Referee & Linesmen watch

[Kwan]

Eh, I'm not a big fan of the flag system here and even less so if they try to implement it.

 

But there does need to be a fifth "video" official who is watching all of the broadcasts. Then he can radio in if there's a big decision and assist the ref. That would be the easiest way to do it.

[Nigel]

The problem is that penalty decisions are usually subjective.

[Pilchard]

The problem is that penalty decisions are usually subjective.

 

And that's fair enough. It's just the obvious decisions. The things that everyone in the stadium can see is a ridiculous decision - when they get made and there is no come back. No acknowledgement of a mistake, no explanation of the thought process, no apology. The Ashley Young dive at Old Trafford, Herd being sent off for standing around in the penalty area, Helenuis having his shorts pulled down.

 

Ideally, these decisions wouldn't be given in the first place - and if we can produce officials who can avoid such mistakes or at least cut them down - then the former wouldn't be needed.

[chakal]

I know that Phil Dowd isn't most popular ref here  , but i remember game against Norwich, when he could easily show second yellow card to Chris Herd (and he should to be honest) but he didn't do it. To this day i remember fear in Herd's eyes and begging gestures after he made the tackle.

[danceoftheshamen]

Ideally it would be better to have officials who didn't make mistakes of course but i think having tried for over 100 years and still having no solution says we need to bring in the technology in some way. I do agree though that it should be for the blatant mistakes only ... but then that's another reason why i thought the flag system would be ideal as the fact that each manager could only question a maximum of 2 decisions per half, or even 1 initially maybe, would naturally mean the manager wouldn't want to waste it in a 50/50 situation so would hold it back for a key moment in the game.

 

I hear you too Kwan... my only concern with your suggestion is that this would be a bit of a closed shop situation again between Referee and guy in video room. How would we know the Referee would act upon what that guy said for example? And if he didn't act on it what they gonna do? Tell everyone? I think not!

 

Or how do we know what was said between the two? Again i just see a continuation of the veil of secrecy which exists already.

 

The "Behind closed doors" attitude we suffer currently worries me too.  

 

I said on here a while back that there were suspicions of some kind of corruption in the game over here with some of the weird decisions etc. I know it's a bit of a taboo to mention this and many ridiculed the suggestion but look what's happened in the last couple of weeks.... Corruption has been uncovered in British football!!

 

"Only in the lower leagues not the Premier League" was the original line from a no doubt panicked FA..

 

Well now just a week later and we have a former Premier League player being arrested for it! ... For me it's likely just the tip of the iceberg ... a bit like how it works with fleas...what's the saying? "For every one you find there's many more hidden in the carpet" 

 

and who's to say if a player on huge money can be tempted that an official who's by comparison on peanuts and has even more control of the game than any player cannot?! I hope that's not the case of course but some of the weird decisions we see week in week out can't help but make you wonder especially with so much money circulating in the game and more importantly the amount being gambled on its results and statistics on a daily basis. 

 

But that's another topic entirely and not the point of this thread.

 

So i just think the flag system or something akin to it would also reduce the ability &/or risk of this sort of thing happening because it would be clear as day to all & sundry what had actually happened and what the correct action should be. Especially if the various angles of the replays were also available to watch post match or something. 

[srsmithusa]

If we will attempt to bring in technology to correct the inevitable human errors of the referees,... What technology will we bring in to correct the errors of the players. If bacuna hits a hugely misplaced pass to the opponent and they score, lambert can overrule that touch and give and IFK to bacuna to try again? Sessegnon puts one over the bar from 4 yards out and the video player is allowed to overrule the terrible error and count the goal?

Yes there are referee errors in a game. But there are more player errors, poor touches, mis-timed balls, etc. than missed calls in most games. When errors are eliminated from players, not to mention managers, then we can focus on the lesser errors referees make. But it needs to be done instantly with no delay for interpretation, otherwise it takes away the flow of the game.

Or maybe, you should just all become fans of american football where 22 obese men in tight clothes stand and talk for 2 hours interrupted by intermittent bursts of frenetic activity lasting from 2-7 seconds..... Or chess.

