[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]In rugby and cricket there is a strict ethos inculcated amongst all that the ref / umpire is always right even when he is wrong. There is scope within the rules and Laws to reinforce that too. For example in rugby if a ref gives a penalty and gets backchat he moves it on 10 yards.
It seems to me that the ethos in football is very different. Players backchatting refs is one thing and often arises as an instinctive frustrated reaction with no real malice intended. I have stood on touchlines though and heard managers /coaches systematically abusing referees and that must have an element of premeditated intent to intimidate in my opinion.
If the 10 yard rule was brought into football it would solve a lot of problems.
It wouldn't. They tried it but defending teams were using it to their advantage. To move free kicks from Good positions out of the way.
That's poor refereeing then because it is a discretionary power. The ref can also reverse a decision and give a penalty the other way.
Thanks to Hillsy for starting it off and well done to Spankie for some good comments well made.
To comment on everything said would take all day but suffice it say I was horrified at CS87's first comment - totally wrong and bang out of order. Sadly it's a view that's held by others and no amount of explanation or dialog will change their narrow minds but fair play to CS87 for staying in the conversation and taking the view of others on board.
As for the "A referee who can explain a decision without threatening to book you for dissent would be a start", IMO those players who would be booked are the sort who wouldn't be asking for the right reasons, who wouldn't accept the decision anyway, and usually end up talking themselves into the book. I'm happy to explain a decision to a player who comes across properly - Hillsy's a good example - and have done on many occasions. The idea of dishing out a caution for that is nonsensical.
Most of what I'd say has already been said. It's good to see that most recognise the difficult job that refs have and that there is a level of respect there. I may be a referee but I'm certainly not one who believes that respect should be instantly given. I'm very much of the opinion that if a ref goes out with a hitler-like attitude or a poor knowledge of the laws then no surprise if those players don't respect him (or her).
I ran the line when Spankie was in the middle at The Valley and I thought his performance was excellent, with the kind of demeanour that I wish all refs had - myself included.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]
Spankie, he was wrong. It was petulant. Even their players were asking the referee not to send him off and shaking his hand as he went off. We were 9-0 down in a saturday afternoon game at hall place. Not 0-0 20 minutes into a Champions league final. There was no financial gain from our result. Its ridiculous to imply that in any way, shape or form he was right in his decision.
He broke the rules, surely that is the bottom line?
"Players don't issue Red Cards, costing the Referee £25 and a 3 week ban." Referee's don't do that to players either. The referee's jurisdiction is on the field of play and the surrounding areas. All the referee does is apply the laws of the game and take the appropriate disciplinary action i.e. yellow and red cards. The fine and length of ban has nothing to do with him. Once he has sent the disciplinary form off to the relevant FA (i.e Kent or London FA) then it's out of his hands. So to infer that referees give players fans and fines is incorrect.
I do agree however that referees should never swear at players and you are right in saying they are in the wrong if they do so. I have never, ever done so as I know I need to lead by example and if a ref swears at players then what does he expect back?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]In rugby and cricket there is a strict ethos inculcated amongst all that the ref / umpire is always right even when he is wrong. There is scope within the rules and Laws to reinforce that too. For example in rugby if a ref gives a penalty and gets backchat he moves it on 10 yards.
And in rugby and cricket, a mistake by a ref doesn't potentially cost millions of pounds. The stupid sums of money in the Premiership put top-level refs under enormous pressure, because their mistakes are harder to shrug off. I wonder if Poll's reaction to this pressure has been to turn himself into a sort-of celebrity - it can't be easy to deal with, and it showed last night.
Didn't see all of the programme, but it's repeated on Sunday morning on BBC2.
[cite]Posted By: Spankie[/cite]"Players don't issue Red Cards, costing the Referee £25 and a 3 week ban."
Referee's don't do that to players either. The referee's jurisdiction is on the field of play and the surrounding areas. All the referee does is apply the laws of the game and take the appropriate disciplinary action i.e. yellow and red
cards. The fine and length of ban has nothing to do with him. Once he has sent the disciplinary form off to the relevant FA (i.e Kent or London FA) then it's out of his hands. So to infer that referees give players fans and fines is incorrect.
