contentious decisions are made all the time in football, so what? how many times has a player arguing with the ref led to a change in the decision? Surely the only point being made is that there is much more dissent shown in football, there are contentious decisions made all the time in hurling and gaelic football, players don't make bollox of themselves by gesticulating and arguing, they just get on with it.
I have seen decisions changed on both goals and penalties so you can't say it never happens but the main point you have overlooked is the cost of a bad decision. It can cost a football club/player millions and in hurling or gaelic football ......?
really when was the last time you saw a decision reversed in the premier league because a delightful young man told the ref it was not a penalty? A wrong decision in gaelic can stop you playing in front of 80,000 and croke park and being revered by your whole county. What would it cost the players form the top six clubs, in relative terms- almost nothing, there is no excuse.
I can't believe that any player after a bad decision thinks "this could cost me loads of money". There is no excuse for players dissent, passion is not a reason either, they surely have some self control. I have played a lot of football and yes when I was younger I did have words with refs. Thankfully, I had good people around me who told me to stop behaving like a prat and get on with playing. Not shouting at the ref does not make you play worse, in fact in many cases it would probably improve a players game. Certainly would not be against a sin bin for dissent and simulation.
I wasn't one who made any comparisons with rugby but I have to say I really think you've missed the point on this occasion 1950Canary. Most of your post deals with rugby player conduct in general. You seem to be trying to counter a argument that nobody made, that rugby players are angels. Perhaps I missed it and need to re-read the thread but I thought the discussion was about conduct towards officials. If anything your examples of bad behaviour off the pitch make it more interesting that rugby players generally seem to respect referees when on it. You also suggest that rugby decisions are uncontentious. I'm just not convinced that that is true. It always seems to me that rucks, mauls and scrums are very difficult to referee with absolute certainty. Is it possible that these things appear less contentious simply because they are never contended? But, as I said in my previous post, if rugby is a bad example for whatever reason, how does football compare with other sports? Doubtless there are some examples but I'm struggling to think of other sports where players regularly surround the referee to challenge a decision?
Rugby decisions are extremely contentious. Wayne Barnes got death threats when he "failed" to spot a marginally forward pass that knocked New Zealand out of the WC against France in Australia 2009. I think if anything rugby matches are much harder to referee because the rules are more complicated and there are more things going on/potential offences at any one time. The reason rugby ends up being better controlled, though, is that punishments in rugby actually have a profound impact on the pitch and the score in a variety of powerful ways: losing territory, losing players for ten minutes, giving away three points, giving away a kick to the five-metre line and a shot at 5/7 points. Football has less robust punishments: meaningless yellow cards or free kicks with questionable benefit. The only painful punishments in football are red cards and penalties, which are both too harsh for the majority of offences. This is why when either of these decisions are taken, they are vehemently protested. Loss of territory is no big deal. A goal is a goal, none are worth more than others. Football punishments are either extremely painful or almost pointless. It's actually what makes both games exciting, IMO. Rugby is fantastically tactical and strategic - like a mini-war game. The ref has an impact, but generally not so bad it can't be coped with. It's intelligent and interesting. You can get incredibly passionate about it, but that' s'more the relish of being passionate about out thinking. Football on the other hand is about big swings and roundabouts. Who knows what will happen? Fickle fortune and Lady Luck. Rugby has a lot of luck too, but not in a big way. The passion is like in gambling - red-faced, hot under the collar surges of excitement.
Let me put the record straight - I am not defending dissent in any shape or form. What I was doing was suggesting that compared to other problems in the game this is not a major issue and is more understandable in our sport where there is more at stake and more contentious decisions given. My original comments were made in response to points raised in the entire thread and not just the OP and I think if you check Dave you will see that my comments were valid. Whilst I cannot quote examples off the top of my head I am absolutely certain that decisions have been changed and I am fairly certain that it has happened already this season although I also accept that it is unusual. Didn't it happen a few years ago at Carrow Road in a local derby with that lot down the road?
Don't mention the ref who gave a penalty then changed his mind if JWM is around. Just trying to think of the ref for that match. I have to say though, he was a total twat and should never have been let anywhere near a football pitch with a whistle
- Obviously when I made the comparison with rugby I wasn't taking about anything other than the attitude the players have towards the referee and pointing out the difference between passion and aggression. - Rugby can be a far harder game to referee than football as multiple players are involved at any one time any of who could be committing a foul, decisions are just as contentions as in football. an people remember the names of poor referees the same. - Technology is only used at the top level but the respect for referees permeates the game. - Football could use technology too, that is footballs failing no rugby's success. - Rugby is a violent and dangerous game and of course tempers become flared with each other more so because when played wrong you present a real danger to you opponents, more so than in football. - Rugby has its problems and is defiantly not a shinning example of a perfectly played sport, I was congratulating them on a part of their game which i thought was admirable - Yes amateur rugby players can be pricks, they can also be good guys (I know several of each) relatively harsh to condemn a sport based on one coach load. - Rugby in the west country pulls communities together and is part of peoples lives the amateur clubs are generally really friendly places to go. Ladish but friendly and accepting
