutes of a game when I have seen a player commit a foul, where the ref has blown up for the free kick and given the player a talking to. Some officials seem to be able to control a game by being reasonable in this way, allowing for the fact that the game is only just underway, players are only just getting up to speed and working out what type of player they are up against. Maybe a ref should also realize that he is also only beginning to feel his way into the game and should be giving himself the benefit of doubt about just how much he needs to impose himself on the game. To go in all guns blazing should not be the role of a ref. He should take stock of what is happening and adjust his role to deal with how the two teams are playing against each other. No ref can work that out in 26 seconds.
I want to see some degree of accountability to us, the paying public. I want to hear why they made certain decisions and either justify them or accept they made mistakes. They should be available to be interviewed. They should also publish the assessors reports for each and every game. Until this happens they will continue to unaccountable, because I don't believe there is very much accountability for referees at all. It's like a private club.
My gripe with referees is, if they make a wrong decision, changing the outcome of a game, that could potentially cost a manager his job. That manager is contracted to talk to the press at the end of the match and if he criticizes the ref by telling the truth, he not only loses his job but also several thousands of pounds for "bringing the game into disrepute! It's the referee who has brought the game into disrepute, referees MUST< MUST MUST be accountable for their actions! Rant over!
good refs will use there linesman the ref last night was in line with the goal so he could not tell how close the player was to the ball but the linesman could have told him. did he go over and ask him did he look at the linesman did he hell the ref panicked and got it wrong
Fit in well with the rest of the people involved in football! Graham Poll is the worse and they always wheel him out for opinions when he couldn't even manage to show somebody a red card after 2 yellows I see no reason why they cannot be allowed to speak after the game - after all players and managers are able/made to make endless excuses (which most interviews end up being like really) to explain their mistakes or praise the team.
The focus has been on Angella and Pudil, but have another look at the tackle Arter got a yellow for - that should have been a red. I don't think the authorities are helping the officials in any way - I remember in a previous thread that the instruction to assistants is only advise referees on decisions they see that the ref doesn't unless the referee specifically consults them. Doesn't that put more pressure on the referees? As for the fourth official, why can't they get involved in decisions? If they were allowed to, there wouldn't have been the unseemly arguments at Chelsea after the Costa stamp. As for the officials behind the goals who don't seem to do anything, that has been a monumental error. On the other side, watching MOTD last night, there were some very good examples of referees playing advantage. H-F, in the discussions with Atwell and Atkinson, was any mention made of any talks between the officials, the PFA, the LMA and FSF so they can understand each others point of view more? It wouldn't eliminate errors as officials are human, but a greater understanding might make it better for all concerned.
It is a tough one. Honestly, I´d say a good ref is one that gets every decision right. However, that is not taking into account human error. So, in reality, it has to be someone who doens´t get many decisions wrong, esspecially the big ones and also, someone who doesn´t want the lime-light.
I think a good ref is one that that goes about his job quietly and efficiently not trying to seek out the limelight. moreover I think the key word is consistency, quite often you see refs treat one incident one way and another similar incident differently. How can this be right? I do think however that refs should not try to 'make amends' if they have realised they have made a mistake on one particular decision, keep the consistency for better or worse. H-F I would be interested on your perspective on this point. I once spoke to a senior ref about doing post match interviews, and there is real worry that if they did they would be hung out to dry by the media, even if they are just giving their opinion or advising what they saw or how they saw an incident. I am constantly amazed at some of the decisions we see in professional football, all I can say is that there are four of them out there, they should work as a team not a hierachy, maybe then we will see some of the errors eradicated.
