The question i ask is when referees have a good game, they don't get much praise by fans, pundits, media as much as compared to when they make some controversial decisions and have a bad game. Thoughts/Views on this?
Cos most fans hold the referee to a different standard than the players. Referees are just expected to have a good game and do everything right, despite getting paid much less than the players and receiving almost no training. And yet players are allowed to be **** for the entire game as long as they get a couple of goals or assists. I think in general many fans and managers also like to use the ref as an excuse for their team's failings. Like Liverpool fans - too many of them have tried to use the ref as an excuse for the fact that they have simply failed to create and score enough goals in most matches this season, and their defence has leaked far too much. Much easier to claim you were denied by the ref than to admit that many of your players aren't up to the task and you weren't good enough. It was actually quite refreshing to see SAF make no reference to the penalties we could have had yesterday, although he made up for it with his injury time comments - The Watch is back
Good news doesnt make a good story. thats the gist of it really Alan. A ref making all the right decisions or letting a game flow for the good of the game rather than blowing his whistle like hes at a rave makes for a very short and boring story where a ref who makes mistakes and ****s up makes a great headline. Society is as much to blame as the press, we all want bad news. We want to hear how some guy killed 10 people not about the guy who saved a persons life.
I think they do, it just doesn't fit in with peoples conspiracy theories so it gets ignored. I've certainly heard Fergie praise referees but that would be because he's given us a pen of course! You hear radio and match of the day praising refs but Sky don't. Sky just super slow mo every mistake. ****ers.
What we hear are the headlines. The headlines are dependant on what makes the best news story. 'Ref plays a blinder' is not a good news story, due to the cynical world we live in. 'Ref howler gifts United victory' is a good news story, due to the cynical world we live in. In fairness, the ref howlers arent necessarily the best story of a match. Whilst the decisions which went against you yesterday certainly werent in the 'howler' category, they certainly would have made a large part of the match report had you benefitted from them and won the game. However for yesterday's game 'spurs end old trafford hoodoo' was a much better headline so it made the cut.
This is true. I think you also find managers giving more significant and newsworthy comments about refs. You are much more likely to see a manager say that the referee has cost them a game, rather than admit that one or more of their own players has cost them. "We were robbed by the ref" is much more newsworthy that "We were **** and lost" Guess it's also due to the relative rarity of ref howlers (imo at least). In general, of the ten games played any one weekend, maybe one or two of them will feature a really bad refereeing performance. In contrast, only one or two of them will really feature a great team or player performance. So the good players and the poor refereeing is what makes the headlines.
You are right that people do praise the refs but not the extent to the level of people criticizing refs after they made some poor decisions. I listen to 606 and phone in shows after games and you get much more people ringing in to lambast the referee than you do with a caller praising a ref.
I find morons tend to call those shows. Same on MUTV, you get so many idiots calling in. I try and focus on the positives as often as I can, sometimes you have to call a ref or a player up on heir performances but more often than not people use it as an excuse for their sides failings. That includes United.
Yes, probably but that isn't what I was talking about. I meant radio journalists. The type of fan who rings 606 or Talksport to sound off is not the type who is going to be praising refs. I find Sky Sports the most annoying, almost freeze framing just to show where a ref has made a mistake. It can't be good for the game. Do you reckon refs were better before the likes of Sky re invented football? No, they just didn't have their mistakes disected to give idiot Liverpool fans the opportunity to cry conspiracy.
Refs are better than ever to be fair, as you say the fact every decision if picked apart by Sky and its Hubble telescope gives those who need an excuse all they need to cry about it
Would agree that Sky are a big culprit in the referee "bashing" as they like to use their super slow motion footage to try to make out the ref made a shocking decision. Yet these pundits and commentators have to look at multiple camera angles and slow motion footage to make their minds up on a decision such as a penalty or a red card and the ref just has that split second to make that decision. Refs have always made some mistakes in games way before Sky came along as they are not perfect in their job (Who is?) so Sky need to get a grip.
In fairness I think the majority of the time sky simply use poor decisions as their latest pitch in the cry for technology - they only really criticise refs when they have got it painfully wrong, like if a player has dived 3 yards away from them in their direct line of sight... In general though I hate how much stick refs get, and I agree with the OP's sentiments about the one way street regarding referee feedback. They have become like the least popular teacher in school - nobody wants to praise them, and everybody picks on every tiny, slight bone of contention and present this as the reason for their own failings, however big or small.
It's not so much the direct criticism that's the problem as the implied criticism. Every time there's a controversial decision they go uber slow mo to show you exactly whether the referee has got it right or wrong, and exactly what he should have done. Imagine if they did that to a player - every missed pass or scuffed shot in uber slow mo to show exactly how bad their technique was and what errors they made. I don't think Darren Bent's ego could handle it...
I dont buy into this argument Sky use their footage just so they can call for technology to be intruduced. The reason for this being is that Sky only would do this for goal line technology so you could understand if Sky just used some examples such as a ball just going over the line and the ref missed it and not giving the goal. Sky show all the controversial decisions a ref makes in a bad game such as harsh red cards, penalties due to a player diving, ref missing an incident, etc.
