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!
Wow - Your logic re useless is based upon your perception. Please explain how they managed to bypass a strict system, which is based largely upon an independent marks system. Would I prefer to base ability upon perception of one man or an independent system...a difficult decision, that one. Furthmore, having got to an exalted position whilst "useless", how do they manage to retain their position on the league. Perhaps the EFL should scrap an expensive cost based system and just rely on your perception :-)
I think you will find watching lots of games is a good basis to form an opinion. An opinion many on here will share. Maybe the EFL system is flawed and it should look at alternatives without resorting to the ridiculous suggestion of giving the job to me because I have an opinion. Maybe everybody who is critical of refs at this level should just shut up and bow to your wisdom!
Maybe there are not enough good refs to improve the standard so where a ref is relates to their relative abilities. What an outrageous suggestion and what a crime for suggesting possible solutions to it.
"Watching lots of games and forming a (subjective) opinion" is better than an independent marks-based system. Wow, are you serious.
Now try to answer my question I posed re useless referees beating the system for years and years by staying on the Football League Panal of Referees. I cant wait for this priceless response.
Finally. Your last sentence. I am happy to listen to any criticism of referees, but like any point of view in life, they must be credible and evidence based, rather than your hollow baseless subjective opinions.
So tell me - what are the average marks Trevor Kettle got? And the breakdown of who gave him those marks? Of course these are secret so we just have to take your word for it that they reasonably reflect his performances. Maybe there are not enough good refs so you have to employ some bad ones! Let's open this up - who thinks the standard of refereeing in League one is good, average or poor? Mind you, if you only have hundreds of games watched to base your opinion, you might not be sufficiently qualified to have an opinion!
So tell me - what are the average marks Trevor Kettle got? And the breakdown of who gave him those marks? Of course these are secret so we just have to take your word for it that they reasonably reflect his performances. Maybe there are not enough good refs so you have to employ some bad ones! Let's open this up - who thinks the standard of refereeing in League one is good, average or poor? Mind you, if you only have hundreds of games watched to base your opinion, you might not be sufficiently qualified to have an opinion!
Please first answer the questions I asked.How do useless referees beat the system and graduate to the Football League and how do they stay there for many years?
To answer yours, I have no clue re the marks given to an individual referee ad nor should I be privvy to that information. The system used in my days on senior leagues was that we individuals we told the average league mark and our personal mark. We were also told of our individual ranking position on the list of referees.
What is the statistical relevance of gaining the thoughts of individuals? Evidence based facts please.
How do I know how they beat the system - I only see the end result - useless lower league refs! Maybe the system is not all that!
At last, you admit your views are based upon bias perception and ignores facts!
I will however try just one more time to explain why your terminology of "Useless PROFESSIONAL referees" is absolute drivel. Yes, there are useless referees; they remain at the bottom of the pile and do not progress beyond park football. For other referees, they are closely scrutinised; assessed, marked by clubs, reassessed and remarked, and more assessments and more marks, over a season.
Those that achieve high marks are promoted to the next level, being the first level of senior football. At that level, some referees would have achieved their optimum level of ability and remain at that level, without further advancement; others show potential and are promoted. This system continues throughout the football pyramid, right to the top of the tree. A comparative system can be applied to the English cricket scene; a batsman (say) at county level will show much promise and score regularly. He gets selected to play for England and that promotion will determine whether he/she has the ability and technique to move up a level to the International scene; some make it, other don't and go back to their county and either remain at that level or improve their technique and eradicate their flaws and get reselected. Apply that logic to say the Premier League where some promotees will adapt to the higher level of ability and remain; others will be found wanting and I think (but I am happy to be informed otherwise), that they are given two seasons to improve. If their performance shows no sign of improvement then they are relegated. Those latter group of referees can hardly be classed as "Useless Professional Referees", they are however referees who had refereed successfully at a very high level, but slightly lower that the Premier League.
Look, we are not going to agree - I am not the only one that think many League One refs are useless - you defend them all you want, but please let me have an opinion based on what I have seen.
If refs go through so many steps to advance to each level, one can only conclude that the reason they make so many glaring mistakes is that they have an agenda, either against certain clubs, or at least against certain players.
Look, we are not going to agree - I am not the only one that think many League One refs are useless - you defend them all you want, but please let me have an opinion based on what I have seen.
Of course you can have an opinion which is baseless and devoid of facts. I will stick to opinions based upon a system of marks, assessments and measurement which stands up to scrutiny.
