Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Calling all refs (and anyone else who wants to make the call)

Slavia v Viktoria, Saturday night.

OK I am biased, and bitter, but...the penalty decisionhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=-PxWtWFtuD4&frags=pl%2Cwn, would you give that?

For me the defender has his eye on the ball throughout, and has only one intention, to head it clear. The Slavia forward turns his head away way before the collision.

I think the defender's reputation got him more than the actual incident. We were sitting right behind the incident and at the time I really couldn't understand what it was given for. First penalty (which this clip doesn't show) was subject of VAR, a handball which the ref had missed. Maybe that also affected his decision.

Bad day all round though. Might have been different if Viktoria had made it to half time just one down and with 11 men, but they were already looking second best.



«13

Comments

  • That's a 50-50 header.

    No foul whatsoever.

    Correct decision to blow for the head injury. Incorrect to book the player.
  • no penalty in my opinion.
  • Looks like an elbow clocked the guy in the face.
  • Awful decision
  • edited September 3
    Interesting. It was live on TV and apparently the "pros" agreed with the decision. As does my buddy who is anti- Slavia. I have a suspicion that like in most of Europe heading isn't as integral to the game here, refs dont like the physical side of a defender determined to win the ball in the air.
  • Slavia v Viktoria, Saturday night.

    OK I am biased, and bitter, but...the penalty decisionhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=-PxWtWFtuD4&frags=pl%2Cwn, would you give that?

    For me the defender has his eye on the ball throughout, and has only one intention, to head it clear. The Slavia forward turns his head away way before the collision.

    I think the defender's reputation got him more than the actual incident. We were sitting right behind the incident and at the time I really couldn't understand what it was given for. First penalty (which this clip doesn't show) was subject of VAR, a handball which the ref had missed. Maybe that also affected his decision.

    Bad day all round though. Might have been different if Viktoria had made it to half time just one down and with 11 men, but they were already looking second best.



    Not in anyway a penalty.
  • Slavia v Viktoria, Saturday night.

    OK I am biased, and bitter, but...the penalty decisionhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=-PxWtWFtuD4&frags=pl%2Cwn, would you give that?

    For me the defender has his eye on the ball throughout, and has only one intention, to head it clear. The Slavia forward turns his head away way before the collision.

    I think the defender's reputation got him more than the actual incident. We were sitting right behind the incident and at the time I really couldn't understand what it was given for. First penalty (which this clip doesn't show) was subject of VAR, a handball which the ref had missed. Maybe that also affected his decision.

    Bad day all round though. Might have been different if Viktoria had made it to half time just one down and with 11 men, but they were already looking second best.



    Hi Prague. Just one comment on your remark "only one intention, to head it away". Somewhat irrelevant, in that the only offence (foul) in the laws of the Game which specifically stated intent is that of handball. All other offences do not state that the foul has to be intentional for that offence to be penalised.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited September 3
    But surely if both players are trying to head the ball, there can't be a foul when there is a clash of heads. Is it the player who is hurt the most who has been fouled? Clearly a poor decision, ref may have decided it was an intentional headbutt, but it looks clearly wrong in slow motion.
  • He's lead with the elbow. What was his arm doing up like that? Hasn't even got the excuse that he was leveraging to get off the floor as he wasn't actually really jumping. Can see why it was given.
  • Slavia v Viktoria, Saturday night.

    OK I am biased, and bitter, but...the penalty decisionhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=-PxWtWFtuD4&frags=pl%2Cwn, would you give that?

    For me the defender has his eye on the ball throughout, and has only one intention, to head it clear. The Slavia forward turns his head away way before the collision.

    I think the defender's reputation got him more than the actual incident. We were sitting right behind the incident and at the time I really couldn't understand what it was given for. First penalty (which this clip doesn't show) was subject of VAR, a handball which the ref had missed. Maybe that also affected his decision.

    Bad day all round though. Might have been different if Viktoria had made it to half time just one down and with 11 men, but they were already looking second best.



