Ref Watch Modern Referees... I've Had It!!

[SteMerritt]

Another game, another stinker from the officials...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67550696

Now I'm going to disagree with this, although this is purely based on the YouTube highlights. I read the article, it was standard manager ranting and saying they were hard done by, so I thought I'd better look at the footage. Watching the 2 penalty decisions, the first one from the ref's position I can see why it was given in real time. VAR, however, should have intervened and overturned it. Not really the ref's fault. The penalty at the end which he didn't give, once again in real time I thought it was a dive, but this time VAR did intervene and the correct decision was arrived upon.

Neither of these were 'stinkers'. Obviously having not watched the game there could have been other incidents that I've not seen however.

 

[MustardYellow]

I don’t think so personally.

About once a month referees get together for a training session. Typically we get shown video clips of games with tight game-changing decisions or offsides. They show the clips slowed down from different angles.

We have 30-40 referees sat in the room watching the same clips and we are asked to decide if we’d personally give a free-kick, pen, yellow/red cards, award a goal, rule offside etc.

There is never a universally agreed outcome as we all see the same circumstances differently.

We regularly invite local managers and pro players to attend these meetings so we can have a good honest debate about key decisions but the clubs always refuse to attend.

The fitness test I had to endure as a referee going for promotion is far tougher than even pre-season training players go through - 2 hours of constant sprinting and longer distance running.

A linesman will usually run further and faster than any referee or player.

Why would you say many of the rules have been changed to be opened up to interpretation, though? For example the handball rule... why has it been complicated so much? The changes to that rule add absolutely nothing to the game and certainly don't make it 'fairer'. I can't understand why a rule in any sport would ever be left to interpretation, especially when it doesn't add anything to the game - you're just asking for trouble!

 

[Big Ron]

TV must be held to account, the microscopic reviews are ruining the game. VAR was brought in because of complaints from Managers watching replays and pointing out any refereeing error. TV pundits too, decrying every decision. They bring VAR in, then they all jump on the VAR officials.
As said earlier, sin bin players, for dissent, diving, time wasting etc. Managers will soon install some respect.

I agree in part and as I’ve written previously, there are a whole bunch of pundits who never call anything in real time - they wait for the replays from 20 different angles and then give us the benefit of their considerable wisdom (take a bow the appalling Jermaine ‘JJ’ Jenas).

My oft stated view is that the commentators and pundits should watch the game without the constant technology and call it as they see it, and at least get some view of the ref’s predicament.

 

[m]

But isn't the crux of the issue that even with countless angles and replays on VAR, officials are still getting decisions wrong? They've been given what we have and STILL can't get it right - why should such incompetence be respected?

Erm. Doesn't that kind of prove things get to a level where it's very subjective?

And therefore that it's the rules which are unclear or wrong?

The idea that the amateur armchair analysts are getting it right, while officials are getting things wrong, is simplistic.

 

[MustardYellow]

I agree in part and as I’ve written previously, there are a whole bunch of pundits who never call anything in real time - they wait for the replays from 20 different angles and then give us the benefit of their considerable wisdom (take a bow the appalling Jermaine ‘JJ’ Jenas).

My oft stated view is that the commentators and pundits should watch the game without the constant technology and call it as they see it, and at least get some view of the ref’s predicament.

I'd argue that viewers actually have a worse view of events (prior to replays, of course).

We don't have the benefit of being able to move around the pitch and players, get closer/further away in real time etc - as it happens live we're given one angle determined by the broadcasting company.

 

[MustardYellow]

Erm. Doesn't that kind of prove things get to a level where it's very subjective?

And therefore that it's the rules which are unclear or wrong?

The idea that the amateur armchair analysts are getting it right, while officials are getting things wrong, is simplistic.

There have already been a number of formal apologies from VAR for getting decisions wrong this season - that simply shouldn't be happening.

The defence for refs has always been 'well they only get to see it once, we have replays'. Now they have the same replays we do and are still getting things wrong, what's the defence? I think you'd be clutching at straws to even attempt to defend it - it's just incompetence.