Do refs warn each other about certain players, or clubs? One would think they must, especially the "divers".
In my days as a reserve match official at football league games (albeit many years ago) referees would share information on players, teams and systems of play. I wouldnt necessary use the word "warn" because it has negative undertones.
I know that in this era, referees watch videos of playing styles, which can influence their positioning. For example, teams like Man City and Arsenal generally play a short passing game and referees can confidently extend their running area to close to the corner flag and not get caught out. Conversely, teams like Leicester did rely on a long ball game over the top for Varney to run on to. In such cases, referees would not extend their areas of diagonal positional play so deep for fear of being caught out.
On 2 of my matches last season. My observer (assessor) came in after the match and said I missed ....... etc
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.
Lee Bowyer said last night at the Bromley meeting about the ref v Peterboro and that penalty decision, "Felt the ref just guessed, none of them knew".
Well, with the score 0-0 and to award a penalty in the last minute, it was definitely a match changing decision. In the light of Bowyer's comments, what do our resident refs think about that decision and what they've seen on video?
The video indicates that when he made the decision, the ref was 25 yards behind play.
I'm also curious as to what the assessor thought ...... but I guess we're not privy to that info!
I am slightly surprised that you still haven't given your view on whether the incident in the video which this thread concerns, is a penalty. And now you've got @Oggy Red queuing up for a decision too! :-)
Hi @PragueAddick. I initially entered this debate to mention the fact that "intent" is not necessary a consideration for awarding a foul unless it is handball; at that stage I had not watched the video.
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
On 2 of my matches last season. My observer (assessor) came in after the match and said I missed ....... etc
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.
Lee Bowyer said last night at the Bromley meeting about the ref v Peterboro and that penalty decision, "Felt the ref just guessed, none of them knew".
Well, with the score 0-0 and to award a penalty in the last minute, it was definitely a match changing decision. In the light of Bowyer's comments, what do our resident refs think about that decision and what they've seen on video?
The video indicates that when he made the decision, the ref was 25 yards behind play.
I'm also curious as to what the assessor thought ...... but I guess we're not privy to that info!
I think that Bowyer has said what we were all thinking at the time and most of the time throughout the game. It is right that if you are not 100% certain, you cannot give a penalty, but in this instance when the referee is a long way from the situation at hand, and when questioned by Chris Solly at the time about why was it given and who was it that gave away the penalty, he could not answer that question. For me, personally, if you have just made one of the bigger decisions you can make on a football pitch and you can’t explain what happened, why you came to that decision and who was the player to commit the foul, then you’re not certain and you guessed because for a moment it seemed the right thing to do at the time.
I do agree with the comments prior about the use of language used, and maybe saying more or less able is a better way to put things, especially when they are human and have worked hard to get to the level they are at. However, and as a referee myself, I also think that if you cannot have criticism in your job then something is wrong. Of course in football and refereeing especially, the criticism is extreme most of the time, but when passion and emotion is high, you have to be certain on the decisions you make and in this specific situation for the penalty against Peterborough, it was not a call that he was 100% on and therefore, leaving himself open for criticism, even more so with the amount of 50-50 that went against us when they were clear and obvious.
As a referee myself, and a football coach I must add, I would say I have a balanced view as I can see football from both sides of the coin. The last thing I want is for the respect for referees not to improve because it needs to and that comes from all directions. But I also want the standard of officiating to improve as well and moments like the penalty decision does not help the case.
Bowyer admitted that he was very rude and abusive towards the referee and couldn’t tell us what he said to him, he knew it went well too far in that respect. But do I think he was wrong to say that he felt he guessed and none of them knew? My honest answer is no he was not wrong to say that.
My personal opinion is the refs in League 1 don't get enough assistance from the Lino or 4th official. This appears to be the fact that the linos are shit scared to make any decision of their own even if it is a Throw in. The only thing the linesman seem to be there for is for offside and there is far more questionable decisions than in the top level linesman..
I think the refs act too impulsively in league 1 and sometimes just need a little time and advice from the lino to give their opinion and come to the correct decision.
Hi @PragueAddick. I initially entered this debate to mention the fact that "intent" is not necessary a consideration for awarding a foul unless it is handball; at that stage I had not watched the video.
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
So we are in agreement there then!
If I could bypass Peter's opinions, which we are all aware of, for the benefit of others that see and agree with the issues with League One refs, I do have a theory. If you are reffing in League One or indeed League two you will have aspirations of being a top ref. Now there are going to be two reasons why you are not a top league ref - possibly three. The first may be that you are gaining experience and improving and getting there, but a novice driver is not going to be as confident or comfortable as an experienced one who may have learned from their mistakes. Secondly, it may be as high as you can get as there is something that is stopping you going further. Clearly you will understand the rules but there is a disconnect somewhere.
