Is Incompetence Forgiveable in any job?

There will always be judgement calls, as there are in many professions. When a senior referee can be shown to have made bad judgement calls consistently they should be sanctioned.

 

Hate to repeat myself, but I will, the majority of time after a penalty appeal there is brief window when the ref could call for video evidence - and in the rarer cases where the ball doesn't go dead, the ref could stop play if (s)he thought there might be a case. A quick word with the 4th official who would be seeing the tv coverage and presto. Saints get a penalty; Mignolet goes and we win 4-1. Happy days!

 

Tweet quoting. The contemporary way to criticise without getting in trouble. Very crafty that Elia.

 

The problem is this.....take our first penalty shout, after reviewing the video evidence, would you give it or not? Too many decisions in football are matters of opinion that video evidence doesn't really assist.

I totally agree about using video for factual decisions but even those aren't always straightforward. Jamie Carragher managed to argue that even though Mingolet handled the ball outside the area, it wasn't handball. And how about West Ham's goal, with a player in an offside position going for the ball, Rose appealing for the decision etc., offside or not?

Something glaringly obvious or something black and white, ok. Other than that, it would be difficult as you are simply substituting one person's opinion for another albeit with maybe a better sight of the event.

 

In Cricket, if a call is marginal then the video ref gives the ruling that the original decision should stand. So, even if the ball was grazing the stumps, the umpire's NOT OUT would stand. This is a very clever way around the problem. If a decision is not clear cut "Original Decisions Stands" can be used. The first penalty - ODS! The second penalty? Decision OVERRULED! PEN!

 

Like that idea. It would help in some cases. Certainly, they have to try something.

One thing I would definitely do is have more retrospective use of the video. Even though decisions or results can't be undone, individual players could be punished for bad tackles missed by the ref but more obviously for diving/cheating etc.

 

There are some decisions easily sorted by a quick look at a video, but anyone who has ever watched football discussion programmes will know how videos don't sort anything out. Otherwise every doubtful decision would be sorted out within a minute, not discussed endlessly for days, weeks and as long as people are still alive who remember it. And not enough credit is given to what things look like in real time (which is how the ref sees it)...slo mo can make things look far worse than they actually were. So video replays are both the problem and the solution. Football is a game unsuitable for technology during play, yet people want it ruined by this desire for absolutism. It may be that in the future refs will be obsolete and games will be controlled by virtual refs, unhindered by the terrible crime of being human, and I bet people will still be arguing.

 

Video playbacks must be used in the future. Pretty sure 90% of refs would have sent off Fonte and given a penalty having not seen he touched the ball first. This argument of it evens up over the season is balls, the refs divisions could well have cost us the 3points and that should not happen in this day and age

 

I used to belong very firmly in this camp. I was the sort of fan who talked about "things evening themselves out" and so on. But football has changed. I'm old enough to remember the 1974 relegation year.The effect on Saints'development was at worst nothing and,some would argue,gave us the space to build the team that we loved so much in the mid 70's and early 80's. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that 2005 was a different story. At the other end of the table, it used to be that you'd be happy if your team got a top 6 finish and had a cup run. Now the difference between finishing 4th or 5th is more money than most of us can imagine.

So getting big decisions right is critical. Ask Leicester fans about the two penalties awarded to our Liverpool friends earlier this season. If they end up being relegated as a result of the two points lost that day, I think it wil be hard for them to accept it with a philosophical shrug.

I agree with the idea of only over-ruling the ref's decision if it is clearly wrong as it was in the case of the second penalty appeal on Sunday. Like you, Fran, I can see theTV replays could occasionally provide more heat than light to a debate. So be it. Any doubt the ref's decision stands. Cricket still relies on the umpire's decision, and there are still obvious human errors - but the absolute howlers have been taken out.

 

My argument is that football doesn't lend itself to in-play technology unlike games that use it already.

 

The game could carry on as it does now, and then be halted if the review says there was a penalty. If a penalty is called then it could be questioned as play had already stopped. Within 30 seconds most problems could be resolved, players take longer now bitching to the ref

 

Without wishing to moan, but can anyone tell me what the 4th official is supposed to do, always seems to me such a wasted role? Would rather see one Ref. in each half, this might just improve the secision making process?