I do agree however that referees should never swear at players and you are right in saying they are in the wrong if they do so. I have never, ever done so as I know I need to lead by example and if a ref swears at players then what does he expect back?
AZ82 in the Gravesend and District, though I only played there last season. Before that it was Penhill Standard in the Bromley and District League and Before that was Teviot Rangers in the Bexley League.
I appreciate that refs don't personally choose the bans. But surely he could have had a word with the opposing manager, made sure he was happy with the refs decision to rescind the red card, then scrapped it? If our guy had appealed it wouldn't have looked favourable on the referee, and theres no way of finding out whether he had issued a red card or not (no assessors, no tv camera's etc).
I think if a Player is swearing in front of the Ref (i.e That was never a f*cking penalty) then the ref has a right to say something along the lines of "f*ck off". No harm done either way really. If a player is swearing abusively at the ref (i.e Oi, you prick) then its at the referees discretion how he reacts.
[cite]Posted By: C_f_W[/cite]Just entered the fray and wow what a thread!!
Thanks to Hillsy for starting it off and well done to Spankie for some good comments well made.
To comment on everything said would take all day but suffice it say I was horrified at CS87's first comment - totally wrong and bang out of order. Sadly it's a view that's held by others and no amount of explanation or dialog will change their narrow minds but fair play to CS87 for staying in the conversation and taking the view of others on board.
This is actually turning into a fairly healthy debate actually.
and in Rugby and Cricket you can refer to a video ref to make the decision even worse in some cases, see Bradford v Leeds recently in Super League.
It was weird playing Rugby and Football, in Rugby you called the ref 'Sir', the only person he really spoke to was the captain, and it was a different world. Play football and all those rules change
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]AZ82 in the Gravesend and District, though I only played there last season. Before that it was Penhill Standard in the Bromley and District League and Before that was Teviot Rangers in the Bexley League.
I appreciate that refs don't personally choose the bans. But surely he could have had a word with the opposing manager, made sure he was happy with the refs decision to rescind the red card, then scrapped it? If our guy had appealed it wouldn't have looked favourable on the referee, and theres no way of finding out whether he had issued a red card or not (no assessors, no tv camera's etc).
I think if a Player is swearing in front of the Ref (i.e That was never a f*cking penalty) then the ref has a right to say something along the lines of "f*ck off". No harm done either way really. If a player is swearing abusively at the ref (i.e Oi, you prick) then its at the referees discretion how he reacts.
[cite]Posted By: C_f_W[/cite]Just entered the fray and wow what a thread!!
Thanks to Hillsy for starting it off and well done to Spankie for some good comments well made.
To comment on everything said would take all day but suffice it say I was horrified at CS87's first comment - totally wrong and bang out of order. Sadly it's a view that's held by others and no amount of explanation or dialog will change their narrow minds but fair play to CS87 for staying in the conversation and taking the view of others on board.
This is actually turning into a fairly healthy debate actually.
What game did you ref Spankie?
I have had lots of chats with Refs after game and you know if you have respected them all game and had some good banter, they can actually become closer to you. So much so that this season alone i think, just by being normal, some refs I have had have chosen not to send the bookings through to the LFA, which is against the rules but sometimes it happens.
[cite][Posted By: cunningstunt87 A couple of years ago, a team I was playing for were 9-0 down in a league match with around 15 minutes left to go. The opposition had a corner, from it had a free shot at goal which hit the defender at the near posts hand.They put the ball in the net anyway, but the ref sent him off, booked me for asking him why it was necessary to give our player a red card given that they had scored and were beating us anyway, and the ref awarded a penalty.[/cite]
This is a rip-roaring thread and having played competitive football for 35 years (yes, I am an old git) I can recall many instances of good refereeing and bad.
My father was a class 1 referee and for many years and reffed in the Woolwich & District League, amongst others - and so I've always been made to see both sides of it.
CS87's post above is a typical situation - but my ref Dad always insisted referees were told to interpret hand to ball (even unintentional or instinctive to protect face or say, genitals) as an offence and stop play, but.........
if the ball struck the hand without any movement of the arm, then there was NO offence and play should continue.
