The refereeing crisis

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, kurtsimonw said:

Why not just make it the same as the NFL challenge system?

If a player catches the ball, runs it for a touchdown and the opposition coach thinks it hit the ground, he appeals after the play is over. If he's correct, the game goes back to the point of the incorrect decision, it is corrected and then they start again from there.

So here, if a team thinks they should've been given a penalty and the ref says no and the game plays on naturally. As soon as there is a stoppage of any kind, the manager can choose to appeal. If it's a penalty, the game goes back and awards the penalty. If it's not a penalty, you just continue from where the game naturally came to a stop. 

The downside is that in football the ball can stay in play, with no stoppage for minutes. It would turn into a bit of a farce if the game went on for 4 or 5 minutes, and then had to be pulled all the way back.

[kurtsimonw]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

The downside is that in football the ball can stay in play, with no stoppage for minutes. It would turn into a bit of a farce if the game went on for 4 or 5 minutes, and then had to be pulled all the way back.

That is true. Plus it might encourage players to foul on purpose in order to get a stoppage, which isn't what we want. 

[Stevo985]

Just now, kurtsimonw said:

That is true. Plus it might encourage players to foul on purpose in order to get a stoppage, which isn't what we want. 

I do actually agree that a challenge system is the best way. No system is perfect, but that would help I think.

A compromise between stopping the play immediately and waiting until it goes out of play might be for the ref to wait until the play isn't "critical" and then stop the game. Much like they do for a full time whistle. if there's an attack still happening then obviously he isn't going to stop it. If the ball is cleared but remains in play he could stop it.

[HanoiVillan]

All of these suggestions are an awful lot more complicated than 'let's just not bother because basically nobody actually dislikes bad refereeing decisions'. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

All of these suggestions are an awful lot more complicated than 'let's just not bother because basically nobody actually dislikes bad refereeing decisions'. 

I dislike them.

Sure they create talking points, but I'd rather decisions were correctly made.

[kurtsimonw]

Another one is players going down. Just let physios come on the pitch and treat them and keep the game playing. Burton were in a great position against us and Gardner was down, ref stopped play and we gave the ball to their keeper. Yeah, that's completely fair.

[Stevo985]

Just now, kurtsimonw said:

Another one is players going down. Just let physios come on the pitch and treat them and keep the game playing. Burton were in a great position against us and Gardner was down, ref stopped play and we gave the ball to their keeper. Yeah, that's completely fair.

I've said this for years.

It would massively reduce faking/exaggerating injuries imo as there would be a clear disadvantage to the player doing it. it would also stop teams having to "put the ball out of play" for a player to receive treatment.

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I dislike them.

Sure they create talking points, but I'd rather decisions were correctly made.

As Stafford Beer said, 'the purpose of a system is what it does'. It probably would be possible to somewhat reduce mistakes by changing systems, but the system is the way it is because it serves people's interests. It sends callers to 606 and readers to tomorrow's back pages. It gives egomaniac managers who can't bear to admit their mistakes an easy way out. It gives pundits something easy to talk about. And it helps fans, because it's easier to blame a referee than to admit that your team are shit. 

If the purpose of the system was 'making better referees', it wouldn't involve public, consequence-free criticism from end-users (managers and players). This is an environment where people are least ready to face criticism and have the most invested in face-saving defences of their performance. If I watch a shit lesson from one of my teachers, I don't lecture them about it in front of the whole staff room and I certainly wouldn't expect improved performance or emotional investment if I did. 

Mistakes will never be completely eradicated, or even particularly close. Umpires get lots of calls wrong in cricket, despite the fact that they are standing, stationary, merely 12 yards from the target and have little to look at. When you consider how many more disadvantages referees have, it's no wonder they make tons of mistakes.

You could design a system with a better end-result, but a] I doubt any system would be more effective than 'stop treating referees like words removed, at all levels of the game', b] it would require a vast amount of effort and a total change of culture which almost nobody seems to be prepared to undertake, and c] the results would be minimal and far from perfect. 

[Jimzk5]

I'm in favour of video refereeing rather than a challenge system, games would stop for throw in decisions if it we had a challenge system

for dodgy penalties and red cards the manager(s) should be able to ask for a ref in the stands to watch it again from all angles available to determine the outcome.

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, Jimzk5 said:

I'm in favour of video refereeing rather than a challenge system, games would stop for throw in decisions if it we had a challenge system

That's why you'd have to limit the number of challenges per game/half and introduce a punishment for incorrect challenges or a reward for correct challenges (like you don't lose your challenge for example)

[Jimzk5]

54 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

That's why you'd have to limit the number of challenges per game/half and introduce a punishment for incorrect challenges or a reward for correct challenges (like you don't lose your challenge for example)

 Understand where your coming from but on a personal level I wouldn't want the game interrupted by a challenge for a throw in, I'd prefer it to be big decisions in games, red cards and penalties

[Davkaus]

I think you'd need a punishment for incorrect challenges otherwise winning teams would just argue the toss over as many decisions as they can towards the end of the game

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, Jimzk5 said:

 Understand where your coming from but on a personal level I wouldn't want the game interrupted by a challenge for a throw in, I'd prefer it to be big decisions in games, red cards and penalties

Well I agree. But if challenges were limited then I assume managers wouldn't be using them for throw in decisions as they'd rarely be worth it.