    Complete joke of a penalty. Your guy heads the ball and there's an accidental clash of heads. The referee's a wanker.
  • Slavia v Viktoria, Saturday night.

    OK I am biased, and bitter, but...the penalty decisionhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=-PxWtWFtuD4&frags=pl%2Cwn, would you give that?

    For me the defender has his eye on the ball throughout, and has only one intention, to head it clear. The Slavia forward turns his head away way before the collision.

    I think the defender's reputation got him more than the actual incident. We were sitting right behind the incident and at the time I really couldn't understand what it was given for. First penalty (which this clip doesn't show) was subject of VAR, a handball which the ref had missed. Maybe that also affected his decision.

    Bad day all round though. Might have been different if Viktoria had made it to half time just one down and with 11 men, but they were already looking second best.



    Complete joke of a penalty. Your guy heads the ball and there's an accidental clash of heads. The referee's a wanker.
    Well that's even more interesting. Both you and @MuttleyCAFC see it as a clash of heads. But the foul seems to have been given because they think the defender deliberately led with his arm and caught the attacker that way. They refer to "elbow" quite a lot, funny idea of where the elbow is. They may have difficulty locating their arses, some of them.

    @PeterGage thank you, as a ref, for your comment, and noted. I meant only to say that you can see the defender with his eye firmly on the ball throughout, his only intention is to head the ball, not to do anything to the opposing player. And that is what he does, head it away. Quite well too. I think his arm is pretty much where it should be. Based on what you see, what would you give, if anything?

  • I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.
  • It’s all about opinions. On 2 of my matches last season. My observer (assessor) came in after the match and said I missed a stamp on the keeper and in another a foul on the full back as he cleared ball up field in the snow. The observer was 40 yards away on half way line. I was 10yards away. The first incident the keeper just got tangled with forward as forward closed down back pass. The second was a match in snow and the forward slide in to block the defenders clearance he was about 2 yards in front of the defender and the defender continued this run and just fell over the forward. My assistants were about 10 yards away and both backed me. But the observer 40 yards away had a different opinion.
    So you have 3 referees or former referee with different opinions.
    I think you can see with VAR sometimes it’s still not clear what the right decision is.
    We are told if it’s a penalty decision you have to be100% sure because it is a match changing decision to me even with replays.im not 100% so I I wouldn’t give a penalty.
  • edited September 4
    He's gone in with his arm - and it was not in a natural way. A penalty - and a good spot by the ref. On another matter, for the saved pen, the keeper is (just) forward of the goal line and while harsh, technically, the ref should have gone for a re-take. The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing the kicker, between the goalposts until the ball has been kicked.

    Edited to add: slightly off piste, but my old man, who was a ref, reckoned goalkeepers hanging off the crossbar before a penalty was taken should be booked for ungentlemanly conduct (or unsporting behaviour as it's now called). His reasoning was because this artificially reduced the size of the goal albeit by only a small amount and for a short time. But these days, presumably with health and safety in mind, FA guidance (not the Laws) says Under no circumstances should children or adults be allowed to climb on, swing or play with the structure of the goalposts. Any views?
  • My advice don’t become a ref you’ll get crucified
  • I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.

    Dont you read other posts @MuttleyCAFC? Other than handball , there doesnt need to be intent for an offence to occur

    Your statement about referees over analysing is nonsense. Players and spectators seek consistency from the refereeing fraterity and that can only be achieved by analysing data and sharing with the referees body

    You do spout some nonsense on the subject of referees sonetimes, or rather often

    Have a nice day
  • PeterGage said:

    I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.

    Dont you read other posts @MuttleyCAFC? Other than handball , there doesnt need to be intent for an offence to occur

    Your statement about referees over analysing is nonsense. Players and spectators seek consistency from the refereeing fraterity and that can only be achieved by analysing data and sharing with the referees body

    You do spout some nonsense on the subject of referees sonetimes, or rather often

    Have a nice day
    I don’t think it is only one person so I think that could be a little harsh. The vast majority of football supporters do not fully understand the laws of the game and how a referee may come to the decision that they do. However, most of the time it is swayed by bias on whoever they support or may have a closer affiliation towards a specific team against another.