By this criteria, according to cs87, the ball hit the defenders hand, then play should have been allowed to continue and no penalty given.
And the player would not have been red carded and dismissed.
The ball came off his hand and deflected on to the post and back out. They scored from the rebound and were about to celebrate when the ref made his decision. Either way it was a poor decision to give.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]The ball came off his hand and deflected on to the post and back out. They scored from the rebound and were about to celebrate when the ref made his decision. Either way it was a poor decision to give.
Providing your defender never moved his hand or arm towards the ball there was, according to referee's recommended interpretation, no offence.
But even Premiership referees today seemed confused and inconsistant in this situation.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]I appreciate that refs don't personally choose the bans. But surely he could have had a word with the opposing manager, made sure he was happy with the refs decision to rescind the red card, then scrapped it?
The referee is there to uphold the laws of the game. If he became involved in the ramifications of dishing out cautions and bookings, talking to the manager here, chatting to the player there, the whole system would descend into chaos. I personally prefer to rely on man-management than dishing out cautions so I don't sling cards around like confetti. What I'm basically saying is that a player and/or team manager HAS to take personal responsibilty for their actions, they know pretty much what a caution or sending off will do to their disciplinary record, and I'm giving them every chance to avoid such a situation.
If our guy had appealed it wouldn't have looked favourable on the referee
Not necessarily so and it shouldn't come into the discussion. A decision may be overturned for a variety of reasons, it shouldn't be assumed that to overturn a decision is to undermine the referee. Decisons aren't overturned very often at all but when they are, so long as the reasons are given to both player and referee that's fine.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]I appreciate that refs don't personally choose the bans. But surely he could have had a word with the opposing manager, made sure he was happy with the refs decision to rescind the red card, then scrapped it?
The referee is there to uphold the laws of the game. If he became involved in the ramifications of dishing out cautions and bookings, talking to the manager here, chatting to the player there, the whole system would descend into chaos. I personally prefer to rely on man-management than dishing out cautions so I don't sling cards around like confetti. What I'm basically saying is that a player and/or team manager HAS to take personal responsibilty for their actions, they know pretty much what a caution or sending off will do to their disciplinary record, and I'm giving them every chance to avoid such a situation.
But at that level and post match, how much does it really matter whether you put a red card through for a petulant offence or not?
Then he shouldn't have given a penalty and red card. I was told in my training deliberate should be "hand to ball" and not "ball to hand" but having one on the line is always tricky but then again if it was 9-0 in a meaningless game then the referee was probably overzealous in a penalty and red card. That was one incident however.
C_f_W you're exactly right, you give a player enough rope eventually they hang themselves with it. I've had players dissent to me continuously throught a match and reach my limit and caution. When going through the 'booking' process most protest their innocence in such a way that they've said nothing to me when in fact every single decision has been questioned....
But at that level and post match, how much does it really matter whether you put a red card through for a petulant offence or not?
If that petulant offence was to swing a punch at someone then yes, it matters a lot - there's no way that kind of action should go unpunished. Again, it's about personal accountability - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!
If you're worried about fairness and accountability, then don't. Every red card notification comes with the right of appeal, including the request for a personal hearing.
Moving the conversation on, I've often wondered how easy it must be to referee a junior football match (U13's - U18's). Cos they can't really intimidate a referee like you see in mens football. In the height of all seriousness, I actually looked at doing a referee's course a couple of months back but there wasn't one around me. And as I don't drive, getting to games would be a nightmare!
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]Moving the conversation on, I've often wondered how easy it must be to referee a junior football match (U13's - U18's). Cos they can't really intimidate a referee like you see in mens football. In the height of all seriousness, I actually looked at doing a referee's course a couple of months back but there wasn't one around me. And as I don't drive, getting to games would be a nightmare!
[cite]Posted By: Spankie[/cite]Then he shouldn't have given a penalty and red card. I was told in my training deliberate should be "hand to ball" and not "ball to hand" but having one on the line is always tricky but then again if it was 9-0 in a meaningless game then the referee was probably overzealous in a penalty and red card. That was one incident however.
