|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 10:52:58 GMT
It is impossible for referees to do their job properly for 100 % of the time. As, usually, the least fit person on the pitch, they are expected to be up with play for the whole of the ninety minutes and make snap decisions about incidents both on and off the ball.
When controversial incidents are analysed post-match, ad-infinitum,, from every camera angle no concensus can be reached by pundits, "experts" nor fans. Giving the new ear of " being entitled to go down" , "diving or not", " is it obstruction or blocking off?" " Is he interfering with play?" "Is he backing -in or holding his ground?", playacting, cheating, and now " intent?"
There is not one person who can do the job properly - it is not possible.
Ok we should expect consistency, but this is also impossible - given the flow and intensity of each match with so many different scenarios and tempos.
Then after the match their performance is scrutinised and basically we come to the conclusion every week that mistakes have been made which could have had a bearing on the game.
Tennis has a plethora of officials covering a much smaller court, where a point lost/gained is not as significant as a goal and yet appeals are allowed.
Rugby and cricket demands total respect to the officials - without it those sports realise that the game would become a farce.
Time to have a serious rethink.
What changes would you like to see?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrispk76 on Dec 30, 2012 11:04:56 GMT
realistically all we can expect/hope for , is consistency within each 90mins, not one week to the next or even one game to the next.
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Dec 30, 2012 11:12:25 GMT
The easiest change would be to acknowledge that what you are saying is correct and to properly punish divers - retrospective bans would reduce it greatly.
Technology for offsides is also easy and a quick decision could be delivered quickly. Expecting linesmen to be able to keep up with play is, again, virtually impossible given the speed of the game.
Denis Smith was saying yesterday that they get 98% of big calls right on average. If that's true it's pretty amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 11:37:27 GMT
The game needs to decide which it wants more. 'Consistency' or 'common sense'. Not convinced you can have both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batfink on Dec 30, 2012 11:45:59 GMT
The easiest change would be to acknowledge that what you are saying is correct and to properly punish divers - retrospective bans would reduce it greatly. Technology for offsides is also easy and a quick decision could be delivered quickly. Expecting linesmen to be able to keep up with play is, again, virtually impossible given the speed of the game. Denis Smith was saying yesterday that they get 98% of big calls right on average. If that's true it's pretty amazing. Yes, but 73% of all stats are made up. |
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Dec 30, 2012 11:48:31 GMT
Just watching motd, and Bradley Johnson of Norwich is a horrible little scrote isn't he, always diving and harassing the ref.
|
|
|
|
Post by jssandbach on Dec 30, 2012 11:54:59 GMT
I would like some experimentation in the more junior competitions - with FiFA approval
At least it could add to the excitement/interest in those games.
How about 6 assistant refs= 1 behind each goal and 4 up the sides. Those behind the goal could also have advisory jurisdiction over penalty area incidents.
Probably gone too far now but I would have preferred a look at a 25 yard line for offside to take away the need for interpretation of "interfering with play" - see fergie's rant on Saturday
On limited restricted appeal I would liketo see video replays allowed for major controversial incidents = a quick decision by vote from an anonymous panel of 3 could highten the excitement and at least take some pressure of refs - eg N'zonzis sending off.
Finally I would like to see onlythe captain being allowed to respectfully approach the ref - appeals by others, yes: but harranging, intimidation and persistent abuse of refs , no
|
|
|
|
Post by barmystokie1 on Dec 30, 2012 12:05:09 GMT
I have always thought the way hockey do it is a good idea. 1 ref in each half. Negates tiring and gives each other confidence when making tough decisions
|
|
|
|
Post by jssandbach on Dec 30, 2012 12:07:24 GMT
I didn'tknow that barmy. Smaller pitch and slower game as well.
Do they only have jurisdiction in their own halves?
