Referees

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Isa Kite

Isa Kite

Active Member
Jan 31, 2011
154
55
28
East Yorkshire
Following the travesty at Spurs, much of the comment has offset the handball decision with some that have benefited us, particularly the Brady pen against West Ham.

I think there's a difference between a soft decision, and a wrong decision. Against WH, Brady was pushed. However gentle the push, and exaggerated the fall, a foul had been committed, and Brady took full advantage of a soft, but within the rules, decision.

The Elmo handball decision did not comply with the rules which require the referee to take account of the distance travelled by the ball, its speed, and the arm position (which has to be unnatural). This wasn't a case of Oliver having a different opinion of the severity of the offence. He saw an offence that wasn't there.

Is it just me, or is there a case for referees to be interviewed after matches ( and after being shown a replay) to justify decisions? Might smarten them up?
 
Isa Kite said:
Following the travesty at Spurs, much of the comment has offset the handball decision with some that have benefited us, particularly the Brady pen against West Ham.

I think there's a difference between a soft decision, and a wrong decision. Against WH, Brady was pushed. However gentle the push, and exaggerated the fall, a foul had been committed, and Brady took full advantage of a soft, but within the rules, decision.

The Elmo handball decision did not comply with the rules which require the referee to take account of the distance travelled by the ball, its speed, and the arm position (which has to be unnatural). This wasn't a case of Oliver having a different opinion of the severity of the offence. He saw an offence that wasn't there.

Is it just me, or is there a case for referees to be interviewed after matches ( and after being shown a replay) to justify decisions? Might smarten them up?
Click to expand...

I thought they did. Dont they submit a match report to the FA?
 
jayc89 said:
I thought they did. Dont they submit a match report to the FA?
Click to expand...

Not in public. The only time we see a result is if a ref is relegated to a lower division for a while. They've cost us a valuable point, but carry on arrogantly pretending that "The ref is always right". That worked back in the old days, but today, with instant replays, multiple cameras, and slo-mo, it's self-delusion of the highest order.
 
How much better would it be if the refs did interviews after the games, explained why they give certain decisions and in this case even apologised saying they got it wrong. Fans would be so much more respectful to refs.
 
bgarlo said:
How much better would it be if the refs did interviews after the games, explained why they give certain decisions and in this case even apologised saying they got it wrong. Fans would be so much more respectful to refs.
Click to expand...

Where would it end?

First we want interviews, next we'll want retrospective action when they admit cock ups.

IMO its the training and requirements to become a pro ref which are at fault. Only those who have never played the game would give a penalty like Oliver did on Sunday. Sure they can learn the rules of the game, but they have no understanding of how the game is played.
 
I think when a ref ****s up a game being a **** like on Sunday, they should be put in stocks and punished by the fans and players they pissed off.
 
Until I've flawlessly refereed a top flight game I find it hard to be too critical.

The game is faster than its ever been and the rules so open to interpretation. Then to make it worse there's a replay from 20 angles slowed down to half a frame per second so every man and his dog gets a better view than the referee did when he made the decision in the first place.

We either need to help referee's (more technology, more referee's, better training...etc) or we need to accept that modern day football will have refereeing errors.

Of all top flight sports (cricket, tennis, cycling, athletics, rugby...etc) football must be the least pro-active in modernising the officiating to make it a level playing field, usually based on some ridiculous need to uphold tradition.

Interviewing referee's or punishing them won't solve anything, its just papering over the cracks.

Football needs to embrace technology or accept errors, not be opposed to the one and still complain about the other.
 
jayc89 said:
IMO its the training and requirements to become a pro ref which are at fault. Only those who have never played the game would give a penalty like Oliver did on Sunday. Sure they can learn the rules of the game, but they have no understanding of how the game is played.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to agree with that, you have never played football to any great level (apologies if you have) yet you understand how the game is played and that Elmo's arm was in a natural position, therefore its not unreasonable to expect a referee to be able to do the same.
 
If I were a referee and I give a decision, I have people slagging me off and calling my decision a joke, I would come out after the game and give my reasoning. Why they don't do this is beyond me. Obviously Oliver didn't see it so he can't come out without making himself look a ****. All he can say is "I didn't see it" That is all the reasoning he can have, and why the **** is he giving a penalty kick if he can not see what has happened?