That's consistant with my ref Dad's training, Spankie.
I guess one of the most the greatest challenges for a referee is to keep up with swift play -
and perhaps decisions have to be instantly made some distance from the incident.
But at that level and post match, how much does it really matter whether you put a red card through for a petulant offence or not?
If that petulant offence was to swing a punch at someone then yes, it matters a lot - there's no way that kind of action should go unpunished. Again, it's about personal accountability - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!
If you're worried about fairness and accountability, then don't. Every red card notification comes with the right of appeal, including the request for a personal hearing.
Yeah, Violent Conduct is a straight red, no arguements from me on that. I just thought that that offence could have been dealt with better.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]Moving the conversation on, I've often wondered how easy it must be to referee a junior football match (U13's - U18's). Cos they can't really intimidate a referee like you see in mens football. In the height of all seriousness, I actually looked at doing a referee's course a couple of months back but there wasn't one around me. And as I don't drive, getting to games would be a nightmare!
Its just as hard CS87. I did u8's - u12 as a 14 year old ref and it was the parents who shouted the abuse. Then at 17 I did a 5 aside comp in Chelsfield and refed the u16 final. Sent 1 off for violent conduct and another for spitting at me. Luckily my dad was around and so were others otherwise the guys wanted to kill me. I can't stand spitting, it's a cheap shot. The game got abandoned and both players banned for 1 year. Had to go up to London for the hearing and all lasted about 4 hours. It just goes to show......
Some referees have to adjust the way they referee. I officiate totally differently on a Saturday to a Sunday. On a Saturday if a player blatantly dived I would probably give an indirect free-kick against and issue a caution. On a Sunday I'm much more likely to just give the "get up" sign. In CS87's case I don't think giving a goal would've been the wrong decision and the referee may well have given himself less stick from the remaining 21 players for not sending the player off! It's as much about positioning as fitness. You can run and sprint but there's no way you can keep up with the ball being drop kicked by one goalie to the opponents' area to be collected by the other goalie only for him to launch it. It's impossible. You just do your best and hope your positioning and assistants aid you as much as they can.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]Moving the conversation on, I've often wondered how easy it must be to referee a junior football match (U13's - U18's). Cos they can't really intimidate a referee like you see in mens football. In the height of all seriousness, I actually looked at doing a referee's course a couple of months back but there wasn't one around me. And as I don't drive, getting to games would be a nightmare!
Junior football is without doubt easier but as has been mentioned already, it's not so much the players but the parents who can cause you the most grief. That's often worse because as a referee you're used to dealing with things that happen on the field of play but no so much on the outside. Many a referee has come unstuck because they didn't know they had powers what happens with events outside of the field of play, things have deteriorated to such an extent that it affects the players and the next thing you know you have a major issue on your hands.
Another thing which, for many new referees, can be hard to get to grips with is the notion of actually cautioning or sending players off. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking "they're only kids and I shouldn't be isssuing cautions and dismissals" but you can't afford to, even if it has the effect of reducing that kid to tears - which it can do.
The other aspect of refereeing junior football is that, even up to as late as 14-15 years old, you're still part of what is effectively an educational experience and you as a referee are as much part of that as nyone else.
[cite]Posted By: cunningstunt87[/cite]Moving the conversation on, I've often wondered how easy it must be to referee a junior football match (U13's - U18's). Cos they can't really intimidate a referee like you see in mens football. In the height of all seriousness, I actually looked at doing a referee's course a couple of months back but there wasn't one around me. And as I don't drive, getting to games would be a nightmare!
Its just as hard CS87. I did u8's - u12 as a 14 year old ref and it was the parents who shouted the abuse. Then at 17 I did a 5 aside comp in Chelsfield and refed the u16 final. Sent 1 off for violent conduct and another for spitting at me. Luckily my dad was around and so were others otherwise the guys wanted to kill me. I can't stand spitting, it's a cheap shot. The game got abandoned and both players banned for 1 year. Had to go up to London for the hearing and all lasted about 4 hours. It just goes to show......