[kurtsimonw]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well I agree. But if challenges were limited then I assume managers wouldn't be using them for throw in decisions as they'd rarely be worth it.

and like you said in terms of punishment, imagine losing your challenge over getting a throw-in wrong and being unable to use it for a penalty shout later? Just wouldn't happen.

[villakram]

Introduce a challenge system. Lose the challenge and lose a sub, no subs left and no challenges. 2 per game maximum, for cards, free and peno only and only via interaction with the 4th official. Pro vs Con. They'll still try game the system but I think losing a sub is a high enough price. The big issue will be offside/goal area free decisions as it would imply that the ref would have to let the offside/onside striker play on. I do think it would be hilarious if Mourinho etc. couldn't blame the ref and instead had to blame their inability to defend a "wrong" corner etc., because he didn't challenge.

This is not ideal as it's only really doable at the elite level, but the hawkeye stuff has already crossed that line.

What am I writing, feck all that. It's doing fine as is.

[a m ole]

I don't like the challenge system. But, I definitely think there needs to be a referee in the stands at the top level. He could be in contact with the referee by headset, like linesmen. The referee on the pitch would always have final call. The pitch ref would be taught to change his role to be in regular contact and could be advised by the video ref if he had missed something in real-time. If the pitch ref is unsure he can immediately contact the video ref if he should stop play. Like rugby, only allow the captain to consult the referee about decisions and any comments from other players would immediately be penalised. Yellows should be properly and comprehensively enforced for dissent, diving and unsportsmanlike conduct.

All of this would not only help referees manage the game, remove the referee as the focal point of contentious decisions and stop games such as the Man Utd one a few weeks back from becoming a total farce.

[limpid]

@a m ole The ref running around on the pitch missing things will talk to the extra official to ask if he missed something? This would be seen as a weakness and at present refs are assessed by peer review. I just don't see how that can work.

Also, we don't have enough competent refs now and this would just mean promoting more untrained referees.

The only way to make refereeing better is to make referees better.

[kurtsimonw]

3 major decisions for Michael Oliver tonight (penalty, handball disallowed goal, red card) thought he got them all right.

[ThunderPower_14]

 

5 hours ago, villakram said:

Introduce a challenge system. Lose the challenge and lose a sub, no subs left and no challenges. 2 per game maximum, for cards, free and peno only and only via interaction with the 4th official. Pro vs Con. They'll still try game the system but I think losing a sub is a high enough price. The big issue will be offside/goal area free decisions as it would imply that the ref would have to let the offside/onside striker play on. I do think it would be hilarious if Mourinho etc. couldn't blame the ref and instead had to blame their inability to defend a "wrong" corner etc., because he didn't challenge.

This is not ideal as it's only really doable at the elite level, but the hawkeye stuff has already crossed that line.

What am I writing, feck all that. It's doing fine as is.

 

An incorrect challenge costing a substitution is a great idea! I'd still only limit challenges to 1 incorrect one a game though. I think cricket overdoes it a bit at the moment, and the challenge should be saved for howlers.

 

As for when the appeal is made, i'd suggest play can be stopped instantly after a penalty is initially waved away, but it's a free kick to the opposition if the challenge is turned down. If you combine that with losing a substitution and losing your only challenge, it's not going to be used to slow the game down very often.

[turnbull]

I watch a lot of rugby, 2 or 3 games a week and there are obviously aspects of the game that I can easily accept, such as TMO (even though certain refs rely on it too much) because at least they try to get the major decisions right, even if they occasionally don't. Obviously rugby is pretty stop/start anyway, so holding they game up doesn't cause too much of a problem, there's usually a player or 2 down anyway. This is why I think video refs wouldn't work in football.

One thing I would take from rugby is to have an independent timekeeper. There's far too much time wasting in football with players feigning injury, keepers taking their time with kicks, elongated subs etc. Injury time seems to be simply made up in some cases (anyone for Fergie time?).  Refs have enough to worry about, so if the ball is dead, stop the bloody clock, simple. It'd be pointless effing about then. Okay, the game time may have to be adjusted from 90 mins, but a bit of research would enable an average time to be reached. Not perfect I know, but it's an aspect of the game that needs looking at IMO.

Another thing I would like to see as an experiment would be equipping refs with cameras and microphones to try and cut out the back chat from players. I know it wouldn't stop players from "having a go" straight away, but it's something that the authorities have struggled with for many years and at least there would be evidence if a player was carded for telling the official where to go.