    You and I are both qualified referees, you are clearly more experienced and qualified than I am so I won’t disagree with your opinions on matters regarding subjective incidents. But it is obvious that even amongst referees, we may see things slightly differently, making consistency even harder to get.

    Since becoming a referee myself, I haven’t got as irate as I did before at a football match towards the referee at the decisions they make, but I won’t deny that recently I have became increasingly frustrated at the standard of refereeing throughout the levels of the game.

    And @PragueAddick to answer your original post.. no I do not believe that a penalty was the correct decision. The game should’ve been stopped due to the clash of heads (again, how I saw it from the footage available). The game then would have restarted from the goalkeeper of the defending team. That’s how I have seen the incident but again, someone else could disagree with me.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sage said:

    PeterGage said:

    I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.

    Dont you read other posts @MuttleyCAFC? Other than handball , there doesnt need to be intent for an offence to occur

    Your statement about referees over analysing is nonsense. Players and spectators seek consistency from the refereeing fraterity and that can only be achieved by analysing data and sharing with the referees body

    You do spout some nonsense on the subject of referees sonetimes, or rather often

    Have a nice day
    I don’t think it is only one person so I think that could be a little harsh. The vast majority of football supporters do not fully understand the laws of the game and how a referee may come to the decision that they do. However, most of the time it is swayed by bias on whoever they support or may have a closer affiliation towards a specific team against another.

    You and I are both qualified referees, you are clearly more experienced and qualified than I am so I won’t disagree with your opinions on matters regarding subjective incidents. But it is obvious that even amongst referees, we may see things slightly differently, making consistency even harder to get.

    Since becoming a referee myself, I haven’t got as irate as I did before at a football match towards the referee at the decisions they make, but I won’t deny that recently I have became increasingly frustrated at the standard of refereeing throughout the levels of the game.

    And @PragueAddick to answer your original post.. no I do not believe that a penalty was the correct decision. The game should’ve been stopped due to the clash of heads (again, how I saw it from the footage available). The game then would have restarted from the goalkeeper of the defending team. That’s how I have seen the incident but again, someone else could disagree with me.
    Thanks @Sage for your interesting comments, most of which I agree with.

    So far as my comment re @MuttleyCAFC is concerned, he has a long history of spouting absolute nonsense about all things refereeing.

    Have a good day
  • PeterGage said:

    Sage said:

    PeterGage said:

    I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.

    Dont you read other posts @MuttleyCAFC? Other than handball , there doesnt need to be intent for an offence to occur

    Your statement about referees over analysing is nonsense. Players and spectators seek consistency from the refereeing fraterity and that can only be achieved by analysing data and sharing with the referees body

    You do spout some nonsense on the subject of referees sonetimes, or rather often

    Have a nice day
    I don’t think it is only one person so I think that could be a little harsh. The vast majority of football supporters do not fully understand the laws of the game and how a referee may come to the decision that they do. However, most of the time it is swayed by bias on whoever they support or may have a closer affiliation towards a specific team against another.

    You and I are both qualified referees, you are clearly more experienced and qualified than I am so I won’t disagree with your opinions on matters regarding subjective incidents. But it is obvious that even amongst referees, we may see things slightly differently, making consistency even harder to get.

    Since becoming a referee myself, I haven’t got as irate as I did before at a football match towards the referee at the decisions they make, but I won’t deny that recently I have became increasingly frustrated at the standard of refereeing throughout the levels of the game.

    And @PragueAddick to answer your original post.. no I do not believe that a penalty was the correct decision. The game should’ve been stopped due to the clash of heads (again, how I saw it from the footage available). The game then would have restarted from the goalkeeper of the defending team. That’s how I have seen the incident but again, someone else could disagree with me.
    Thanks @Sage for your interesting comments, most of which I agree with.