Rant done

Realistically, the referees are assessed. Their errors should be publicly announced and analyzed, and used as education for younger referees that want to advance. Those with a pattern of consistent error can be moved to lower league to fix the problem.

[Spoony]

Jesus...seriously every football fan goes through this. Refs aren't 'out to get us'.

[Mantis]

If we will attempt to bring in technology to correct the inevitable human errors of the referees,... What technology will we bring in to correct the errors of the players. If bacuna hits a hugely misplaced pass to the opponent and they score, lambert can overrule that touch and give and IFK to bacuna to try again? Sessegnon puts one over the bar from 4 yards out and the video player is allowed to overrule the terrible error and count the goal?

Yes there are referee errors in a game. But there are more player errors, poor touches, mis-timed balls, etc. than missed calls in most games. When errors are eliminated from players, not to mention managers, then we can focus on the lesser errors referees make. But it needs to be done instantly with no delay for interpretation, otherwise it takes away the flow of the game.

Or maybe, you should just all become fans of american football where 22 obese men in tight clothes stand and talk for 2 hours interrupted by intermittent bursts of frenetic activity lasting from 2-7 seconds..... Or chess.

Rant done

Realistically, the referees are assessed. Their errors should be publicly announced and analyzed, and used as education for younger referees that want to advance. Those with a pattern of consistent error can be moved to lower league to fix the problem.

What's correcting errors from the officials got to do with correct player errors? Player errors are part of the game - errors from referees and linesmen are not (or shouldn't be).

 

Jesus...seriously every football fan goes through this. Refs aren't 'out to get us'.

I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy either but we often get the short end of the stick when it comes to officials.

[LockStockVilla]

 

Even Meulensteen said the penalty was lucky, and that he would have been disapointed had they not been awarded that in the same situation. Mike Dean was atrocious today, not only the big calls, but all the little calls affecting the overall run of play were continually in Fulham's favour. 

 

the part in 2nd half when Gabby was fouled and then stayed down injured in the centre circle was pretty poor refereeing when he never stopped game. 

 

 

though as bad as Dean was their can be no excuses to losing vs a poor team

 

Oh definitely agree, the referee was shocking, equally as shocking as our play. 

[srsmithusa]

Mantis, clearly asserted that "player errors are part of the game - errors from referees or linesmen, are not (or shouldnt be)."

Nicely asserted, but no real evidence for that opinion. The laws of the game give some clear indication that the errors of the referee are part of the game.

1. Ball bounces off referee and goes into net? goal. The referee is considered part of the field.

2. Referee sees foul and intends to caution, but does not prevent a quick restart, and play resumes with no caution given? No caution may be given for that offense. Play has already restarted.

3 referee calls goal and kick off taken. At next stoppage, AR communicates that the scoring team had 13 players om the field when the goal was scored? Goal stands.

4 obvious one.... Player commits studs up brutal tackle that should have been SFP and send off, but referee only cautions. Result, the culprit keeps playing and decision on field cant be changed since the crew saw it. ( sanctions and fines may be added at league doscretion, but no delayed "sending off" by the review committee

Referee errors, like all human errors are a part of the game, whether you assert or opine otherwise, or not.

Your turn, but I would request facts rather than an offhand dismissal based on assertion and opinion alone.

[Mantis]

I know incorrect decisions are part of the game in that they stimulate discussion, debate and controversy etc but I don't really know how you made the jump from using technology to improve refereeing decisions to using technology to improving footballing-related decisions from the players. All sport revolves around the participants making mistakes to an extent. The same can't be said about officials.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mantis

[srsmithusa]

I know incorrect decisions are part of the game in that they stimulate discussion, debate and controversy etc but I don't really know how you made the jump from using technology to improve refereeing decisions to using technology to improving footballing-related decisions from the players. All sport revolves around the participants making mistakes to an extent. The same can't be said about officials.

