|
Post by stokie23 on Nov 8, 2010 11:46:09 GMT
what a twat.....already got his answers lined up, sticking up for the referee's...he and the ref's shouldnt have a leg to stand on but he bends the words and avoids answering the questions.
How pointless was that interview?
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 11:47:42 GMT
What did he say, like?
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Nov 8, 2010 11:49:19 GMT
Refs are great, getting better, blah, blah, blah.
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Nov 8, 2010 11:51:25 GMT
what a twat.....already got his answers lined up, sticking up for the referee's...he and the ref's shouldnt have a leg to stand on but he bends the words and avoids answering the questions. How pointless was that interview? Yep - spot on. Even trawled out the Pennant one to say it doesnt all go one way, which is a bit bloody trivial (although true) compared to disallowed goals, sending offs and penalties. No change at all, nothing wrong at all, nothing to see here, move along
|
|
|
Post by stokie23 on Nov 8, 2010 12:01:54 GMT
On pulis's idea for clubs to rate referee's ...
'Well, we already have that in the game, by the side of the 4th official is a man from the pfa. He speaks to the referee after the game about what he did well, what he needs to work on'.
Hahahaa how is that an answer to that question !
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 8, 2010 12:03:04 GMT
what a twat.....already got his answers lined up, sticking up for the referee's...he and the ref's shouldnt have a leg to stand on but he bends the words and avoids answering the questions. How pointless was that interview? Yep - spot on. Even trawled out the Pennant one to say it doesnt all go one way, which is a bit bloody trivial (although true) compared to disallowed goals, sending offs and penalties. No change at all, nothing wrong at all, nothing to see here, move along Bringing up the Pennant issue makes him look very desperate indeed. I don't dispute that Pennant perhaps made a meal of it against Villa but had he continued running in the same direction he would have been obstructed anyway by Petrov. To even begin comparing a debatable free-kick (which Villa had two opportunities to subsequently clear) with a deliberate hand ball on the goal line is quite frankly pathetic. Do we take it that because we may have received one slightly fortuitous free-kick that we now deserve all we are getting? Dermot Gallagher - like my arse.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Nov 8, 2010 12:05:39 GMT
Why can't the fourth official tell the ref "that was a goal you wanker"?
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Nov 8, 2010 12:20:11 GMT
Video Technology. Are there any sensible arguments against it?
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Nov 8, 2010 12:25:00 GMT
Video Technology. Are there any sensible arguments against it? They would argue it makes it impossible to cheat Stoke out of points.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 8, 2010 12:27:37 GMT
It is strange that Premier League managers are REQUIRED (unless they are Fergie) to give post match interviews to the media but referees are not. I'm sure the good referees would actually be more respected if they either came out and justified their decisions or held their hands up and admitted they were wrong and and bad referees should be weeded out of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Nov 8, 2010 12:34:01 GMT
Gallaghers argument that it would involve a witch hunt with refs being grilled with constant questions is bollocks. They could have a set number and type of question allowed with no controversial comments by the questioner. They could even have the questions beforehand as far as I'm concerned. A simple "why did you give/not give that decision" would suffice. From the response at least we'd know if he blinked or sneezed and missed it, or if he's simply wank.
|
|
|
Post by foxfield on Nov 8, 2010 12:34:08 GMT
Over the weekend I have watched DVDs of the 2005 Ashes games. Although they have video technology, I would think that 99% of umpiring decisions were correct. If cricket umpires can be so good, why are football officials so bad ? To me there can only be one conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 12:45:17 GMT
Gallaghers argument that it would involve a witch hunt with refs being grilled with constant questions is bollocks. They could have a set number and type of question allowed with no controversial comments by the questioner. They could even have the questions beforehand as far as I'm concerned. A simple "why did you give/not give that decision" would suffice. From the response at least we'd know if he blinked or sneezed and missed it, or if he's simply wank. I think that there could easily be a system in place where by managers could ask for a referee to release a statement to the press after a game, rather that being made available for interview etc. But I think that generally referees HAVE to be near enough untouchable and dealt with by their own, internally, for the good of the game. I remember a couple of seasons ago we were on a similar run as you are now and it all cumlinated with Keane saying he had whoever was in charge of referees at the ime call him personally to apologise and acknowledge the fact we were being very badly done to. Didn't change anything really though. Referees can make huge mistakes but they make an honest judgment at the time I think.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Nov 8, 2010 12:46:43 GMT
How many decisions would have been referred to the video ref on Saturday? Probably 2, the penno and the hand ball. Referring it to a video ref would have added 30-45 seconds to the game. The kerfuffle and arguing over the hand ball must have taken 2 minutes. The argument that it would delay the game is therefore bollocks. The argument that it reduces the refs authority is bollocks, in my opinion it would strengthen it as he would make less mistakes and have less conflict with the players. Has the authority of rugby refs been eroded? The argument that it is costly is bollocks, all professional football in this country has at least one camera at the ground. Even if having referred it, the video evidence it is inconclusive, that in itself would diffuse such situations as this because the ref would have a get out. It's an absolute no brainer and I cannot think of a valid argument against it except that Sepp Blatter is a corrupt twat.