    So far as my comment re @MuttleyCAFC is concerned, he has a long history of spouting absolute nonsense about all things refereeing.

    Have a good day
  • Definite penalty, @PragueAddick. Well, if you were the ref and had 300 Koruna on it, you’d do the same.
  • Definite penalty, @PragueAddick. Well, if you were the ref and had 300 Koruna on it, you’d do the same.

    Thats only enough for six tank Pilsner Urquells nowadays. Cost of living ! :-)

  • edited September 5
    PeterGage said:

    I think refs sometimes forget that your arms and elbows are attached to your body. Unless you are an Irish dancer, they do tend to move about, but it doesn't mean there is always intent to injure! I think there is an issue sometimes with how the laws of the game are worded. I think many refs over analyse the words without trying to understand the intent of the words. So in the case of handball for instance- the arm being in an unnatural position element of the laws throws so many refs off the scent. So the penalty Switzerland got against Northern Ireland - the ref looks at it and says that looks unnatural, rather than there is no way there could be any intent there.

    Dont you read other posts @MuttleyCAFC? Other than handball , there doesnt need to be intent for an offence to occur

    Your statement about referees over analysing is nonsense. Players and spectators seek consistency from the refereeing fraterity and that can only be achieved by analysing data and sharing with the referees body

    You do spout some nonsense on the subject of referees sonetimes, or rather often

    Have a nice day
    I do know that, but if there was no intent and no injury or indeed contact caused by the arm/elbow in this case? My other point was about handball, where I see as a coach, refs interpreting the law so differently - hence my criticism of the law! I have nothing against you, but you do defend refs beyond what is reasonable rather often IMO.
  • edited September 5
    Unlike many other coaches in our league, I never shout out or argue with a refs decision. I tell my players to just get on with it and not argue with the ref.I might have a friendly word asking how he saw it at half time or at the end of the game. It doesn't mean I am not livid with some of the decisions - but strangely enough, I see so many useless refs in the professional game, my expectations of those in the amateur game are far lower! I do think I have the right on a forum to state my opinions on the standards of refereeing, whether you agree with them or not. Prague posted the clip because he was flabberghasted at the decision, and if there is a sanction on any criticism of refs, the disconnect between refs and fans becomes greater!
  • You do indeed have the right to express your opinions, but such opinions would gander more support, acceptance and respect if the subject matter is known to the author and that author's opinions are balanced. Your use of such emotive phrases such as "useless refs in the professional game" amply demonstrates your lack of rationale thinking and shows much negativity and bias thinking (but more of that later). I personally use softer and less judgemental statements about referees by using the phrases "more able/less able".

    You give the impression to me that you are the self appointed CL referee basher, always expressing negative comments about them; a soft target because they do not have the right to reply.

    You might want to start by considering the following aspects when giving opinions upon referees:

    1. A greater understanding of the Laws of the Game would be a good starting point. You have demonstrated time and time again that your knowledge is lacking.

    2. A recognition that the art of refereeing is extremely difficult. The game at the highest level is played at a fast pace, played in an high emotional environment, highly emotional to spectators, players and coaches. This state often leads to irrational decision making ("that referee never gives us anything" etc, etc), which in turns leads to a thinking process of based upon bias.

    3. Referees are human beings and as such, as in all walks of life, they will make mistakes. Referees have acknowledged that time and time again.

    4. A recognition that some decisions will be a matter of opinion, and that sole right to express that opinion on the field of play is the referee only. How many times do we debate amongst ourselves a penalty decision (for example) where the contact has been minimal and the opponent goes down.

    5 The fact is that a referees task is made far harder than it ought to be by players who blatantly cheat and coaches who encourage such cheating.