And the third possible reason is our expectations. I mean, it is a big deal to us if a ref makes good or bad decisions. Given that we are watching professional football, our expectations are greater than one would expect in the lower leagues. I think some refs want to show they are not influenced by the home crowd, especially that of a bigger team. Now we know that Liverpool get more penalties in front of the Kop as do Man Utd at Old Trafford. We basically know that even the best refs are influenced by the crowd. We know from our premiership days, how we could intimidate refs with the atmosphere we created. It is human nature and refs are human beings. Getting a Leicester player sent off springs to mind in the game we chucked our brochures on the pitch!
But if you are reffing in a premiership ground like the Valley - you are not under that same pressure from the crowd anymore - sadly! So you can show more easily what a great ref you are by showing you are not favouring the home - bigger side. of course it isn't that hard anymore, but I think it is a factor with some refs. Just a theory.
Touching on the point Bowyer made - refs can't know what the correct decision is all the time - they have to sometimes make a call. They can try to show they are not intimidated by making a call against the bigger side, and they can make a call by being influenced by the crowd. But when you are not sure, it is always worth introducing an external element into the refs head. That is why we see players calling for things to the point of being ridiculous. You learn as you play that whilst it doesn't work all the time, but making a claim for the decision and getting in there early does get you more than your fair share of the ones the ref is unsure about.
Blimey, should retiitle this thread "Ref wars - when refs collide".
My view, I was expecting to see a howler but can see why he gave it. Harsh in my view, but the arm was up and from the refs angle in real time it might've looked like an elbow. However, the dickhead rolling around on the floor like he'd been shot and then getting up as right as rain a few seconds later needs ironing out.
I think refs would be helped if players faced long retrospective bans for excessive/ridiculous simulation. In this age where there is video evidence from even non league games, it is a logical development.
I think refs would be helped if players faced long retrospective bans for excessive/ridiculous simulation. In this age where there is video evidence from even non league games, it is a logical development.
Hi @PragueAddick. I initially entered this debate to mention the fact that "intent" is not necessary a consideration for awarding a foul unless it is handball; at that stage I had not watched the video.
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
Excellent, thanks, and the overall view on here confirms what I was trying to say in Prague last week, that in England more likely than not it would not have been given. In CZ seems most people agreed with the ref, unless they are from Plzen.
Having said that, it made me think of the incident when Konch was sent off against Chelsea after just 25 mins in a season opener. Ref said he led with his arm, no one else saw it that way, although a Chelsea import was doing the poleaxed on the ground bit. The ref though was Graham Poll's mate, cant recall his name, they went on to make a DVD of their "tough ref" decisions. Pair of twats.
Hi @PragueAddick. I initially entered this debate to mention the fact that "intent" is not necessary a consideration for awarding a foul unless it is handball; at that stage I had not watched the video.
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
Having said that, it made me think of the incident when Konch was sent off against Chelsea after just 25 mins in a season opener. Ref said he led with his arm, no one else saw it that way, although a Chelsea import was doing the poleaxed on the ground bit. The ref though was Graham Poll's mate, cant recall his name, they went on to make a DVD of their "tough ref" decisions. Pair of twats.
My pet hate is the 'look at me' ref, who is determined from the 1st whistle to be Star of the Show. The first one I remember was a bald fat clown of referee, Roger Kirkpatrick ..... whose theatrical antics would really wind up players and crowd alike.
I guess we're really discussing refs who make rash decisions in the heat of the moment, without being 100% certain. Maybe even refs who are trying to re-impose themselves on a game in which they seem to be losing control -and then make a really controversial decision to show they are the authority.
My father was a Class One ref who taught me from a young age the Laws of the game - and that the best referees were the ones you never noticed.
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
A point about your claim that you can’t have useless refs. The system in place may demote the ones who are less able, but that is only in comparison with their fellows. It doesn’t mean any of them are actually any good.
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
A point about your claim that you can’t have useless refs. The system in place may demote the ones who are less able, but that is only in comparison with their fellows. It doesn’t mean any of them are actually any good.
Your final paragraph - a good point that I cant refute. May I therefore turn the statement around, as a series of questions to you:
(a) In your opinion, are professional referees useless (or use any other range of suitable words)
(b) If your answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what is the criteria you have used and measured referees against to arrive at, or support, your view.