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 12:48:48 GMT
How many decisions would have been referred to the video ref on Saturday? Probably 2, the penno and the hand ball. Referring it to a video ref would have added 30-45 seconds to the game. The kerfuffle and arguing over the hand ball must have taken 2 minutes. The argument that it would delay the game is therefore bollocks. The argument that it reduces the refs authority is bollocks, in my opinion it would strengthen it as he would make less mistakes and have less conflict with the players. Has the authority of rugby refs been eroded? The argument that it is costly is bollocks, all professional football in this country has at least one camera at the ground. Even if having referred it, the video evidence it is inconclusive, that in itself would diffuse such situations as this because the ref would have a get out. It's an absolute no brainer and I cannot think of a valid argument against it except that Sepp Blatter is a corrupt twat. I think there is a halfway-house solution to the video ref thing. If people are worried it will slow down the game then give each captain a wild card that empowers them to refer any decision of their choosing on the pitch in the 90 minutes to a video ref.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 8, 2010 12:50:10 GMT
Gallaghers argument that it would involve a witch hunt with refs being grilled with constant questions is bollocks. They could have a set number and type of question allowed with no controversial comments by the questioner. They could even have the questions beforehand as far as I'm concerned. A simple "why did you give/not give that decision" would suffice. From the response at least we'd know if he blinked or sneezed and missed it, or if he's simply wank. I think that there could easily be a system in place where by managers could ask for a referee to release a statement to the press after a game, rather that being made available for interview etc. But I think that generally referees HAVE to be near enough untouchable and dealt with by their own, internally, for the good of the game. I remember a couple of seasons ago we were on a similar run as you are now and it all cumlinated with Keane saying he had whoever was in charge of referees at the ime call him personally to apologise and acknowledge the fact we were being very badly done to. Didn't change anything really though. Referees can make huge mistakes but they make an honest judgment at the time I think. Trouble is though captain, nothing ever gets done and it won't do until there is real accountability. Hushed conversations behind closed doors do little to appease the fan in the stand. Atkinson for example should be suspended for say three games and then made to earn his position in the top flight by officiating in the lower divisions (even though that's harsh on the poor sods that end up with him.)
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 12:54:19 GMT
I think that there could easily be a system in place where by managers could ask for a referee to release a statement to the press after a game, rather that being made available for interview etc. But I think that generally referees HAVE to be near enough untouchable and dealt with by their own, internally, for the good of the game. I remember a couple of seasons ago we were on a similar run as you are now and it all cumlinated with Keane saying he had whoever was in charge of referees at the ime call him personally to apologise and acknowledge the fact we were being very badly done to. Didn't change anything really though. Referees can make huge mistakes but they make an honest judgment at the time I think. Trouble is though captain, nothing ever gets done and it won't do until there is real accountability. Hushed conversations behind closed doors do little to appease the fan in the stand. Atkinson for example should be suspended for say three games and then made to earn his position in the top flight by officiating in the lower divisions (even though that's harsh on the poor sods that end up with him.) They do that right now though. Hasn't Clattenberg been "banned" this coming weekend by his bosses? Stuart Attwel hasn't refereed a professional game in this country since Anfield. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some kind of low key punishment for Atkinson. The problem is, though, that we NEED referees to have a game. It's considered a shit enough job as it is already, and that is with the backing of your bosses. If they started punishing them for their mistakes quite harshly and in what would amount to public humiliation, all the refs in this country will have dried up within a few years and then what becomes of our game?