    "Useless Professional Referees" is an oxymoron to me. The system of advancement and promotion is strongly regulated, based largely upon marks given by both sides and assessments given by senior referees, and regular fitness tests. That system simply does not allow "useless referees", of whom there are some, to progress beyond the basic level. Furthermore, the less able referees at the highest level are soon relegated, based upon their marks given by both teams and by an assessor. Once off of the football league pyramid, there is no going back to their former high status. This system provides opportunities for young up and coming referees; a process of continuous improvement. So called "useless referees" (and Trevor Kettle is used as that symbol on here) simply do not "fool the system" and do not make it anywhere near the Football League. I have a theory about why Charlton fans have their views on Trevor, but perhaps that is for another time.

    If your mentioning the fact that you are a coach is meant to confer upon me that you possess a higher level of knowledge of the game than other mere mortals, then I have been failed to have been impressed. I live in a small market town (7.5k population), yet our local youth football team provides 28 teams, covering all ages from 5 upwards. Most of the teams are run by enthusiastic parents, many without the basic knowledge of the Laws of the Game. They are put through the first level of the FA coaching course, which I understand (but am happy to be corrected) that most of the first level basics is about the welfare of the vulnerable children; there football knowledge is thus not advanced, unless, of course, they go on to do further and more advanced coaching courses.As a consequence, we have a strict code of conduct that we show referees respect at all times and do not abuse them, either physically, verbally, or via media outlets. You may wish to consider the final point.

    I was going to provide a pen picture of my considerable experience at refereeing at a high level, but I don't seek to impress, so will leave it at that.

    Have a nice day, and please share with me your views upon my thoughts upon the matter in hand.
  • edited September 6
    Sorry, I never say I am not a mere mortal, your post infers to me you see yourself as the self appointed referee supporter - the immortal one. The system does allow useless refs as most people who go to games can testify.

    That you say that I mentioned I coach to infer I possess a higher knowledge of the game, you are showing you are paranoid. I clearly used it as an example of how I do not allow players to argue with the ref and do not do so myself. It also does qualify me to have a view on refs at the level I coach at. Which is all it is, my view. I do get that there are many young refs, my son is a ref, and they are learning their trade. Of course they are going to make errors, but there is also a stubboness I pick up in some of the older refs and great inconsistencies in how they interpret the laws.

    When you are a ref you are part of a union. It is a bit like the Goalkeeper's union! That means you defend refs from any criticism. Refs love to slag off players and managers knowingly behind their backs in respect to their lack of knowledge of the laws of the game. I have experienced this at first hand. Elements of this criticism may well be true, but when some refs interpret the same situations completely differently, it is there for all to see and I would put it to the powers that be to be a bit less defensive and open to criticism and look at ways to improve standards. I can't see why refs can't explain their decisions after games for instance.

    My view - which despite what you may think - I am entitled to hold is that the poor quality of some refs is caused by a couple of factors which are linked:

    Firstly, because refs are not trusted (as a group) enough by their own, they are deprived of the ability to read the game in favour of trying to achieve consistency. I think this is to allow the refs that have a lesser ability to use their judgement and understanding of what is going on to have the comfort of reffing effectively to a tighter structure, by numbers as it were. Where this creates problems is that common sense can be a casualty here in favour of that consistency and actually it causes less consistency.

    Secondly, refs that clearly understand the game are too few in numbers. By the way, understanding the game and the laws of the game are completely different. This is largely, because too many are playing the game and not reffing it. My view has always been that the solution is to fast track players from all levels that have previously focused on playing. Not all will make great refs, but many will make better calls because they understand what goes on in a game. That isn't to say that refs who rise through the traditional route should be deprived of being able to do so - the good ones should of course and the good ones may well ultimately become the very best refs. But the not so good ones will have competition from others with different qualities to bring to the table. Of course if you think Kettle is a good ref, you won't see an issue and consequently will not be open to suggestions to improve a problem that you don't think is there.

    The bottom line is that all refs will make errors. It is impossible not to, and that is a reason why I think technology is a great development. At the highest levels where the stakes are high - it is important refs do not wrongly influence too many games.

