Referees revisited

[MbrunoB]

shocking !!! just what i expect from you,you should be charged for that but i suppose you`ve already had that idea.

[Pavagrotti]

Quote:

andyetfc said:
Wasn't Voltaire something to do with electricity? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You're right Andy its a Wind Farm! A bit like this Forum really but educational at times!

[Father Jack]

Quote:

lovely stuff said:

Which puts Jim in the wrong as well IMHO, but at least he has the excuse of being asked for his opinions in the heat of the moment after a game.



'It puts Jim in the wrong'.....In your own personal opinion,FJ.


Which is exactly what I said. Your point is ?

Anyway, stop trying to hold JC up as a paragon of saintliness, because not even he would call himself that.

[The Invisible Man]

I agree with FJ's post at the top of this thread, and with Andy.

So there.

[Southport - TOWNER]

Quote:

Cleggy said:

Quote:

andyetfc said:
Wasn't Voltaire something to do with electricity? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You're right Andy its a Wind Farm! A bit like this Forum really but educational at times!

Cor there are some bright sparks around here!

Anyway i go away for a couple of days and everyone on here is moaning about moaning!.

Refs, Lino's and players put themselves in the public eye and must expect praise and criticism (and if you look on rate the ref then yes i have actually praised some refs this season)

As for folks going OTT and threatening officals at half time or full time then that is out of order; and if officals don't like what's on this unoffical forum, then don't read this!

[lovely stuff]

Quote:

Father Jack said:

Quote:

lovely stuff said:

Which puts Jim in the wrong as well IMHO, but at least he has the excuse of being asked for his opinions in the heat of the moment after a game.

'It puts Jim in the wrong'.....In your own personal opinion,FJ.


Which is exactly what I said. Your point is ?

Anyway, stop trying to hold JC up as a paragon of saintliness, because not even he would call himself that.




My point was to remind everyone that no one's personal opinion is any more or less valid than anyone else's.

The reason i mentioned Jim's criticism,is because you infured that only people who were not familiar with football or refereeing would hold the opinion that the refs were being anything but fair.

Just making a point. !!

[Gonzo]

I agree it's perfectly acceptable and desirable for a referee to interpret the game from his unique vantage point with his own understanding of how the game should be played. However, there are certain rules which are not open to interpretation as this would mean that some are playing governed by different rules from others. I'm not a qualified referee, and therefore think that I'm perfectly entitled to be ignorant of some of the laws of the game. On the other hand, if you've chosen to become a referee and have 'qualified', surely you have a duty to those for whom you are officiating to be aware of and apply the rules of the game? I understand that we aren't talking about the premiership here, but it has been clear on several occasions that some of the refs don't know the rules of the game. I give you the recent example of a referee stopping a game after a goal-kick has been taken so that a substitution can be made even though the ball was still in play. Given these circumstances it's only natural that supporters will become frustrated.

 

Referees in any league have chosen to 'put their necks on the line' and as such they deserve the respect of the players and the fans. This respect is derived from the position which they hold. They are the person who knows the rules and applies them. Without respect the game simply doesn't work. If referees aren't sticking to the laws which govern the game then the respect which they deserve is undermined. Neither players nor the fans can know how the game will be played. It simply becomes one man's game with his own rules.

 

I understand that sometimes a foul merits a yellow card and whether it is worthy of a red is open to interpretation depending on a variety of factors. My point is that certain laws are not open to vague personal interpretation and by doing so some referees don't deserve as much respect as others. In light of this I believe it's fair to criticise a ref but there's a fine line between criticism and verbal abuse. Supporters can accept decisions when they're a matter of differing opinion. But it's different when they're plain wrong.

 

[i'm currently lobbying for a change in the laws of the game whereby Danny Clarke has immunity from the off-side rule - hopefully it should be in force by 2004/5]

[The Invisible Man]

I wasn't at the game in which the incident you refer to ocurred, as far as I am aware, but I would hazard that the ref actually halted proceedings as he (or she) had not indicated that play should re-start (with the goal-kick), which had been taken before the substitution had been made. This could easliy confuse supporters. Of course I'm guessing, but I find it hard to beleive that a qualified ref ould make such a mistake, even at "park" level, let alone at Senior level.