One thing I'd be interested to know is if officials have a say in rule changes. If so, why on earth would they agree to changes which put more decisions solely up to their interpretation? It only makes their jobs more difficult and harder to understand for players and fans. Maybe @Ewes can shed some light?

 

[Ewes]

Another game, another stinker from the officials...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67550696

First Fulham penalty was debatable. Second one in the final minutes was a stonewall, most nailed-on penalty I’ve seen for a long time.

 

[SteMerritt]

One thing I'd be interested to know is if officials have a say in rule changes. If so, why on earth would they agree to changes which put more decisions solely up to their interpretation? It only makes their jobs more difficult and harder to understand for players and fans. Maybe @Ewes can shed some light?

The rules are set by IFAB, you can visit their website at...

International Football Association Board | Laws of the Game | IFAB

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) are the independent guardians of the football rules of association football.

www.theifab.com

But as we know the rules seem to be interpreted differently across the world, we've seen this in European games for some time.

 

[Ewes]

Why would you say many of the rules have been changed to be opened up to interpretation, though? For example the handball rule... why has it been complicated so much? The changes to that rule add absolutely nothing to the game and certainly don't make it 'fairer'. I can't understand why a rule in any sport would ever be left to interpretation, especially when it doesn't add anything to the game - you're just asking for trouble!

The handball rule is easier to understand than many managers, players and fans believe.

If the ball bounces up off a defender’s foot and then touches his hand or arm, it’s a clear handball and the rules have taken away the ‘accidental handball’ aspect where the offending player had the last touch.

For anything else, if a player moves his arm towards the ball or has it in an unnatural position and it touches his arm it’s a handball offence, unless he got shoved into that position by an opponent.

 

[Ewes]

The rules are set by IFAB, you can visit their website at...

International Football Association Board | Laws of the Game | IFAB

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) are the independent guardians of the football rules of association football.

www.theifab.com

But as we know the rules seem to be interpreted differently across the world, we've seen this in European games for some time.

The FA and IFAB usually trial a major new law change before introducing it. Last season, VAR was still technically being trialled in the UK.

 

[Left Wing Cross]

The handball rule is easier to understand than many managers, players and fans believe.

But they "don't understand it anymore" whine the pundits.

The biggest problem is that the FA are trying to please all stakeholders and have ended up pleasing no-one. VAR was one of these things and now it feels like their chasing their own tails. The rules are changed frequently so is it any wonder that referees are also playing catch-up?

Players, and managers are only happy when the decisions made benefit them and will blame an entire result on one decision that didn't go their way. Referees are in the middle copping all the flack, some of it deserved, some of it not, and the RA have closed ranks as they don't know where the next attack is going to come from, which has created a culture of non-accountability and no transparency.

In the end, what kind of refereeing do we want for football?

- Common sense? Accept something decisions won't go your way even if they are technically incorrect?
- Absolutism? Accept that the game will stop-start? That the finest of margins for offside and handball should be enforced?
- Hybrid of both? This is what is being wrestled with at the moment and find the sweet spot appears to be very difficult to find. We are nowhere near it and every change seems open a fresh can of worms as the laws of the game are being unpicked.

There appears to be no consensus or clear vision for how the game should be refereed at this time.

 

[MustardYellow]

But they "don't understand it anymore" whine the pundits.

The biggest problem is that the FA are trying to please all stakeholders and have ended up pleasing no-one. VAR was one of these things and now it feels like their chasing their own tails. The rules are changed frequently so is it any wonder that referees are also playing catch-up?

Players, and managers are only happy when the decisions made benefit them and will blame an entire result on one decision that didn't go their way. Referees are in the middle copping all the flack, some of it deserved, some of it not, and the RA have closed ranks as they don't know where the next attack is going to come from, which has created a culture of non-accountability and no transparency.

In the end, what kind of refereeing do we want for football?

- Common sense? Accept something decisions won't go your way even if they are technically incorrect?
- Absolutism? Accept that the game will stop-start? That the finest of margins for offside and handball should be enforced?
- Hybrid of both? This is what is being wrestled with at the moment and find the sweet spot appears to be very difficult to find. We are nowhere near it and every change seems open a fresh can of worms as the laws of the game are being unpicked.