To be honest, I think I could handle a bit of abuse shouted from 50 metres away. The parents wouldn't worry me at all. Though I know a couple of refs who say it can be harder refereeing junior football to mens football.
Never done junior football but every single person I've come across say the kids just want to play football and parents are the worst for abuse to the referee which is a real example. The only junior football I have done is the academy (U16 and U18) at Palace and Millwall. I middled Millwall v Leyton Orient in a pre-season game and it was heaven on Earth. No dissent at all. I blew for a foul and the offender just accepted it and got back to his position. I did have one player giving a little bit of mouth so mentioned it to the Millwall bench and he was substituted within a minute. I suppose though the boys know they're working for a contract so abusing the ref does them no favours.
Comments
That's poor refereeing then because it is a discretionary power. The ref can also reverse a decision and give a penalty the other way.
Thanks to Hillsy for starting it off and well done to Spankie for some good comments well made.
To comment on everything said would take all day but suffice it say I was horrified at CS87's first comment - totally wrong and bang out of order. Sadly it's a view that's held by others and no amount of explanation or dialog will change their narrow minds but fair play to CS87 for staying in the conversation and taking the view of others on board.
As for the "A referee who can explain a decision without threatening to book you for dissent would be a start", IMO those players who would be booked are the sort who wouldn't be asking for the right reasons, who wouldn't accept the decision anyway, and usually end up talking themselves into the book. I'm happy to explain a decision to a player who comes across properly - Hillsy's a good example - and have done on many occasions. The idea of dishing out a caution for that is nonsensical.
Most of what I'd say has already been said. It's good to see that most recognise the difficult job that refs have and that there is a level of respect there. I may be a referee but I'm certainly not one who believes that respect should be instantly given. I'm very much of the opinion that if a ref goes out with a hitler-like attitude or a poor knowledge of the laws then no surprise if those players don't respect him (or her).
I ran the line when Spankie was in the middle at The Valley and I thought his performance was excellent, with the kind of demeanour that I wish all refs had - myself included.
He broke the rules, surely that is the bottom line?
Referee's don't do that to players either. The referee's jurisdiction is on the field of play and the surrounding areas. All the referee does is apply the laws of the game and take the appropriate disciplinary action i.e. yellow and red
cards. The fine and length of ban has nothing to do with him. Once he has sent the disciplinary form off to the relevant FA (i.e Kent or London FA) then it's out of his hands. So to infer that referees give players fans and fines is incorrect.
I do agree however that referees should never swear at players and you are right in saying they are in the wrong if they do so. I have never, ever done so as I know I need to lead by example and if a ref swears at players then what does he expect back?
Just out of curiosity who do you play for CS87?
And in rugby and cricket, a mistake by a ref doesn't potentially cost millions of pounds. The stupid sums of money in the Premiership put top-level refs under enormous pressure, because their mistakes are harder to shrug off. I wonder if Poll's reaction to this pressure has been to turn himself into a sort-of celebrity - it can't be easy to deal with, and it showed last night.
Didn't see all of the programme, but it's repeated on Sunday morning on BBC2.
I appreciate that refs don't personally choose the bans. But surely he could have had a word with the opposing manager, made sure he was happy with the refs decision to rescind the red card, then scrapped it? If our guy had appealed it wouldn't have looked favourable on the referee, and theres no way of finding out whether he had issued a red card or not (no assessors, no tv camera's etc).
I think if a Player is swearing in front of the Ref (i.e That was never a f*cking penalty) then the ref has a right to say something along the lines of "f*ck off". No harm done either way really. If a player is swearing abusively at the ref (i.e Oi, you prick) then its at the referees discretion how he reacts.
This is actually turning into a fairly healthy debate actually.
What game did you ref Spankie?
It was weird playing Rugby and Football, in Rugby you called the ref 'Sir', the only person he really spoke to was the captain, and it was a different world. Play football and all those rules change
I have had lots of chats with Refs after game and you know if you have respected them all game and had some good banter, they can actually become closer to you. So much so that this season alone i think, just by being normal, some refs I have had have chosen not to send the bookings through to the LFA, which is against the rules but sometimes it happens.