 

I disagree that supporters accept decisions that are not a matter of "law". Most decisions are greeted with howls of protest by supporters of the penalised side. But this in a way is all part of the fun, isn't it, provided it is all in good spirit and as you say, no serious abuse ot threatening behaviour. Frankly I wouldn't like to see football becoming too squeaky clean!

 

I think Clarkey believes that your proposed law change is already in force!

[Steph]

I think that Gonzo has written a good post and deserves some consideration however I do disagree with the fundamental proposition in his post that,

 

"They are the person who knows the rules and applies them. Without respect the game simply doesn't work. If referees aren't sticking to the laws which govern the game then the respect which they deserve is undermined. Neither players nor the fans can know how the game will be played. It simply becomes one man's game with his own rules."

 

Any rule requires interpretation. In society that is why we have judges and in sport that is why we have umpires and referees. It is the "judges" job to interpret the rules and, as we are all different, rules will be interpreted differently according to who is the judge. It is one of the things that make sport the drama that it is. Nobody knows beforehand what the outcome of a game will be. They dont know who will win, they dont know the score and one of the things they dont know is how the game will be "judged" by the referee. Gonzo appears to take the view that the referee should judge the game in the same way as another referee but that is impossible.

 

Some referees are fitter than others. Some have more stamina whilst another referee may run faster. Some referees will referee a match by talking to the players and encouraging them, even praising them when they have done well. Another referee may not have that ability to form a relationship with the player but be more distant.

 

In these circumstances a referee may hand out cards willy nilly whilst another prefers to let the "game flow". They are both interpreting the law. It is similar to the situation that a policeman may stop a motorist for speeding and issue a ticket whereas another may stop a motorist but not issue a ticket and another policeman may not even stop the motorist.

 

What supporters want more than anything is consistency throughout a game. It is the situation that Kevin Riley got booked for kicking the ball away whereas an Ilford player "got away with it". Perhaps the ref thought that Kevin's kick was a deliberate tactic to waste time but the Ilford player was accidental. As supporters we dont know why the ref behaves as he did or pass the judgement that he did. But what we see is inconsistency. In the case of the "kicking the ball away" incidents I can live with that. In the case of the two penalties, since I didn't think either was justified I can live with the decisions.

 

Now if the second penalty had not been awarded that may have been a different matter. I was certainly peeved after the first penalty but put it down to the ref being nearer. As I said in an earlier post I had virtually the same view as the ref for the second penalty but was further away. As it turned out the ref in the Ilford game was fairly consistent. I also said that the ref was reasonable in the Concorde game.

 

I have to say that I agree with FJ and Jim that etfc supporters do appear to whinge an awful lot about refs but sometimes the whinging is justified.

 

However what must be remembered by everyone is that you cannot play a game of football without a referee no matter how bad or good he is and I am concerned at the amount of abuse that refs get. It stems from the premier league which is televised where the overpaid prima donnas abuse refs and the refs dont seem to get the support of the FA. It is deplorable what De Canio did to the ref. And the photographs of the Keane and the man U squad surrounding the ref after a disputed decision justified a points deduction by the FA. Players have to control themselves on the pitch and players and supporters have to grow up and accept that the ref has a job to do just as they have and some are better than others.

 

On another day I might give my view about the way that society wants us all to conform!

 

"Almost cut my hair,

happened the other day.

It was getting kind of long

and I could have said it was getting in my way.

 

But I didn't and I know why

I feel like letting my free flag fly."

 

Love and Peace.

[lovely stuff]

I agree with the fact that some rules are up for interpretation,but some rules are NOT up for interpretation.

 

Example during the Ilford game: After a player recieved lenghy treatment on the pitch by the pysio,the player wasn't made to leave the pitch....even though a player in the first-half was made to leave the pitch after treatment.

 

Surely the Rules state that ALL players must leave the field of play,after treatment on the pitch.

 

A ruleing like that,surely leaves no room for 'interpretation'.

[Steph]

>>Lovely stuff.

 

There we go arguing again. I thought that whether a player leaves the pitch or not is guidance by fifa and not a rule. I think that, if it is a rule, it is a stupid rule as I have seen, too often, a person fouled and then receiving treatment and for the following free kick the "innocent" team is penalised as it has a player short.