(c) If the answer to (a) is yes, what measures can be taken to improve referees and bring them up to the expected standard.
Hi @PragueAddick. I initially entered this debate to mention the fact that "intent" is not necessary a consideration for awarding a foul unless it is handball; at that stage I had not watched the video.
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
Having said that, it made me think of the incident when Konch was sent off against Chelsea after just 25 mins in a season opener. Ref said he led with his arm, no one else saw it that way, although a Chelsea import was doing the poleaxed on the ground bit. The ref though was Graham Poll's mate, cant recall his name, they went on to make a DVD of their "tough ref" decisions. Pair of twats.
My pet hate is the 'look at me' ref, who is determined from the 1st whistle to be Star of the Show. The first one I remember was a bald fat clown of referee, Roger Kirkpatrick ..... whose theatrical antics would really wind up players and crowd alike.
I guess we're really discussing refs who make rash decisions in the heat of the moment, without being 100% certain. Maybe even refs who are trying to re-impose themselves on a game in which they seem to be losing control -and then make a really controversial decision to show they are the authority.
My father was a Class One ref who taught me from a young age the Laws of the game - and that the best referees were the ones you never noticed.
Graham Poll's mate, to whom you refer, was (I think) Graham Barber. Graham was also friendly with Paul Taylor, who had a long career on the Football League, but I don't think he made it to the Premier League list of Referees (but I stand to be corrected). I progressed through the senior ranks in the same semi professional leagues, and in the same time frame, as Graham Poll, hence my knowledge of these matters. However, he started refereeing at a young age and made it to the Football League Referees Panel by his mid-twenties. I didn't take up refereeing until I was 28 and finished refereeing at a level equivalent to today's Vanarama League (regional divisions).
A couple of interesting facts from my senior football refereeing days: First, there was no fourth Official prior to the introduction of Sky money into the game. It wasn't considered cost effective to pay a further match official to standby for the rare occasion that one of the three appointed referees would get injured during the game and need replacing. The famous incident of Jimmy Hill, then a football commentator on TV, who ran a line for an injured official (as I recall, at Highbury), changed thinking on the matter. When the role of fourth Official was introduced (about the mid-eighties), those officials were selected from the next level down, which allowed me exposure to the top games. However, the role of the fourth official was very limited. The role was limited to keeping a record of the game (subs times, shirt numbers, times: all disciplinary records- shirt numbers, offence level, times, nature of offence), plus custodian of the one and only replacement football and a spare set of linesman's flags. There were no boards for showing the subs names to the crowd or of remaining time, no warring managers to sort out. Some referees made you feel welcome and made you feel as an integral part of the team, whist other were less welcoming, to differing levels.
One other interesting but little known fact is that, whilst the major factor to promotion to the football league list was ability, another factor taken into account was location of the prospective new linesman. Again, due to the lack of money in the game, match official expenses were a consideration and therefore the closer you lived to a wide range of football clubs, the more chance you had of promotion to the football League. Indeed, Graham Poll actually moved nearer to London (to Tring) to enhance his chances of getting on the Football League! I lived nearer to Holland than London at the time (!) - actually in Canvey Island. There were only two football league match officials living near me, within a 40 mile distance to London. One was Pete Brennan (from Benfleet) who was a fine linesman who officiated in the FA Cup Final where Paul Gasgoine damaged his knee and was out for many months and officiated at a EUFA Cup Final, and Dave Axcell, a referee from Southend. Whenever I saw Peter or Dave I would teasingly ask them to retire to increased my chances of a "dead-man's shoes" selection!
I've tried to watch it over and over and it looks to me like the injured player was trying head a ball he could never get and ended up headbutting the guy who was sent off!
Was this game really using VAR? Surely the whole idea is that these things can be sorted out according to the laws of the game. But, unfortunately, the laws of the game don't seem to cover situations like this leaving referees to strut around like mini popes pronouncing on incidents without any need to justify their opinions.
Comments
Now try to answer my question I posed re useless referees beating the system for years and years by staying on the Football League Panal of Referees. I cant wait for this priceless response.
Finally. Your last sentence. I am happy to listen to any criticism of referees, but like any point of view in life, they must be credible and evidence based, rather than your hollow baseless subjective opinions.
Have a good day
To answer yours, I have no clue re the marks given to an individual referee ad nor should I be privvy to that information. The system used in my days on senior leagues was that we individuals we told the average league mark and our personal mark. We were also told of our individual ranking position on the list of referees.
