Referees

On my way home tonight was listening to Total Sport on the radio where there was a brief pundits discussion about making referees face the cameras after a match to explain decisions made by them during the game.

One of the pundits, think John Anderson, even seemed to accept that Managers say things in the heat of the moment when they appear and was, therefore, unfair on Managers but still wanted referees to appear.

In all likelihood if referees did appear it would, from the medias point of view, just be to replay them their bad decisions and ask them to explain how on earth did they get the decision wrong. What referee would want to appear to just be grilled by the media and probably hung out to dry even more than they are now.

Refereeing is a hard enough job already without also being crucified by the media in public and just having to stand there and take it.

Personally, I do not think there are that many decent referees anymore. I also think the standard of refereeing has dropped greatly in recent years. That opinion is not based on television or Sky but on going to watch football matches from Premier level to Northern League over nearly 40 years. Having said that I think such a proposal would serve no purpose other than for arm chair fans to watch pundits crucify referees in public. Whenever I have seen a referee make a bad decision especially against us it never helped me in any way to later hear the referee apologise and admit he got it wrong as it doesn't change the decision and I already knew he had got it wrong.

Interested to hear how others feel and whether anyone does think it would be a good idea and, if so, why.

 

More ex-players should be offered refereeing roles. They know the old tricks of the game and would probably command greater respect.

Referees don't have to go in front of the cameras, but maybe the report that they submit after the match should be made public?

 

What is the point of relying on an on-pitch referee whose view is going to be limited when we have access to so many different cameras and angles anyway. I don't give a **** about the "flow" of the game, I give a **** about consistency and fairness.

 

This. Interviews can be twisted, but releasing the reports would be useful, and fascinating for the neutral.

 

Would also love to see is the report of the official in the crowd rating the referees performance.

 

Have said for a while that refs need to review all footage after game (say next day) and make comment eg that would have been red if I saw it properly.

Decisions cam then be adjusted (suspensions) and refs can be judged on how many they would change and how many they got right

 

They should have a video ref look instantly at every major decision and directfly feed that decision to the refs earpiece, wouldnt take long and it would mean less **** ups, more fairness and more drop-balls.


Why do people think it would kill the game?

 

Referees are under enough pressure as it is.

We don't need referees facing the cameras, we need refereeing cameras - a 5th official with a big ****-off tv.

 

The only thing we really need, in my view, is a single opportunity to challenge the ref per half, per team.

If the ref makes a decision, each manager has one option to challenge it per half. When that happens, video evidence is observed by an independent team, and then the final decision is given based on that. If there's an on-site independent adjudicator, then a review of any decision should take 30 seconds tops.

 

... yeah, you and Paul Jewell.

 

Totally agree.

Also agree with Chappaz in principle.

Never could understand the arguement that part of football was the "craic" after the game about wrong refereeing decisions. Maybe years ago but not now when the technology is there and there is so much at stake financially to Clubs.

 

Don't referees have to retire at 44/45? That wouldn't give a footballer a huge amount of time by the time they've trained to be a ref and made their way up through the system. Also, having competed against and personally knowing a lot of the players they'd be refereeing they're likely to be biased.

I don't think ref's should be made to face the media, but they should admit to mistakes so we don't get all this furore about inconsistent refereeing. If they stubbornly stand by poor decisions (like they do) the players don't know where they stand.

 

i believe man united have 12 players when a certain referee is on the pitch with them scum

 

I'm the opposite. If I wanted to watch some crappy stop start sport I'd watch rugby. Premier League football is supposed to be fast and frantic, nothing ruins a game more than needless stoppages, save the analysis for HT/FT.

 

Harper is a fully qualified referee. It'd be great if he did it after his career

 

And your feelings on incorrect decisions? It's no use analysing them (and even correcting them) at half time, the Rodwell decision in the Merseyside derby's a good example - sent off incorrectly after about 5 minutes, completely changed the game.
We have stoppage time already, even if it is incorrectly applied (IMO, every time the ball stops moving, so should the clock - no more "Fergie time")

I think people have to make sacrifices. I also think the Respect campaign needs to be brought back but this time with a zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the field.

 

The sacrifice in my opinion, is that we should put up with the occasional injustice for the good of the spectacle. Also how often do we get people disagreeing even after numerous replays and camera angles? Do we have one person viewing them, a jury, how long is it all going to take? If someone is incorrectly flagged offside when played through on goal, how do we correct that? Do we allow the phase of play to continue and then analyse it about a minute later, or stop play straight away, get everyone to assume the positions they were in and then try and have the ref role the ball through?

Goal line technology should be in, but video refereeing is completely unfeasible.

Agree with this. Dissent and playacting has to be stamped out of the game. The hypocrisy of managers criticising Mancini for brandishing an imaginary card has annoyed me this week. How is that that any worse than the antics of every other manager running up and down the touchline with their arms in the air, screaming in the face of the fourth official? I don't want to see players ultimately being sent off, but in the long run players will learn to conduct themselves with a lot more decorum if they know they'll be punished.

 

that howard webb is all for manure

 

For me there would be two aspects running together.

Firstly, video reviews by 4th official and/or Referee for any sending off, booking, disputed goal, or penalty.

Secondly, the call for a video review only on those points in point one could either be at decision of referee or be one of say three appeals that captain of one of the teams could request each half. Open to comment on actual number of appeals but a bit of a blend between what happens in cricket, rugby league and american football.

 

I have been 100% against video technology for anything other that using it to determine whether the ball has crossed the line or not. But watching El Clasico the other night, I saw a few things that made me think. Pepe's dive clutching his face for instance. Could the ref have allowed play to go on whilst someone watched the footage back relaying the information back to the ref? He wouldn't have to say much, "never touched the ****" and then when the ball goes out of play, ref can book him. Pepe can't really argue (although I'm sure he would) as he knows himself that nothing happened. Play can just carry on as normal. No 30 second stoppages waiting for the replays.

And as for refs being accountable, I've been saying this for ages. They should get interviewed on MOTD and Sky and should be asked what they were playing at when they made x, y and z decisions. I think it would make the fans, players and managers happy, as it currently looks like they can make season changing decisions and not be held at all accountable for them.