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 30, 2012 12:25:14 GMT
It's really simple; bring in all available technology to help referees. Not just ball over the line for goals, but also options for teams to appeal decisions. We were robbed yesterday - 2 pens and an incorrect red card. It isn't acceptable to say things even themselves out. Get things right in the first place. Cricket has done this very well. I appreciate the dynamics of that sport is different to football, but, as they have found their way, so football needs to find its.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 12:30:17 GMT
Patrick
I agree
A real effort should be made to take the discussion about the rules and "bad" decisions out of the game as far as possible. Since the advent of the Premiership Refs themselves have become celebreties
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnynico on Dec 30, 2012 12:31:38 GMT
Have the 4th official sit by a tv monitor and be able to help the ref with any decisions, just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 30, 2012 12:34:25 GMT
It's really simple; bring in all available technology to help referees. Not just ball over the line for goals, but also options for teams to appeal decisions. We were robbed yesterday - 2 pens and an incorrect red card. It isn't acceptable to say things even themselves out. Get things right in the first place. Cricket has done this very well. I appreciate the dynamics of that sport is different to football, but, as they have found their way, so football needs to find its. Appeals are the way forward, like in American football. If the team gets their appeal wrong, they lose the right to appeal again and a free-kick is awarded against them. |
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Dec 30, 2012 12:39:52 GMT
There is not one person who can do the job properly - it is not possible. It is not impossible though to spot clear handball incidents in the penalty area (which almost every other single person in the stadium sees) and to take a quick few seconds in your head to review and replay an incident in your head to make sure you're about to do the right thing. Nobody expects perfection but that is one end of the scale. The opposite end is utter incompetence and we shouldn't expect that either... but it's what we got yesterday. I know what you're saying though mate. More technology is required. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Dec 30, 2012 12:45:28 GMT
Ok, that's fine. I'm happy to say that's impossible to do a 100% perfect job every week.
HOWEVER, like I pointed out in the other thread, if I performed my job as poorly as Mark Clattenburg did yesterday I'd lose it. In the four important decisions, he got three wrong.
1. Clear handball, arm above the head - No penalty.
2. Second handball, less clear but still a handball - No penalty.
3. N'Zonzi nothing tackle - Red card.
4. Jerome offside goal - Offside given.
So out of the four major decisions, he has a 25% success rate. I don't count trivial decisions (the odd 50 50 etc) as they are just normal parts of his job. Any job has trivial parts and ultimately, you are rarely assessed on the big decisions. If you were a salesman and worked on a contract basis, losing 3 out of 4 of them certainly wouldn't make you the best salesman would it?
Consistency is a whole other subject. How is Jermaine Defoe's disgusting dive any different from Gareth Bale's borderline, 'not-a-dive'? He booked Bale because it's the trendy thing to do right now and with all the focus being on him. That is inconsistency at its finest and something we've suffered from at times this season when it comes to poor referees.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 12:48:37 GMT
Smudge
I agree with you - but that is my point really = he did not give it!
Do you think that he a) didn't see it b) didn't have a good enough view to be 100% certain c) saw it and didn;t think it was a penalty.d) Clattenburg is deliberately biased against Stoke e) He is unknowingly biased against Stoke because of the media and the powers in the game
For the whole of the 90 minutess there is bound to be bad decisions when we expect so much from one person - impossible not to be - it happened last wek and will happen next week. The authorities could start to do something about it
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 13:20:55 GMT
Metalhead
I agree with all your decisions entirely- but others don't agree with us -even after analysis some people still believe that N'Zonzi should have been sent off and how many times ( not in stoke's case yesterday) have we had the debate " did he move his hand towards the ball", "was it ball to hand" " He dived/he was entitled to go down" in the case of penalties.
I just think it is about time we tried to do something about it and took some of the big decisions away from Refs because all too often we are saying that ( for whatever reason) they are incompetent- if they are constantly making mistakes - and it seems that EVERy single one of them is not good enough - then perhaps we are expecting too much of them and need to do something about it. Using your own scenario - if all the workers were losing contracts week in - week out , the management would need to step in and change the working conditions - I don't think that sacking all of them and replacing them would change anything
|
|
|
|
Post by jssandbach on Dec 30, 2012 14:23:56 GMT
Of the four controversial decisions from where I sit in block 30 I wasn;t 100% certain that the first handball was handball until I saw the replays - clattenburg may not have seen it , even if he should have done. The N'Zonzi incident looked at first sight much worse than it was - Clattenburg overreacted - but it was only on seeing it later was I convinced that he should not have been sent off. The other panalty was very hard to detect , Correct decision on the offside but only with ASSISTANCE of the assistant ref. I think that the OP is correct , the Referees need serious help.