I don't want to be a pest, but i gave you reason and evidence that referee errors are part of the game. And asked for your reasons to think otherwise, not just your assertion. It's clear you think referee errors are somehow different. But you haven't given me a reason to agree with you, certainly not one that outweighs the laws of the game.

You said that "all sport revolves around the participants make mistakes to an extent." We agree. I just think referees are participants, and the LOTG support my view.

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

I made the jump to using technology to correcting player errors in an effort to illustrate (by absurdity) that trying to remove human error from sport is not the path to take it.

All that being said. The first PK at fulham was questionable at best. The second was dead certain and mr Dean and his AR both screwed it. IMO worst referee decision in our season was failing to notice john terry's hand was in the air and unnatural position, stopped a late attacking chance, there have been others, some have favored us. But every fan remembers the ones that piss us off better than the others.

I dont think referee errors should be ignored. See my post above about what i think should be done.

[Mantis]

 

I know incorrect decisions are part of the game in that they stimulate discussion, debate and controversy etc but I don't really know how you made the jump from using technology to improve refereeing decisions to using technology to improving footballing-related decisions from the players. All sport revolves around the participants making mistakes to an extent. The same can't be said about officials.

I don't want to be a pest, but i gave you reason and evidence that referee errors are part of the game. And asked for your reasons to think otherwise, not just your assertion. It's clear you think referee errors are somehow different. But you haven't given me a reason to agree with you, certainly not one that outweighs the laws of the game.

You said that "all sport revolves around the participants make mistakes to an extent." We agree. I just think referees are participants, and the LOTG support my view.

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

I made the jump to using technology to correcting player errors in an effort to illustrate (by absurdity) that trying to remove human error from sport is not the path to take it.

All that being said. The first PK at fulham was questionable at best. The second was dead certain and mr Dean and his AR both screwed it. IMO worst referee decision in our season was failing to notice john terry's hand was in the air and unnatural position, stopped a late attacking chance, there have been others, some have favored us. But every fan remembers the ones that piss us off better than the others.

I dont think referee errors should be ignored. See my post above about what i think should be done.

 

If there were no mistakes from the players (or if these mistakes were corrected) then there would be no game essentially. The same can't be said of officials. In an ideal world the officials would be perfect whereas in this same ideal world mistakes from players would still need to exist as that's a central part of competitive sport.

 

You still haven't explained how you made the jump from technology to correct referees to technology to correct players. You portrayed it as a sort of slippery slope argument but it has no factual basis as there isn't a single person that would want to see mistakes from players eliminated from the game. If technology was introduced to correct refereeing mistakes (and I don't necessarily advocate this) then that would be that - it wouldn't move on to correcting player mistakes.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mantis

[Ponky]

Although he is infamous in my country for his 3 yellows gaffe, I quite enjoy reading Graham Poll's articles in the Mail because they give you a sense of insight into what refs have been thinking with the controversial decisions that have been given that weekend. He used to be quite protective of his fellow refs in the early days but these days he rips into them if they are in the wrong.

Too often ref decisions are explained away by commentators who are former players and,quite frankly, buffoons who are either ridiculously biased or totally clueless.

I would like to see a few former refs in the commentary box for games so they can give running judgements on how a referee is likely to see certain incidents and explain interpretations of the rules to people watching the game.

While it won't eradicate poor decisions it might possibly make for a more educated public and show where there are legitimate grievances rather than just petty bias.

It's possible too that referees might just be a little more conscientious about their decision making if they know their are being reviewed in real time by experts in front of millions of people.

[srsmithusa]

Ponky, I agree.

Mantis please re-read the 4th paragraph in my last message. It's where i addressed what you then said i had not addressed. Of course technology like headsets for communication and goal line technologies can and will reduce error, but error from the referee is still part of the game according to FIFA, and the FA in the laws of the game. Removing referee error is no more likely than removing all player or management, or villa talk error. I am adamantly opposed to anything that would stop the flow of play to try to make certain the unavoidable is avoided,

BTW i understand your argument. But player errors are there because players are necessary, like it or not, an arbiter is mecessary as well. The idea of letting the 2 captains agree on all the decisions was abandoned long ago, for good reason. It didnt work. Referees are necessary participants. Anytime any human is involved errors occur and are unavoidable, hate to admit it, but my surgeon isn't perfect under ideal conditions.