There appears to be no consensus or clear vision for how the game should be refereed at this time.

I think what really needs to happen is the entire rule book needs to be overhauled. Bring it back to basics, consult with match officials, players, managers etc - gain a consensus (because I think one does exist) and go from there. Obviously that won't happen, but without it the problems we have now are only going to get worse.

From a fans perspective, and maybe also from a players/managers, I think what most want is a rulebook that's easy to understand and can be applied consistently.

In my view, the very concept of having rules in a sport which are down to interpretation is lunacy - all it results in is inconsistencies, and therefore unfairness (perceived or actual).

Ultimately, something should either be a foul or not a foul. It should be offside or not offside, handball or not handball etc etc - that leaves no room for debate - it's either right or wrong. I can't see it slowing games down or anything similar, I think players would learn quite quickly what they can/cannot do because it would be absolute and consistent across games and match officials.

 

[Left Wing Cross]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67549886

FA to trial sinbins

 

[Left Wing Cross]

I think what really needs to happen is the entire rule book needs to be overhauled. Bring it back to basics, consult with match officials, players, managers etc - gain a consensus (because I think one does exist) and go from there. Obviously that won't happen, but without it the problems we have now are only going to get worse.

From a fans perspective, and maybe also from a players/managers, I think what most want is a rulebook that's easy to understand and can be applied consistently.

In my view, the very concept of having rules in a sport which are down to interpretation is lunacy - all it results in is inconsistencies, and therefore unfairness (perceived or actual).

Ultimately, something should either be a foul or not a foul. It should be offside or not offside, handball or not handball etc etc - that leaves no room for debate - it's either right or wrong. I can't see it slowing games down or anything similar, I think players would learn quite quickly what they can/cannot do because it would be absolute and consistent across games and match officials.

My point about absolutism slowing the game is the potential for nit-picks that would slow the game down.

If it is freekick for every foul, this would mean no allowing play to continue and allowing the advantage. Another example would be fouls off the ball, would need to be picked up and the punishment applied even if the foul is nowhere near the play. Should every accidental collision be given as a foul?

 

[Marked Ox]

Now I'm going to disagree with this, although this is purely based on the YouTube highlights. I read the article, it was standard manager ranting and saying they were hard done by, so I thought I'd better look at the footage. Watching the 2 penalty decisions, the first one from the ref's position I can see why it was given in real time. VAR, however, should have intervened and overturned it. Not really the ref's fault. The penalty at the end which he didn't give, once again in real time I thought it was a dive, but this time VAR did intervene and the correct decision was arrived upon.

Neither of these were 'stinkers'. Obviously having not watched the game there could have been other incidents that I've not seen however.

Sorry but disagree. The Officials team had a stinker. There were actually 2 Refs officiating that game, the on-field Ref, Michael Salisbury and the VAR Official Stuart Attwell. Both clearly had different interpretations.

The on-field Ref apparently told Gary O'Neil he would have changed his decision on the first penalty. The Wolves defender got the ball and it wasn't a dangerous tackle. Attwell will have seen that contact on the ball first as it was on the replays shown on TV while he was making his decision, yet he apparently claimed it wasn't clear and obvious. Attwell had a stinker.

Attwell then didn't refer the headbutt which was plain ridiculous. Apparently again it was claimed he said it didn't cause enough harm. If the Wolves player had gone down holding his face, you would have guaranteed the Ref being called over. That he didn't refer an obvious headbutt means he is reffing the game rather than the on-field Ref who should have made the final decision. Attwell had a stinker.

If the contact for the 1st Fulham penalty isn't clear and obvious then their 2nd isn't either. The Fulham player was already throwing themselves down and any contact is less than that of the Wolves player on the ball for the 1st penalty. Attwell is effectively taking the opposite view for each decision and he is having a stinker.

Attwell's officiating has cost Wolves considerably in this game. But it'll be fine as Howard Webb will apologise to them for a 3rd time this season and yet the opposition will still have the points.

