Howard Webb comments

[Lff]

I don't know if this is worthy of a new thread but Howard Webb made some interesting comments during the Everton / Middlesborough game which bring to mind many of the debates we've had about referee bias etc.

Having awarded what appeared to be a dodgy goal when the Everton goalkeeper's arm was headed rather than the ball, Everton then scored a goal themselves during the build up to which, Williams nearly decapitated the Middlesborough goalie.

On TV, giving the referee's perspective, Webb said that the referee was never going to disallow that having just given the first one. No-one else commented but actually that is quite a shocking thing to say but it does confirm what we often suspect, that referees are human and incidents aren't always judged on their merits but rather within the context of the game. It also explains why you will never get refs to be consistent in their decision making.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

I don't know if this is worthy of a new thread but Howard Webb made some interesting comments during the Everton / Middlesborough game which bring to mind many of the debates we've had about referee bias etc.

Having awarded what appeared to be a dodgy goal when the Everton goalkeeper's arm was headed rather than the ball, Everton then scored a goal themselves during the build up to which, Williams nearly decapitated the Middlesborough goalie.

On TV, giving the referee's perspective, Webb said that the referee was never going to disallow that having just given the first one. No-one else commented but actually that is quite a shocking thing to say but it does confirm what we often suspect, that referees are human and incidents aren't always judged on their merits but rather within the context of the game. It also explains why you will never get refs to be consistent in their decision making.

I mentioned on the PL thread as well that he followed it up with "Goodison Park is the hardest ground in the league to referee at" - now that shouldn't make any difference at all if you're purely implementing rules. Otherwise it suggests that (as we all know) referees *are* influenced by crowds.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Indeed. At the moment, all you can hope for is that once a referee finds the level of performance, with the first crucial decision, that he/she will be consistent with that throughout a game. Unless the first decision is an absolute crime, of course.

 

[It’s Only A Game]

I don't know if this is worthy of a new thread but Howard Webb made some interesting comments during the Everton / Middlesborough game which bring to mind many of the debates we've had about referee bias etc.

Having awarded what appeared to be a dodgy goal when the Everton goalkeeper's arm was headed rather than the ball, Everton then scored a goal themselves during the build up to which, Williams nearly decapitated the Middlesborough goalie.

On TV, giving the referee's perspective, Webb said that the referee was never going to disallow that having just given the first one. No-one else commented but actually that is quite a shocking thing to say but it does confirm what we often suspect, that referees are human and incidents aren't always judged on their merits but rather within the context of the game. It also explains why you will never get refs to be consistent in their decision making.

I think that's still up for debate.

 

[Lff]

I mentioned on the PL thread as well that he followed it up with "Goodison Park is the hardest ground in the league to referee at" - now that shouldn't make any difference at all if you're purely implementing rules. Otherwise it suggests that (as we all know) referees *are* influenced by crowds.

Sorry, missed that. I think that confirms what many people have thought all along.

 

[Beddy]

Surely it just goes to show though......that watching a match from the stands and actually being on the pitch and only a few metres away from the incident is more likely, often, to give you a completely different perspective. Also even more than likely if your watching on the box you will get the benefit of numerous replays. Even then though as we all know there is still disagreement. What actually goes through a ref's mind as he makes his decision is anyones guess and I think we all would be agreed that ref's do "balance the books" during the game. High profile managers constantly berating Referee's is just not going to help. There is little doubt that the larger clubs do put unnecessary pressure on referees. It takes a very strong character to not be overwhelmed by their attention.......Sadly it seems there is not too many ref's with that character.

 

[St. Luigi Scrosoppi]

Footballers get the referees they deserve. The lie, cheat, dive, bully and try to intimidate the ref and the managers are even worse. I have no complaints about referees.

 

[latviandream]

Footballers get the referees they deserve. The lie, cheat, dive, bully and try to intimidate the ref and the managers are even worse. I have no complaints about referees.

Think the point is that some players/managers/teams do this a lot more than others, and seemingly benefit from it Godders. So while we can sympathise with referees, the game needs a solution that promotes fairness and doesn't reward intimidation of referees. It also requires more referees and the PGMOL to be more honest about a) mistakes, and b) why they happen - which includes intimidation. Until they accept that referees are human and do make mistakes, and they are bothered enough to review why, the situation will not change. Sadly, the current state of affairs actually suits the Premier League as it's easier to sell the brand with a small number of big teams (with large viewership) battling it out for the trophy, rather than a wide open contest that is fairer, but with more uncertainty. It's also easier for column inches when there is some kind of controversy to report, which again keeps engagement levels up. Basically, it suits everyone, bar the smaller clubs, to brush the problem under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

 

[Lff]

Footballers get the referees they deserve. The lie, cheat, dive, bully and try to intimidate the ref and the managers are even worse. I have no complaints about referees.

This is very true, I've been saying it for years. Take a simple throw in, it seems to be an instinctive reaction to appeal that its your throw regardless of how blatantly it's not.

There must be a way though, to stop the cheating. I think the limited use of real time video evidence is one way although I stress 'limited' because in other sports (rugby for example) it seems that referees are unable to make any decisions without consulting the TMO.

The one thing I would definitely bring in is retrospective punishment for anything spotted on camera. Surely even the most stupid of players wouldn't dive if he knew he was going to be banned for it, or whatever is deemed acceptable punishment. The only downside of retrospective punishment is that it doesn't help the team against which it was carried out.

 

[SAINTDON13]

Referees have a tough job at the best of times, but in some cases they can be bullied, it is where they need a bit of help from technology, with it I bet on most occasions they will be proved to be correct or good reason shown why they may have misread the situation.Without any help for them we have to accept their decisions and abide by them, and move on. Players no matter how good they think they are, should abide by the decisions made, any histrionics must be dealt with using the appropriate methods available to the Officials.

 

[Libby]

This is very true, I've been saying it for years. Take a simple throw in, it seems to be an instinctive reaction to appeal that its your throw regardless of how blatantly it's not.

There must be a way though, to stop the cheating. I think the limited use of real time video evidence is one way although I stress 'limited' because in other sports (rugby for example) it seems that referees are unable to make any decisions without consulting the TMO.

The one thing I would definitely bring in is retrospective punishment for anything spotted on camera. Surely even the most stupid of players wouldn't dive if he knew he was going to be banned for it, or whatever is deemed acceptable punishment. The only downside of retrospective punishment is that it doesn't help the team against which it was carried out.

Retrospective punishments for diving should definitely come in. For clear cases 5 game ban with no option to appeal. I see what you're saying about it doesn't help the team it was carried out against but it would soon stop with this punishment in place.

Apart from anything the managers would be more inclined to tell the players to cut it out if they knew they could lose one of their best players for 5 matches.

 

[Saintharry13]

Definitely the limited use of technology would help.

I think it can work both ways too; on Sunday Shane was booked for simulation. From where I was sat it looked an iffy decision and I haven't had time to watch MOTD2 yet, but I think retrospectively sanctions should be awarded/lifted.

If Shane was the victim of 3-4 iffy decisions across a season from different refs, plus a couple of genuine ones, he serves a ban but if both players and refs knew they were being watched, it may raise performances on both sides.

 

[Romsey_Saint]

Needs to be a lot more technology employed to rid the games of the cheats. As with rugby - if there is some doubt about a goal or penalty incident; should be subject to a replay and review by a fourth official. Misconduct - including diving should be cited - just like in rugby again - and hefty punishments dished out. Football always seems to be around 5 years behind rugby - hopefully these measures will be employed soon.