|
|
|
|
Post by casper113 on Dec 30, 2012 14:28:11 GMT
i was at back of boothen and from there u could see he never touched him
|
|
|
|
Post by jssandbach on Dec 30, 2012 14:51:19 GMT
Casper
But isn't that the problem and the point of the thread - others ( not me) still think it is a red
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 15:30:47 GMT
It's really simple; bring in all available technology to help referees. Not just ball over the line for goals, but also options for teams to appeal decisions. We were robbed yesterday - 2 pens and an incorrect red card. It isn't acceptable to say things even themselves out. Get things right in the first place. Cricket has done this very well. I appreciate the dynamics of that sport is different to football, but, as they have found their way, so football needs to find its. I agree with this and have thought so for some time. Instant video replays need to be introduced for the potentially game-changing decisions. It would take less time than everyone appears to think I'm sure. Failing that, I thought the Olympic Hockey had a very good idea where each side has one opportunity per match to appeal a ref's decision. If the team is right they get to keep their appeal (as per the cricket), if they are wrong, they lose it and tough shit for the rest of the game. So no frivolous appeals basically. Yesterday, I think we would have used that for the Fonte handball, won the appeal, had a penalty, then used it again for the NZonzi sending off, which again imo I think we'd have won when it was shown that there was no contact at all, although you never know with this one, as apparently you don't have to make any contact to be guilty of using excessive force ???. |
|
|
|
Post by jssandbach on Dec 30, 2012 16:16:40 GMT
Luke
I think you are right. It is so simple reall. it could even add to the tension and excitement. Some could argue that it might undermine the referees , but if it is taken in the right spirit it could work. - Does anyone know if the powers to be are even considering changes?
|
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Dec 30, 2012 16:43:44 GMT
Luke I think you are right. It is so simple reall. it could even add to the tension and excitement. Some could argue that it might undermine the referees , but if it is taken in the right spirit it could work. - Does anyone know if the powers to be are even considering changes? Gotta agree with you and Sif too, it can in fact increase the entertainment factor and remove that lingering bad taste in the mouth that a vital but unfair decision leaves . They used the argument about undermining the umpire in cricket as I recall but it hasn't been an issue since the correct type of system for the game was initiated. FIFA will almost inevitably drag their heal over any type of decision like this though it would seem. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 30, 2012 16:47:06 GMT
The game needs to decide which it wants more. 'Consistency' or 'common sense'. Not convinced you can have both. Bang on |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 16:59:16 GMT
I think that the English game has changed so much that Refs can't make instant decisions in some cases if they have to decide on intent, diving, slight contact.What worries me is if we move further towards the European game , which almost seems to be a non contact sport- some decisions would be easier to make - which is perhaps why Fifa don;t seem interested
|
|
|
|
Post by woodin43 on Dec 30, 2012 17:16:07 GMT
It also doesn't help to have 22 players on the pitch willing to cheat at every opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 17:21:14 GMT
true
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie23 on Dec 30, 2012 17:32:23 GMT
''Time to have a serious rethink.
What changes would you like to see'' ?
Referees should not be allowed to make rash decisions, milliseconds after an incident. Take Clattenburg yesterday, he could of blown his whistle waited 10-15 seconds, assessed the players reactions, gone over the incident in his head again and then came to a decision - Instead he had his card in the air within 1 second of the incident...he has allowed his emotions to effect the outcome... Minutes before he was getting an earfull for not giving a stone wall penalty, from the crowd and players, and when n'zonzi makes the tackle out of anger he decides to send him off because he is sick of being undermined and berated. The clever thing to do would have been to call the captain and nzonzi over and explain, if the players attitude continues he will be going off....thus defusing the whole situation. Anyone with me ...  |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 30, 2012 17:38:07 GMT
I'm for the appeal system, one in each half for each team.
A ref in each half and the long overdue use of technology for the goal line would also help immensely imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 30, 2012 17:40:54 GMT
23
i do agree, the ref gets caught up in the emotion of the moment and as you say one major incident can follow another seconds later. I would still argue for Luke's idea of video decisions because the refneeds help. I mean apprently he didn't even see the hand balls and he may have still thought that N'Zonzi deserved a red from his perspective. A quick video decision of the field would at least give a considered second opinion. If some fans still believed that decision to be wrong we would have tolive with it , at least with the knowledge that it isn't just the snapshot opinion of one person
|
|