I can fully understand Gary O'Neil being angry but I thought he was calm and measured rather than having a rant.

 

[Ewes]

For the second Fulham penalty, the Wolves defender ‘planted his foot’, didnt make contact with the ball and the Fulham lad went over his leg, probably on purpose.

Stonewall penalty no doubt and O’Neil should stop whinging about it. Personally I’d have cautioned the defender as well as award the pen because he made no attempt to get the ball.

 

[SteMerritt]

Sorry but disagree. The Officials team had a stinker. There were actually 2 Refs officiating that game, the on-field Ref, Michael Salisbury and the VAR Official Stuart Attwell. Both clearly had different interpretations.

The on-field Ref apparently told Gary O'Neil he would have changed his decision on the first penalty. The Wolves defender got the ball and it wasn't a dangerous tackle. Attwell will have seen that contact on the ball first as it was on the replays shown on TV while he was making his decision, yet he apparently claimed it wasn't clear and obvious. Attwell had a stinker.

Attwell then didn't refer the headbutt which was plain ridiculous. Apparently again it was claimed he said it didn't cause enough harm. If the Wolves player had gone down holding his face, you would have guaranteed the Ref being called over. That he didn't refer an obvious headbutt means he is reffing the game rather than the on-field Ref who should have made the final decision. Attwell had a stinker.

If the contact for the 1st Fulham penalty isn't clear and obvious then their 2nd isn't either. The Fulham player was already throwing themselves down and any contact is less than that of the Wolves player on the ball for the 1st penalty. Attwell is effectively taking the opposite view for each decision and he is having a stinker.

Attwell's officiating has cost Wolves considerably in this game. But it'll be fine as Howard Webb will apologise to them for a 3rd time this season and yet the opposition will still have the points.

I can fully understand Gary O'Neil being angry but I thought he was calm and measured rather than having a rant.

I was only speaking about the on-field ref, the VAR team is a different subject and thread. Both decisions at first viewing are tough to give, and certainly not "stinkers". VAR should have intervened on the first, they did correctly on the second.

Can't comment on the headbutt as it wasn't on the highlights which I saw.

 

[MustardYellow]

My point about absolutism slowing the game is the potential for nit-picks that would slow the game down.

If it is freekick for every foul, this would mean no allowing play to continue and allowing the advantage. Another example would be fouls off the ball, would need to be picked up and the punishment applied even if the foul is nowhere near the play. Should every accidental collision be given as a foul?

Well of course, but that's why the rules should be written in a way which does allow for contact. Football is a contact sport - the issue these days is the same challenge can happen twice, once the player will be told to get up, the second time a foul will be given.

The wording of rules is very important and it's something that needs to be changed.

 

[Oslernorth]

My point about absolutism slowing the game is the potential for nit-picks that would slow the game down.

If it is freekick for every foul, this would mean no allowing play to continue and allowing the advantage. Another example would be fouls off the ball, would need to be picked up and the punishment applied even if the foul is nowhere near the play. Should every accidental collision be given as a foul?

The absolutism approach is applied in virtually every other sport.
I personally think fans in general, would be happier with decisions being given to the letter of the law.
I don’t really see how this would affect the advantage rule as long as there’re clear rules for it to play out, with a booking (if warranted) to be handed once the move has finished, or the ball goes out of play.

 

[Ewes]

Sorry but disagree. The Officials team had a stinker.

If the contact for the 1st Fulham penalty isn't clear and obvious then their 2nd isn't either.

I’ve only looked at the penalty decisions but Fulham’s second penalty in injury time was 200% a clear penalty and VAR made the right decision to refer it to the referee, and he made the right decision to award it. Gary O’Neil needs to face facts - he needs to coach his defenders to defend and not concede penalties.

The Wolves defender stuck out and planted his right leg. He did not touch the ball nor did it look like he tried. The Fulham player went over his leg, possibly trying to win a penalty as he was heading away from goal.

Penalty all day long, plus it should’ve been a booking for the Wolves defender.