What is the statistical relevance of gaining the thoughts of individuals? Evidence based facts please.
Have a good day
I will however try just one more time to explain why your terminology of "Useless PROFESSIONAL referees" is absolute drivel. Yes, there are useless referees; they remain at the bottom of the pile and do not progress beyond park football. For other referees, they are closely scrutinised; assessed, marked by clubs, reassessed and remarked, and more assessments and more marks, over a season.
Those that achieve high marks are promoted to the next level, being the first level of senior football. At that level, some referees would have achieved their optimum level of ability and remain at that level, without further advancement; others show potential and are promoted. This system continues throughout the football pyramid, right to the top of the tree. A comparative system can be applied to the English cricket scene; a batsman (say) at county level will show much promise and score regularly. He gets selected to play for England and that promotion will determine whether he/she has the ability and technique to move up a level to the International scene; some make it, other don't and go back to their county and either remain at that level or improve their technique and eradicate their flaws and get reselected. Apply that logic to say the Premier League where some promotees will adapt to the higher level of ability and remain; others will be found wanting and I think (but I am happy to be informed otherwise), that they are given two seasons to improve. If their performance shows no sign of improvement then they are relegated. Those latter group of referees can hardly be classed as "Useless Professional Referees", they are however referees who had refereed successfully at a very high level, but slightly lower that the Premier League.
I know that in this era, referees watch videos of playing styles, which can influence their positioning. For example, teams like Man City and Arsenal generally play a short passing game and referees can confidently extend their running area to close to the corner flag and not get caught out. Conversely, teams like Leicester did rely on a long ball game over the top for Varney to run on to. In such cases, referees would not extend their areas of diagonal positional play so deep for fear of being caught out.
Well, with the score 0-0 and to award a penalty in the last minute, it was definitely a match changing decision.
In the light of Bowyer's comments, what do our resident refs think about that decision and what they've seen on video?
The video indicates that when he made the decision, the ref was 25 yards behind play.
I'm also curious as to what the assessor thought ...... but I guess we're not privy to that info!
I am slightly surprised that you still haven't given your view on whether the incident in the video which this thread concerns, is a penalty. And now you've got @Oggy Red queuing up for a decision too! :-)
Having now watched it, and for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that it is not a penalty.
I do agree with the comments prior about the use of language used, and maybe saying more or less able is a better way to put things, especially when they are human and have worked hard to get to the level they are at. However, and as a referee myself, I also think that if you cannot have criticism in your job then something is wrong. Of course in football and refereeing especially, the criticism is extreme most of the time, but when passion and emotion is high, you have to be certain on the decisions you make and in this specific situation for the penalty against Peterborough, it was not a call that he was 100% on and therefore, leaving himself open for criticism, even more so with the amount of 50-50 that went against us when they were clear and obvious.
As a referee myself, and a football coach I must add, I would say I have a balanced view as I can see football from both sides of the coin. The last thing I want is for the respect for referees not to improve because it needs to and that comes from all directions. But I also want the standard of officiating to improve as well and moments like the penalty decision does not help the case.
Bowyer admitted that he was very rude and abusive towards the referee and couldn’t tell us what he said to him, he knew it went well too far in that respect. But do I think he was wrong to say that he felt he guessed and none of them knew? My honest answer is no he was not wrong to say that.
This appears to be the fact that the linos are shit scared to make any decision of their own even if it is a Throw in.
The only thing the linesman seem to be there for is for offside and there is far more questionable decisions than in the top level linesman..
I think the refs act too impulsively in league 1 and sometimes just need a little time and advice from the lino to give their opinion and come to the correct decision.
If I could bypass Peter's opinions, which we are all aware of, for the benefit of others that see and agree with the issues with League One refs, I do have a theory. If you are reffing in League One or indeed League two you will have aspirations of being a top ref. Now there are going to be two reasons why you are not a top league ref - possibly three. The first may be that you are gaining experience and improving and getting there, but a novice driver is not going to be as confident or comfortable as an experienced one who may have learned from their mistakes. Secondly, it may be as high as you can get as there is something that is stopping you going further. Clearly you will understand the rules but there is a disconnect somewhere.