This is a rip-roaring thread and having played competitive football for 35 years (yes, I am an old git) I can recall many instances of good refereeing and bad.
My father was a class 1 referee and for many years and reffed in the Woolwich & District League, amongst others - and so I've always been made to see both sides of it.
CS87's post above is a typical situation - but my ref Dad always insisted referees were told to interpret hand to ball (even unintentional or instinctive to protect face or say, genitals) as an offence and stop play, but.........
if the ball struck the hand without any movement of the arm, then there was NO offence and play should continue.
By this criteria, according to cs87, the ball hit the defenders hand, then play should have been allowed to continue and no penalty given.
And the player would not have been red carded and dismissed.
Providing your defender never moved his hand or arm towards the ball there was, according to referee's recommended interpretation, no offence.
But even Premiership referees today seemed confused and inconsistant in this situation.
The referee is there to uphold the laws of the game. If he became involved in the ramifications of dishing out cautions and bookings, talking to the manager here, chatting to the player there, the whole system would descend into chaos. I personally prefer to rely on man-management than dishing out cautions so I don't sling cards around like confetti. What I'm basically saying is that a player and/or team manager HAS to take personal responsibilty for their actions, they know pretty much what a caution or sending off will do to their disciplinary record, and I'm giving them every chance to avoid such a situation.
Not necessarily so and it shouldn't come into the discussion. A decision may be overturned for a variety of reasons, it shouldn't be assumed that to overturn a decision is to undermine the referee. Decisons aren't overturned very often at all but when they are, so long as the reasons are given to both player and referee that's fine.
But at that level and post match, how much does it really matter whether you put a red card through for a petulant offence or not?
Great debate :o)
If that petulant offence was to swing a punch at someone then yes, it matters a lot - there's no way that kind of action should go unpunished. Again, it's about personal accountability - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!
If you're worried about fairness and accountability, then don't. Every red card notification comes with the right of appeal, including the request for a personal hearing.
Their parents could intimidate you, though...
That's consistant with my ref Dad's training, Spankie.
I guess one of the most the greatest challenges for a referee is to keep up with swift play -
and perhaps decisions have to be instantly made some distance from the incident.
Who'd be a ref? ;-)
Yeah, Violent Conduct is a straight red, no arguements from me on that. I just thought that that offence could have been dealt with better.
Its just as hard CS87. I did u8's - u12 as a 14 year old ref and it was the parents who shouted the abuse. Then at 17 I did a 5 aside comp in Chelsfield and refed the u16 final. Sent 1 off for violent conduct and another for spitting at me. Luckily my dad was around and so were others otherwise the guys wanted to kill me. I can't stand spitting, it's a cheap shot. The game got abandoned and both players banned for 1 year. Had to go up to London for the hearing and all lasted about 4 hours. It just goes to show......
It's as much about positioning as fitness. You can run and sprint but there's no way you can keep up with the ball being drop kicked by one goalie to the opponents' area to be collected by the other goalie only for him to launch it. It's impossible. You just do your best and hope your positioning and assistants aid you as much as they can.
Junior football is without doubt easier but as has been mentioned already, it's not so much the players but the parents who can cause you the most grief. That's often worse because as a referee you're used to dealing with things that happen on the field of play but no so much on the outside. Many a referee has come unstuck because they didn't know they had powers what happens with events outside of the field of play, things have deteriorated to such an extent that it affects the players and the next thing you know you have a major issue on your hands.
Another thing which, for many new referees, can be hard to get to grips with is the notion of actually cautioning or sending players off. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking "they're only kids and I shouldn't be isssuing cautions and dismissals" but you can't afford to, even if it has the effect of reducing that kid to tears - which it can do.
The other aspect of refereeing junior football is that, even up to as late as 14-15 years old, you're still part of what is effectively an educational experience and you as a referee are as much part of that as nyone else.
To be honest, I think I could handle a bit of abuse shouted from 50 metres away. The parents wouldn't worry me at all. Though I know a couple of refs who say it can be harder refereeing junior football to mens football.