I am in favor of greater accountability as i suggested and/or as ponky suggested.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

Poor teams get more decisions going against them and good teams - for them. It's both the subjective judgement of referees, as of course it's easier to award a 50-50 penalty against Crystal Palace than against Man U at old Trafford. But the other aspect is that better teams generally create more chances, have more of the ball and so to say more opportunities to get into a position in which a game-changing decision has to be made. If Palace get a player of theirs tackled in the opposition box around 2 or 3 times per game, Man U have that at least twice as many times, thus more of a chance to get a decision go their way, especially combined with the subjective factor.

[Mantis]

Ponky, I agree.

Mantis please re-read the 4th paragraph in my last message. It's where i addressed what you then said i had not addressed. Of course technology like headsets for communication and goal line technologies can and will reduce error, but error from the referee is still part of the game according to FIFA, and the FA in the laws of the game. Removing referee error is no more likely than removing all player or management, or villa talk error. I am adamantly opposed to anything that would stop the flow of play to try to make certain the unavoidable is avoided,

BTW i understand your argument. But player errors are there because players are necessary, like it or not, an arbiter is mecessary as well. The idea of letting the 2 captains agree on all the decisions was abandoned long ago, for good reason. It didnt work. Referees are necessary participants. Anytime any human is involved errors occur and are unavoidable, hate to admit it, but my surgeon isn't perfect under ideal conditions.

I am in favor of greater accountability as i suggested and/or as ponky suggested.

No, you didn't address it and to be honest I don't think this really answers it either. Player error and refereeing error are two separate things, and this is shown in the reactions from fans. If a player makes a bad pass or misses an open goal fans of the team that players play for will be annoyed but there won't be a feeling of injustice because it's all part of the game. On the other hand, blatant refereeing errors are seen as just that - injustices. Even if more technology was brought in to reduce referee error (and I never actually said I was for this) there's no way it would move on to reducing errors from players.

 

I never said referees weren't necessary. Of course they are

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mantis

[Pilchard]

Jesus...seriously every football fan goes through this. Refs aren't 'out to get us'.

 

I haven't seen one single comment on here to suggest anyone is deluded enough to think this. You just haven't read the thread properly.

[BOF]

 

I've seen us benefit from officiating. It's why I like Michael Oliver when he refs us. The amount of times I've commented that "oops, we got away with that one" when he's officiating us has been plenty. On the whole I'd agree, very few fans can be unbiased watching a game; or more often watching a ref. But some of us can

Even if you can BOF , fans of this (or any other) team as a whole probably can't. I think it's a waste of energy to dwell in their poor decisions. Yell it out of your system and forget. An explanation or apology won't get us more points.

 

Yeah, I watch matches with a Spurs mate and I swear that when we watch Spurs we're watching 2 completely different games from each other.  And it's not him wanting the ref to be biased or anything.  He genuinely believes he sees handballs and fouls absolutely everywhere.  It boggles the mind.

[Pilchard]

I would like to see a few former refs in the commentary box for games so they can give running judgements on how a referee is likely to see certain incidents and explain interpretations of the rules to people watching the game.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. Referees are setting themselves up to be personalities in the game, and it simply isn't possible to do this and remain impartial and fair to everyone who they officiate with.

 

Look at Uriah Rennie. Some good performance, he grew an ego, began with sponsorship and all the crap and his performances dropped. The example I gave of Halsey chumming up with players which at the very least would have had a unconscious effect on his performances and certainly explains some of the dodgier decisions he has made. These people are there to ensure the rules of the game are kept to, no more. If they aren't prepared to come out and explain decisions whilst they are doing this, what makes it worth while for them to do it when they are no longer in the game.

 

They shouldn't be made celebrities, superstars. We've got enough boring, talentless hangers on in the sport already.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Pilchard