  • Sorry, I never say I am not a mere mortal, your post infers to me you see yourself as the self appointed referee supporter - the immortal one. The system does allow useless refs as most people who go to games can testify.

    That you say that I mentioned I coach to infer I possess a higher knowledge of the game, you are showing you are paranoid. I clearly used it as an example of how I do not allow players to argue with the ref and do not do so myself. It also does qualify me to have a view on refs at the level I coach at. Which is all it is, my view. I do get that there are many young refs, my son is a ref, and they are learning their trade. Of course they are going to make errors, but there is also a stubboness I pick up in some of the older refs and great inconsistencies in how they interpret the laws.

    When you are a ref you are part of a union. It is a bit like the Goalkeeper's union! That means you defend refs from any criticism. Refs love to slag off players and managers knowingly behind their backs in respect to their lack of knowledge of the laws of the game. I have experienced this at first hand. Elements of this criticism may well be true, but when some refs interpret the same situations completely differently, it is there for all to see and I would put it to the powers that be to be a bit less defensive and open to criticism and look at ways to improve standards. I can't see why refs can't explain their decisions after games for instance.

    My view - which despite what you may think - I am entitled to hold is that the poor quality of some refs is caused by a couple of factors which are linked:

    Firstly, because refs are not trusted (as a group) enough by their own, they are deprived of the ability to read the game in favour of trying to achieve consistency. I think this is to allow the refs that have a lesser ability to use their judgement and understanding of what is going on to have the comfort of reffing effectively to a tighter structure, by numbers as it were. Where this creates problems is that common sense can be a casualty here in favour of that consistency and actually it causes less consistency.

    Secondly, refs that clearly understand the game are too few in numbers. This is largely, because too many are playing the game and not reffing it. My view has always been that the solution is to fast track players from all levels that have previously focused on playing. Not all will make great refs, but many will make better calls because they understand what goes on in a game. That isn't to say that refs who rise through the traditional route should be deprived of being able to do so - the good ones should of course and the good ones may well ultimately become the very best refs. But the not so good ones will have competition from others with different qualities to bring to the table. Of course if you think Kettle is a good ref, you won't see an issue and consequently will not be open to suggestions to improve a problem that you don't think is there.

    The bottom line is that all refs will make errors. It is impossible not to, and that is a reason why I think technology is a great development. At the highest levels where the stakes are high - it is important refs do not wrongly influence too many games.

    Just a few responses from me:

    I never said that Trevor Kettle is a good referee. I said I have views as to why he is perceived as being less than good; they are my views only.

    Fast tracking of ex players was tried some years back but it was an unqualified failure. My personal view on why (and I am happy to be challenged) is that the skills set of footballers do not translate to the key skills set of referees, namely the ability to man manage players on the field of play - different from man managing players in a club where the management structure is black and white. Just my personal view, but the experiment did not work.

    I am a referee supporter to paraphrase your comment. I have been there and understand the issues and complexity of a job undertaken under difficult circumstances.

    Despite me explaining why you cant have "useless referees" at a high level, you refute that without any supporting narritive. I would be interested to learn how you arrive at that logic.

    Have a good day
  • edited September 6
    I arrive at that logic by observing useless referees in League One. My views of refs at lower levels of the game are more generous. Yes there are many rubbish ones, but unlike a lot of managers, I don't seek to intimidate them or challenge them and I stop my players doing so as far as I can. Where I will speak to a ref, after a game or a half is where I perceive a safety issue and I do so reasonably and calmly. The young refs I try to encourage and praise where I can. I'll admit I was less kind to refs as a player, but I didn't think a lot of them were too kind to me.

    I think there are many ex players who would make rubbish refs btw, just there are going to be ones that make great refs. It may not be the idea of fast tracking ex players that failed, but the system used to do so, and indeed the financial incentives to encourage the best to want to do it!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!