Referees and big calls

We have had 3 awarded, the lowest is 2. Leicester have had 9, not sure how they manage to get them so easily!

 

I think Skrtal has his arm, but Pelle was leaning into him.
I've not had the benefit of a replay, but I thought the ref used that to make up for the first half error.

 

Really pleased to read this Tom,does my head in week in week out to hear "if it's not a penalty it must be a dive"total bollocks.

 

That drives me nuts as well. Along with "he was last man ref, he's got to go" which I hear every other week.

 

From what Ron was saying on MNF. The Dutch trialled a 5th video official.

The way I understood it was the video ref would be officiating the game in real time.
If they spot anything the on field officials missed then they would tell the ref.
In theory that would help keep the game flowing. If the ref stops play then a full review can take place

 

Everyone in media holds up cricket as an example of where technology works. However standard of umpiring has fallen as a result - prime example is not checking for no balls unless a wicket falls. Take responsibility and accountability away and standards may fall rather than get better.

 

I actually used to know Roger East [played football on the same team] and have since I was about 18, I saw the first game he ever refereed in Whiteparish in the Salisbury Sunday League, I also know a couple of other lads who are moving up the refereeing table and as far as I can see one of the main factors is 'Can you make a wet, cold, Wednesday night at Honiton to run the line?'

Think about it, loads of referees and then linos have full time jobs and when they get to a certain standard they just can't spare or get the time off work, to make that commitment. So straight away probably half of your good ref's never go about a certain level.

It's a theory anyway.

Of course to be fair the amount of abuse and physical violence you get, removes another large percentage. I was club secretary for a few years and had to referee when refs didn't turn up. It's part of the reason I have absolutely nothing to do with football at any level anymore.

 

Umpires no longer trust themselves. They call for a video check of run outs when the batsman couldn't reach the popping crease with a javelin. Ridiculous. And as you say, the batsman waits for a perfectly good dismissal because they check for a problem with the front foot. Interrupts the wild celebrations somewhat. And as I mentioned before, low catches are sometimes not given because of video distortion which happens in super slo-mo. I think it has added something to cricket, but it is not without fault.

 

You said it yourself.

If it was simple decision, that didn't have the significance, then I suspect referees would get the vast majority of them right. But it is a game played very fast these days, and frankly is amazes me how many times the referees make the correct choice of foul or no foul. The guy is running for 90 minutes, with a baying crowd at his back and 22 players offering their biased interpretation of what happens, and he makes a snap decision. Under such conditions we'd all get it wrong occasionally whether we were trained referees or not. It isn't getting a bit silly. It's been silly for ages expecting them to get every important decision correct. They need help.

 

I've suggested this before, so apologies for repeating it.
IMO, the referee's governing body should keep a spreadsheet for all officials, recording match changing decisions for and against every team they officiate.
This would show pattern and highlight if a referee is favouring or harming specific teams.
If specific biases are identified, for or against certain teams, then the referee should not be allowed to officiate in further games involving those teams.

I am not suggesting that the referees are cheating, but I think we have all seen enough of the game to realise that some teams/individuals get more decisions for, than against, especially when on their home turf.

I'm also not suggesting that the findings are made public, but that the governing body should have a quiet chat with all referees, with a view to "correcting" any imbalances that show up.
Equally, the referees could refer to this record as a direct means of proving that they are unbiased.

This could also be extended to include individual players, if only to prove that certain players (Shane Long?) don't get the calls they should.

 

The ref we had for the Stoke match was reputedly biased towards Saints (according to a prematch report).

 

The referees a w_____.

Well actually they are not, they just need help. So since football has evolved, become faster, more intense, managers livelihoods depending on correct decisions and as technology has increased tenfold, what help has the ref been given. Goal line technology and erm, erm, erm, oh yes 2 useless officials behind the goal line in European matches who were as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

So come on, let's trial some review technology, not for players who may miss out on a bonus, not for the manager who may lose his job but for us fans who pay a fair sum to watch a fair game of football. Why should we pay £40 a match to support a team only to see your team lose to a penalty that never was or denied a win for a perfectly scored goal.

We all make mistakes and refs and linesman will certainly do so given that split decision from the angle they view it. We now have the means to help get that fair result so let's utilise it.

Oh don't worry all these wrong decisions even themselves out over the course of a season.. Try telling me or any other fan that on a long trip home from an away fixture when you know your team should have won but didn't because of these decisions. I agree it would not be possible to check every decision made but there should be a couple of reviews per team each game on game changing decisions. It even adds a bit of excitement whilst the review is awaited.

Last time I checked it was 2016, in an era when even Harry redknapp has learnt to text, let's move the beautiful game forward.

 

To be honest I get more annoyed by the cheating and diving from the players.

Whilst the standard of referring is atrocious the players make it impossible.

But football does nothing about any of it so on we go

 

I've asked this before and not had an answer.

When someone's breaking for a goal and you press your review button, what happens? Does play stop? Does it go on until the ball's dead? If the next time the ball is dead is three minutes later when the opposition score, are you going to go back three minutes and disallow the goal?

My answer's the same and is unchanging. When the TV rights are sold, the deal should include a clause. Any replays of refereeing decisions must be shown from one angle at full speed only. Then maybe, just maybe, the pundits would get off the ref's back and we could stop believing that reviewing a ref's decision is a worthwhile exercise. Man up, accept that mistakes happen and move on.

Vin

 

And for all the people implying that we never get the rub of the green, I have three words, "José", "Fonte" and "penalties".

Vin

 

Plus: "Jay", "Rodriguez", "dive", "Villa".

 

If I flipped a coin 10 times and it came in as heads 9 times, would you suspect the coin to be bias?

 

What complete and utter bollocks.

 

I usually have a starting point of all the refs we get are inept, unfit, big team biased, don't know what they're doing ****ers. That way I'm rarely disappointed.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and incisive comments.
Do you referee in the same style as you post comments, on here?
Abusive, knee jerk responses, delivered in an arrogant dismissive manner.

If you are representative of the people refereeing games, these days, then I am not surprised that respect for referees is so low. Especially if said referee "forgets" that you can't be offside from a goal kick.