And the third possible reason is our expectations. I mean, it is a big deal to us if a ref makes good or bad decisions. Given that we are watching professional football, our expectations are greater than one would expect in the lower leagues. I think some refs want to show they are not influenced by the home crowd, especially that of a bigger team. Now we know that Liverpool get more penalties in front of the Kop as do Man Utd at Old Trafford. We basically know that even the best refs are influenced by the crowd. We know from our premiership days, how we could intimidate refs with the atmosphere we created. It is human nature and refs are human beings. Getting a Leicester player sent off springs to mind in the game we chucked our brochures on the pitch!
But if you are reffing in a premiership ground like the Valley - you are not under that same pressure from the crowd anymore - sadly! So you can show more easily what a great ref you are by showing you are not favouring the home - bigger side. of course it isn't that hard anymore, but I think it is a factor with some refs. Just a theory.
Touching on the point Bowyer made - refs can't know what the correct decision is all the time - they have to sometimes make a call. They can try to show they are not intimidated by making a call against the bigger side, and they can make a call by being influenced by the crowd. But when you are not sure, it is always worth introducing an external element into the refs head. That is why we see players calling for things to the point of being ridiculous. You learn as you play that whilst it doesn't work all the time, but making a claim for the decision and getting in there early does get you more than your fair share of the ones the ref is unsure about.
My view, I was expecting to see a howler but can see why he gave it. Harsh in my view, but the arm was up and from the refs angle in real time it might've looked like an elbow. However, the dickhead rolling around on the floor like he'd been shot and then getting up as right as rain a few seconds later needs ironing out.
That sort of thing should result in a ban.
Having said that, it made me think of the incident when Konch was sent off against Chelsea after just 25 mins in a season opener. Ref said he led with his arm, no one else saw it that way, although a Chelsea import was doing the poleaxed on the ground bit. The ref though was Graham Poll's mate, cant recall his name, they went on to make a DVD of their "tough ref" decisions. Pair of twats.
The first one I remember was a bald fat clown of referee, Roger Kirkpatrick ..... whose theatrical antics would really wind up players and crowd alike.
I guess we're really discussing refs who make rash decisions in the heat of the moment, without being 100% certain.
Maybe even refs who are trying to re-impose themselves on a game in which they seem to be losing control -and then make a really controversial decision to show they are the authority.
My father was a Class One ref who taught me from a young age the Laws of the game - and that the best referees were the ones you never noticed.
(a) In your opinion, are professional referees useless (or use any other range of suitable words)
(b) If your answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what is the criteria you have used and measured referees against to arrive at, or support, your view.
(c) If the answer to (a) is yes, what measures can be taken to improve referees and bring them up to the expected standard.
Look forward to your response - thanks
A couple of interesting facts from my senior football refereeing days: First, there was no fourth Official prior to the introduction of Sky money into the game. It wasn't considered cost effective to pay a further match official to standby for the rare occasion that one of the three appointed referees would get injured during the game and need replacing. The famous incident of Jimmy Hill, then a football commentator on TV, who ran a line for an injured official (as I recall, at Highbury), changed thinking on the matter. When the role of fourth Official was introduced (about the mid-eighties), those officials were selected from the next level down, which allowed me exposure to the top games. However, the role of the fourth official was very limited. The role was limited to keeping a record of the game (subs times, shirt numbers, times: all disciplinary records- shirt numbers, offence level, times, nature of offence), plus custodian of the one and only replacement football and a spare set of linesman's flags. There were no boards for showing the subs names to the crowd or of remaining time, no warring managers to sort out. Some referees made you feel welcome and made you feel as an integral part of the team, whist other were less welcoming, to differing levels.
One other interesting but little known fact is that, whilst the major factor to promotion to the football league list was ability, another factor taken into account was location of the prospective new linesman. Again, due to the lack of money in the game, match official expenses were a consideration and therefore the closer you lived to a wide range of football clubs, the more chance you had of promotion to the football League. Indeed, Graham Poll actually moved nearer to London (to Tring) to enhance his chances of getting on the Football League! I lived nearer to Holland than London at the time (!) - actually in Canvey Island. There were only two football league match officials living near me, within a 40 mile distance to London. One was Pete Brennan (from Benfleet) who was a fine linesman who officiated in the FA Cup Final where Paul Gasgoine damaged his knee and was out for many months and officiated at a EUFA Cup Final, and Dave Axcell, a referee from Southend. Whenever I saw Peter or Dave I would teasingly ask them to retire to increased my chances of a "dead-man's shoes" selection!
Was this game really using VAR? Surely the whole idea is that these things can be sorted out according to the laws of the game. But, unfortunately, the laws of the game don't seem to cover situations like this leaving referees to strut around like mini popes pronouncing on incidents without any need to justify their opinions.