 

Certainly goalkeepers never leave the pitch for treatment.

 

[lovely stuff]

I agree its a stupid rule...But if FIFA rule's state that players must leave the field of play after recieving treatment on the pitch...then 'discretion' by the referee CANNOT be applied.

 

Goalkeepers are exempt from this ruling,i believe.

[The Invisible Man]

No, it is compulsory to have a goalkeeper. Obviously another player would have to take over in goal while the "proper" goalie went off and came back on again. Even more of a farce than occurrs with an outfired player! Can ETFC buy one of those little electric cart things for injured players, like they had in Italia 90? Perhaps a converted milk float?

 

In addition to the 17 laws (not rules) of the game there are Internatinal Board Directives, instructions from FIFA, UEFA, the FA and in some cases leagues, that all referees receive in the post and at their Referees Society meetings. Clubs also receive these directives, but supporters of course are not aware of them. Given that very few supporters know the Laws at all, it is therefore hardly surprising that most do not understand what the referee is doing or why (s)he has done it, and often assume it is a mistake.

 

There is guidance for refs on the interpretation and application of the Laws, but on the day they must exercise their own judgement - it's what they are there for.

 

Of course I do not suggest that referees never make mistakes, of course they do. Equally obviously their quality and experience varies with the league at which they operate - same as the players.

[lovely stuff]

You don't need to have read the 'laws' to know it's not right to make one player leave the field of play after treatment,but then let another stay on the field.

 

Surely if they are allowed to interperate the laws,they must be consistant (from one half to the next) ,in doing so.

 

 

 

[The Invisible Man]

Don't you? Perhaps the nature of the injury or the duration of the treatment affects the decision. There could be all sorts of differences between the two events. Or (s)he may have got it wrong of course. Anyway I would have thought it's hardly the most earth shattering mistake.

[lovely stuff]

Correct...a trifeling mistake.

 

I was just using the example....to suggest that there are some laws of the game which referee's can be discrectionary about,and some laws that are 'set in stone'.

[The Invisible Man]

Right. This is surely inevitable. I'm just suggesting that firstly, supporters will always disgree when the discretion goes against them, and secondly, they may well not fully understand the basis of that decision.

 

The problem is, as I se it, the more you try to get consistency, in fact the less you get. That is, the more black-and-white hard and fast directive stheir are, the more drastic the result and the less refs are allowed to use common sense and "natural justice". For example, remember the business about immediate red cards for a tackle from behind? There were players disppearing from the pitch all over the place! Exavtly the same with a mandatory yellow for kicking the ball away - there are all sorts of different situations. Foul or abusive langauge (as it used to be called, they changed it now)is a good one. I used to try to use my loaf, or I'd be the only one left on the pitch. Pitch 17 on Enfield Playing Fields is different to a single pitch with houses backing onto it all round. A striker missing an open goal in the 89th minutes with the score at 0-0 is not going to remark "Oh tosh, silly me!" Or if a player said "f*** hell ref, moan moan" iys different to £ref, you are a c***" (that's cheerio!) It's all the tone and the context, but you have to try and give the guys an idea of what you'll accept of course.

 

End of speech!

[andyetfc]

So it was you who missed that open goal!

[Gonzo]

Imagine before you there is a multiple choice question. This question has 4 possible answers. One or perhaps more of these answers is correct yet for some reason you select a fifth answer from somewhere within the depths of your reasoning. This is my problem with some of the refereeing over the last couple of seasons.

 

The refs are not adjudicating the game within the rules. They are often using their prerogative to shape the game as they see fit. I can accept it when a referee misses a punch or gives a goal-kick instead of a corner, but I can't accept it when decisions are ludicrously inappropriate.

 

Usually it is possible for a ref to officiate a match and restrict any grounds for bias by playing the 'it was my interpretation' card. Occasionally though bias has been seen to manifest itself in decisions which fall outside of the realms of possibility. This is either due to incredible incompetence or simple bias.

 

Unfortunately not all those who officiate in any walk of life are able to judge from a completely neutral position. There is bias within courts of law, so why should there not be on football pitches in the ESL?

[lovely stuff]

Well said,Gonzo !!!