It's absolutely ridiculous and I'm sorry but it's cheating. There's no way he would have give that up the other end, the Meyler yellow card was for the same unsporting behaviour that Townsend didn't get booked for, it's a joke. There's no other way to describe it, it's cheating and biased.
 
To be honest, given the pace of the game, the fact the referee only has 2 eyes on one side of his head and that he can only be in one place at a time, they do bloody well. They're bound to get some wrong but they rarely do, over the course of 90 minutes they manage to see and call pretty much every foul, offside, whenever the ball goes out of play or whatever, however slight it is.

For instance how many times have you been at a game and thought "that's bonkers, clear as day, why hasn't the ref given it?" Only to get home and see the referee proved right on the ultra slow motion cameras on the highlights?

It's when they have time to think and the opinionated decisions where they tend to go wrong, penalties, cards etc. sometimes they give out too softly or reject something obvious. The chief referees should sit down and make a standard to be followed, brief the referees and how softly a penalty or card should be given and when they shouldn't. That way the referees are better equipped with a guideline to follow and can't take the rough end of the stick by having to make a judgement entirely by themselves in a split second with the added pressure of the crowd and players all appealing for a decision. That way we may see more consistency into what is and isn't given.
 
Mr. Hat said:
To be honest, given the pace of the game, the fact the referee only has 2 eyes on one side of his head and that he can only be in one place at a time, they do bloody well. They're bound to get some wrong but they rarely do, over the course of 90 minutes they manage to see and call pretty much every foul, offside, whenever the ball goes out of play or whatever, however slight it is.

For instance how many times have you been at a game and thought "that's bonkers, clear as day, why hasn't the ref given it?" Only to get home and see the referee proved right on the ultra slow motion cameras on the highlights?

It's when they have time to think and the opinionated decisions where they tend to go wrong, penalties, cards etc. sometimes they give out too softly or reject something obvious. The chief referees should sit down and make a standard to be followed, brief the referees and how softly a penalty or card should be given and when they shouldn't. That way the referees are better equipped with a guideline to follow and can't take the rough end of the stick by having to make a judgement entirely by themselves in a split second with the added pressure of the crowd and players all appealing for a decision. That way we may see more consistency into what is and isn't given.
Click to expand...

All of that is quite true.

But the damning thing for me about the Spuz game was when on MOTD they showed the incident from the angle that Oliver would have seen it. Categorically, he could not have seen whether Elmo handled the ball because his body masked where the ball struck the hand. Now whether it was deliberate hand ball or not is open to debate, as are all incidents where the hand touches the ball, even though we all know according to the rules it wasn't "Hand ball". But why did Oliver even get to the point where his decision is necessary? Surely, immediately it happened he should have thought to himself "I cannot see the ball hit the hand, therefore I cannot give a penalty, even if it did hit the hand".
 
"I cannot see the ball hit the hand, therefore I cannot give a penalty even if it did hit the hand".
Absolutely spot on Strov. How can he possibly give a decision on something he didn't see.
He appears to have gone on that the crowd shouted penalty and he duly obliged.
 
Yep, Oliver demoted, also the ref from the Norwich game has been demoted. That's the best way to toughen them up, and they'll learn their lesson.
 
I agree Strov, but he could see how close the players were to each other and how hard the ball was struck, there is absolutely no way Elmo could have delibaretly blocked the path of the ball with his hand. He shouldn't have given it on that basis alone. Thats what i was raging about at the time. Finding out later the referee didn't even see it just added salt to the wounds.

There should be a system in place where if a referee gets something wrong which causes a goal, he should equal that out at the other end. They do it for things like unsporting goals, why not for bad decisions? Like if the ref let that Norwich goal count, Cardiff would have just walked it up the other end and had a free goal. The 4th official can watch a slow motion replay from multiple angles within a minute of the incident and tell the referee if he needs to even it out.
 
Oliver only gave the penalty because of the instant and vociferous appeals by Vertonghen and the Spurs fans behind the goal.

The ball did hit Elmo's hand so the appeal was genuine (if incorrect) and the ref was swayed even though he couldn't see the offence. C'est La Vie.
Not within our control.

However, Spurs position home fans behind both goals so any free kick/penalty appeal in the most dangerous part of the pitch is met with a
vociferous reaction which is bound to influence the ref.

At the KC, we only have home fans behind one goal and so in effect giving ourselves a disadvantage in this matter.

It needs addressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back