 

He is there to get the numbers wrong on the subs board and to sort out the amount of injury time depending on who Saints are beating at the time.

 

Mainly he is there getting verbally abused by the managers, not Ron of course.

 

Is incompetence forgiveable in any job? In a word, no, but in a fast paced sport, it isn't that simple.
What would be unforgiveable, is a governing body not keeping statistics that show whether or not an individual referee is regularly "incompetent" in favour of, or against specific teams.
It was a standing joke that Howard Webb was always the first name on Alex Ferguson's team sheet, but as good a refs as he was, Man Utd benefitted from a lot of dubious decisions, made by him.
The referee's body should be keeping records that show if certain teams are regularly receiving dubious decisions for or against, by specific refs, and act on the stats, keeping said ref from officiating in games involving those teams.

 

I worked for nearly 40 years in a clinical laboratory, and in terms of quality control, which is what we're really talking about here, the two watchwords were precision and accuracy. These two principles can, I believe, be applied to refereeing football matches. Accuracy, or making the right decision, happens when the ref and linesmen get the black or white decisions right, so no false positives or negatives with offsides or handballs for example. Precision translates to consistency with the decisions which are more shades of grey than black and white, such as "was that a penalty?" or "does that foul deserve a booking/red card?" If, in a perfect world, all referees were consistent between each other, as well as internally consistent, there would be far less need for debates like this. The perfect referee would be accurately precise, and precisely accurate.

Of course it isn't a perfect world, so this is where another watchword of the clinical lab comes in: minimisation of error. You accept that error will happen, both systematic error, which is due to inherent faults in the process, and random error, due to pure accident. But all the time you strive to keep those errors to a minimum. What you have to do, though, and this applies to football as well, is measure the amount of errors which occur, and be honest about them. If you don't do that, you will never improve things.

So I propose, that before anyone dives in and comes up with a technological solution, we examine what is actually happening so we can see what areas need improving the most. I suggest that an independent body, not related to any football club, the Premier League, or PGMOL, retrospectively audits every Premier League match for a set period, at least a month but preferably longer. Every refereeing decision can be examined in detail, and assessed for accuracy and consistency. Only then will we know how bad the problem actually is, and we will also know whether, say, there is more of an issue with offside decisions or whether there are more, or less, red cards being given than there should be, or whether, as some of us suspect, the awarding of penalties is a completely random event. Once we have that data we can prioritise the areas which need tightening up, and it may be that technology plays some part in some of those areas.

First though, we have to find out where the errors mostly lie.

 

Excellent post ChilcoSaint. Unfortunately the powers that be need to accept that there is a problem before it can be objectively addressed.

 

Well, there's nothing to stop a completely independent body such as, say, a University Sports Science Department, making a study and publishing their results. They wouldn't have to ask permission to do that, and the publication might just make the powers that be sit up and take notice.

 

Good point. I've wondered this myself. I assume he has a headset so he can talk with the referee and rely all the cursing of managers? And someone has to check the studs of subs - Linesmen are far too busy.

 

Over the years the complaints about referees has not changed. With the advent of Television the referees inadequacies have been highlighted a lot more. Over the same period the players have learned to be more and more sophisticated when it comes to fouling or being touched. It has become a con industry which for me is sad.
When I watch games the ref in the middle makes all decisions and his assistants will not disagree, they wait to see which way he points and go along with it, no matter what they think, or rarely challenge it. Especially for free kicks or throw ins.
Referees do need more help......but sometimes technology is just not the answer it would slow up or interfere with the pattern of play.
We have technology as to a ball going over the goal line why not extend that to the side line?
That would possibly allow us to use the "assistants" in a better position.
Say from a 25yard line especially with in the box, but actually give them the power and a whistle to bring the ball back if something happens within their domain. Their domain would only be a 25 yard x 50 yard area surely this would be easier to manage with less likely error ratio as they would always be in a better position to see.
Let the fourth official be the one in overall charge if a disagreement crops up.
To me it is likely to cut out a lot of the play acting and give them a decent chance to cut the manhandling out completely that goes on in the box. Just thought I would throw that into the hat.