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Nov 8, 2010 12:55:32 GMT
I don't know of any profession where you get paid £70k a year and are not accountable for your mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Nov 8, 2010 12:57:01 GMT
How many decisions would have been referred to the video ref on Saturday? Probably 2, the penno and the hand ball. Referring it to a video ref would have added 30-45 seconds to the game. The kerfuffle and arguing over the hand ball must have taken 2 minutes. The argument that it would delay the game is therefore bollocks. The argument that it reduces the refs authority is bollocks, in my opinion it would strengthen it as he would make less mistakes and have less conflict with the players. Has the authority of rugby refs been eroded? The argument that it is costly is bollocks, all professional football in this country has at least one camera at the ground. Even if having referred it, the video evidence it is inconclusive, that in itself would diffuse such situations as this because the ref would have a get out. It's an absolute no brainer and I cannot think of a valid argument against it except that Sepp Blatter is a corrupt twat. I think there is a halfway-house solution to the video ref thing. If people are worried it will slow down the game then give each captain a wild card that empowers them to refer any decision of their choosing on the pitch in the 90 minutes to a video ref. If I was a ref I'd want video referrals as a bit of a security blanket if I'd missed or wasn't sure about an incident. As I've said it wouldn't slow the game down any more than the onfield arguments take and it would certainly reduce the off field complaints.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 8, 2010 13:00:37 GMT
Trouble is though captain, nothing ever gets done and it won't do until there is real accountability. Hushed conversations behind closed doors do little to appease the fan in the stand. Atkinson for example should be suspended for say three games and then made to earn his position in the top flight by officiating in the lower divisions (even though that's harsh on the poor sods that end up with him.) They do that right now though. Hasn't Clattenberg been "banned" this coming weekend by his bosses? Stuart Attwel hasn't refereed a professional game in this country since Anfield. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some kind of low key punishment for Atkinson. The problem is, though, that we NEED referees to have a game. It's considered a shit enough job as it is already, and that is with the backing of your bosses. If they started punishing them for their mistakes quite harshly and in what would amount to public humiliation, all the refs in this country will have dried up within a few years and then what becomes of our game? It's a fine line I agree but the mistakes seem to be more and more glaring. If a player fools a ref you can't always blame them but if it was something like Saturday or some of the other high profile instances then they do need punishing. I realise that the referees do get demoted but it is only really paying lip service to things and they are soon back in the top flight sliding in under the radar as a fourth official for example. The job is a very tough one and it isn't something I'd do but the rewards are also pretty handsome now so perhaps there should be a some form of performance related pay. The refs have assessors so if they make an error such as Saturday perhaps it should cost them financially? As you say though, the simple way to improve them is to help them with the aid of technology (although he shouldn't have needed any help on Saturday.)
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 13:01:25 GMT
I don't know of any profession where you get paid £70k a year and are not accountable for your mistakes. You raise an interesting point actually. There are a limited number of professional referees, once we go through them and they are being punished by being sent to the lower leagues or banned, when the non-pro's come in, how do we punish them for their mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 8, 2010 13:03:49 GMT
I don't know of any profession where you get paid £70k a year and are not accountable for your mistakes. You raise an interesting point actually. There are a limited number of professional referees, once we go through them and they are being punished by being sent to the lower leagues or banned, when the non-pro's come in, how do we punish them for their mistakes? Surely that's up to the F.A. to make sure there is a production line of referees to make the step up as the inept ones are demoted? Surely a referee in the Championship should be 'good enough' to make the move up the ladder when called upon?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 13:04:49 GMT
It is strange that Premier League managers are REQUIRED (unless they are Fergie) to give post match interviews to the media but referees are not. I'm sure the good referees would actually be more respected if they either came out and justified their decisions or held their hands up and admitted they were wrong and and bad referees should be weeded out of the game. Bob on forner. I can't see how it could possibly be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Nov 8, 2010 13:05:18 GMT
I don't know of any profession where you get paid £70k a year and are not accountable for your mistakes. You raise an interesting point actually. There are a limited number of professional referees, once we go through them and they are being punished by being sent to the lower leagues or banned, when the non-pro's come in, how do we punish them for their mistakes? A fairer system that doesn't just work on punishment may be better. Referees are scored independantly for each game they officiate, their pay is linked to their performance. If you're constantly shit it hits your pocket - no public humiliation. If you're constantly performing well, you are rewarded. The likes of Clattenberg may be more inclined to think twice before they do what he did at Old Trafford.
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 8, 2010 13:06:08 GMT
They do that right now though. Hasn't Clattenberg been "banned" this coming weekend by his bosses? Stuart Attwel hasn't refereed a professional game in this country since Anfield. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some kind of low key punishment for Atkinson. The problem is, though, that we NEED referees to have a game. It's considered a shit enough job as it is already, and that is with the backing of your bosses. If they started punishing them for their mistakes quite harshly and in what would amount to public humiliation, all the refs in this country will have dried up within a few years and then what becomes of our game? It's a fine line I agree but the mistakes seem to be more and more glaring. If a player fools a ref you can't always blame them but if it was something like Saturday or some of the other high profile instances then they do need punishing. I realise that the referees do get demoted but it is only really paying lip service to things and they are soon back in the top flight sliding in under the radar as a fourth official for example. The job is a very tough one and it isn't something I'd do but the rewards are also pretty handsome now so perhaps there should be a some form of performance related pay. The refs have assessors so if they make an error such as Saturday perhaps it should cost them financially? As you say though, the simple way to improve them is to help them with the aid of technology (although he shouldn't have needed any help on Saturday.) I think my point is though that although they make mistakes, often big mistakes, it has to be assumed that they are honest mistakes. One point I would like to raise though is that, in my opinion, the introduction of professional referees has not improved the standards one iota, and it has pretty muched tied the hands of the assessors etc to deal with them. That needs reviewing, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 8, 2010 13:09:44 GMT
It's a fine line I agree but the mistakes seem to be more and more glaring. If a player fools a ref you can't always blame them but if it was something like Saturday or some of the other high profile instances then they do need punishing. I realise that the referees do get demoted but it is only really paying lip service to things and they are soon back in the top flight sliding in under the radar as a fourth official for example. The job is a very tough one and it isn't something I'd do but the rewards are also pretty handsome now so perhaps there should be a some form of performance related pay. The refs have assessors so if they make an error such as Saturday perhaps it should cost them financially? As you say though, the simple way to improve them is to help them with the aid of technology (although he shouldn't have needed any help on Saturday.) I think my point is though that although they make mistakes, often big mistakes, it has to be assumed that they are honest mistakes. One point I would like to raise though is that, in my opinion, the introduction of professional referees has not improved the standards one iota, and it has pretty muched tied the hands of the assessors etc to deal with them. That needs reviewing, I think. I agree completely and it does make you wonder if the professional referees are as dedicated and committed to the game as the semi pro ones we used to have? Despite all the fitness work and training that they go through the standard seems to be getting worse and players respect for them suffers as a consequence of this. Is it possible to be as focussed on the game when you're earning £70k as you are when you're doing it mainly for the love of football?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 8, 2010 13:21:12 GMT
re the £70k
if I was a ref I would want to make sure I maintained that money
that means keeping your employer happy
overall we all know the big name clubs get extremely well treated by refs whilst the rest of us dont.
you can work it out for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Danstoke82 on Nov 8, 2010 13:28:55 GMT
He was a shit ref when he was in the game, so his views mean shit all to me, just like Poll.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Nov 8, 2010 13:37:05 GMT
I agree that we need to have some form of "sanction" for poor standards of refereeing, but I also think we should have more suport for the officials to make their task easier.
Video evidence might be part of the solution - I think it would need to be restricted to certain very clear situations, not just every contentious decision.
However, one thing the authorities CAN do, and tried to a little, is take sanctions against the CHEATS. Take away the cheating and many of the refs decisions would be so much easier.
Punish the players and the teams who dive for penalties etc and that would surely cut this out, making it easier for refs to get the decisions right. If Chelsea get docked 3 points for a Drogba dive, then maybe they woud stop practicing it in training...not that I am saying they do practice...but, how do they make it look so convincing if they don't? And I'm not just pointing the finger at Drogba, there are plenty more, along with the off the ball stuff, shirt pulling etc. Clean up the game and give the refs a better chance of getting decisions right.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Nov 8, 2010 13:37:29 GMT
I'm all for having as much technology as possible to try to ensure that the decisions made are as accurate as they can be. Yes, it'll be expensive to implement, but it's not like we can't afford if with the obscene amounts of money sloshing around in this corrupt league.
Other arguments frequently used to oppose the use of technology:
"It'll slow down the game. It'll be stop-start like rugby."
You wouldn't expect there to be a significant number of decisions to refer, but as has already been said, it won't slow things down any more than currently happens when the players are surrounding the ref or when he's consulting his assistant. Also, there's no reason why it should take as long as it does in rugby or cricket matches; I'm sure they just prolong it to add to the tension!
"You'll never eradicate bad decisions, even with technology"
As a statement, that's true. It's not an argument though - If it only clears up seven or eight dodgy calls out of ten, it'll be worth it.
"The controversy surrounding ref's decisions is part of what we love about the game".
I'm sure this is true of journalists and Manure fans, but not the rest of us. There would continue to be dodgy calls, but they wouldn't usually be major game-changers like the ones we've had to endure recently.
"It's not feasible in lower-league or amateur football, and we don't want the top-flight game to be officiated differently than at all other levels."
There isn't as much riding on the decisions as there is at any other level. There aren't already a dozen cameras allowing public scrutiny of every single decision at other levels. The refs themselves are not under anything like as much pressure as they are in this league. Whether or not it goes against the romantic ideal of Premier League football being just a bigger version of a Sunday league kickabout, the reality is that the two cannot be treated the same way anymore.
Personally, I'd like to see a much wider scope of decisions being made with the aid of technology, but for the moment, goal-line and penalty calls are the absolute minimum that should be introduced.
Don't expect it to happen soon though...
|
|