Jump to content

The refereeing crisis


StefanAVFC

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, turnbull said:

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.

Agree with this. The management of injury time absolutely boils my piss.

There was a game last season. One of the games we were only a goal down in.

It got to injury time, 3 minutes signalled. Fine.

Their keeper had a goal kick. I think it was Pantillimon but I may be mistaken. He stood there for **** ages and ages. Then the ref blew, gave him a yellow card for time wasting. Keeper protested blah blah and eventually took the kick.
From the ball going out of play to the keeper eventually taking his kick, over 90 seconds passed. I rewinded and counted. The ref signalled he was adding all the extra time on.

Then what happens? We hit 3 minutes added time EXACTLY and the ref immediately blows.

 

Also subs in injury time when they just walk off. Just keep the game going. If you want to make a sub you can. but the game carries on and your sub can't come on until the player he's replacing leaves the pitch. They'd soon be sprinting off if that was the case.

 

It's a joke. and I don't know why refs can't be stricter with time keeping. Like the 6 seconds a keeper has. That should be enforced. 6 seconds elapses and BAM, free kick. Tough shit
It happens in other sports. It's like football has these rules it sees as petty and doesn't enforce properly. There's not many other sports I can think of that are so slack in enforcing some of their own rules.

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any suggestion at all from FIFA that the Video Assistant Referee's used in the Club World Cup are going to be rolled out anywhere else? World Cup Qualifiers perhaps? It's very likely I've missed news in regards to it, the last I heard was the VAR informing the ref of an incident that led to a penalty in the CWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that onuoha sending off, the ref has sent him off because he thought it was a goalscoring opportunity, it wasnt (and im not sure if we've adopted the "genuine intent to win the ball" stuff here) he had a pretty clear view of the contact so there must have been some even if it was next to nothing, the ref has used his knowledge of the rules and his experience to come to that decision, everyone sat at home thinks its a load of bollocks

as ive said before my problem with video technology and someone watching it on a replay is the belief that that person wont share the same opinion as the ref...theres no guarantee that a video ref doesnt uphold that red card

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hogso said:

Has there been any suggestion at all from FIFA that the Video Assistant Referee's used in the Club World Cup are going to be rolled out anywhere else? World Cup Qualifiers perhaps? It's very likely I've missed news in regards to it, the last I heard was the VAR informing the ref of an incident that led to a penalty in the CWC.

I hope so. It didn't exactly take long and the award of a penalty that otherwise wouldn't be given is a pretty important thing. 

Football isn't black and white and obviously not everyone sees things the same. But I'd be far happier knowing the referee had multiple views of a big incident and still not give it, than just not give it on his initial viewing. I can accept a ref having a different interpretation to me, it certainly would piss me off a lot less than "I'm not sure on a split second initial view, so I can't give it".

Edited by kurtsimonw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that onuoha sending off, the ref has sent him off because he thought it was a goalscoring opportunity, it wasnt (and im not sure if we've adopted the "genuine intent to win the ball" stuff here) he had a pretty clear view of the contact so there must have been some even if it was next to nothing, the ref has used his knowledge of the rules and his experience to come to that decision, everyone sat at home thinks its a load of bollocks

Except it wasn't even a foul, the angle there is pretty crap. There was contact, but if anything Baldock steps across him. It's a 50/50, Baldock lost, Onuoha is sent off for it. 

A replay would have abated that. I appreciate that referee's have a tough time but that is astonishingly poor. Even if we just allow major decisions where play has already stopped to be challenged, such as penalties and red cards, it would be a huge improvement. There's no way anyone on second viewing would send him off for that and if QPR go down by a point or GD, they can look back on an incident like that and be rightly annoyed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Except it wasn't even a foul, the angle there is pretty crap. There was contact, but if anything Baldock steps across him. It's a 50/50, Baldock lost, Onuoha is sent off for it. 

A replay would have abated that. I appreciate that referee's have a tough time but that is astonishingly poor. Even if we just allow major decisions where play has already stopped to be challenged, such as penalties and red cards, it would be a huge improvement. There's no way anyone on second viewing would send him off for that and if QPR go down by a point or GD, they can look back on an incident like that and be rightly annoyed. 

says who? the calls for video replays are based on the assumption that these decisions would get overturned, how do you know that the ref will spend 2 minutes watching the replay 10 times and change his mind? he's close enough to it and looking straight at it, he's made 2 mistakes, theres not really that much contact and its not a goalscoring opportunity but he's used his interpretation of the rules and his experience to come to the conclusion that its a red card offence, how can you be sure that a replay will make that interpretation any different?

we need to target why he's getting his interpretation of the rules wrong in the first place

video replays wont make refs better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has seen it in real time and he's gotten it wrong, which I can accept happens. If he watched a replay and still got it wrong, then that is a seperate issue. 

I don't think he's gotten it wrong based on interpretation. I think he has seen something that didn't happen. I.e. a foul, of any kind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I like the idea of not pausing the game for substitutes. I'm sure it was a good idea at the time but it seems antiquated now, especially as we have 4th officials to control proceedings. 

Imagine the problems that not pausing the game for substitutions would have with injuries.  If you then implement a ruling for "only when injured", you'll find players going down all the time just to be subbed off "injured".  It wouldn't work.

Same with the challenge system that was discussed earlier.  If your team is winning, just save up your "challenges" for injury time at the end of the game and break up play whenever you want.

All that needs to be implemented, for me, is a 5th official watching the game on a screen.  If the referees make an absolute howler (e.g: dive in the box -> penalty given; player 2 yards offside -> scores goal) at a point when the play stops, the 5th official can contact them and say "wrong call, needs to be <x> from <y>".

I like the human element to football.  The Onuoha sending off above - I agree it seems harsh, but the ruling says obvious goalscoring opportunity = red card (now only outside the box apparently, although referees are still giving double punishments with red card & pen (see: Dummett against Forest)).  It can certainly be argued that Baldock is quicker than Onuoha there and will get an opportunity to score a goal.  Clear "worst decision ever seen"?  Not for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you only get to challenge a major decision like a red card, where the game is already stopped? 

I agree that having a set number of challenges that you can use at any time would be farcical. But let's be fair here, Mike Dean for all his faults is an experienced referee. He's probably one of the best there is. Simply saying they have to be better isn't enough, they do work exceptionally hard as it is. Physically and mentally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It can certainly be argued that Baldock is quicker than Onuoha there and will get an opportunity to score a goal.  Clear "worst decision ever seen"?  Not for me.

Are you judging it just from the tweet above? 

The problem is not whether it's a clear goalscoring opportunity or not, though it's not up to the ref to judge whether Baldock is quicker than Onuoha and if it is that needs to be changed asap, the problem is that it's not a foul. In no interpretation of the rule that I've ever seen anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Are you judging it just from the tweet above? 

The problem is not whether it's a clear goalscoring opportunity or not, though it's not up to the ref to judge whether Baldock is quicker than Onuoha and if it is that needs to be changed asap, the problem is that it's not a foul. In no interpretation of the rule that I've ever seen anyway. 

To be fair, yes - that's the only time I've seen the incident.

I guess my thinking is, how do you judge that it's not a foul?  To me (only from that tweet above) it looks like both players justle, Onuoha finds himself behind Baldock and trips him up (accidentally or otherwise).  Now that's harsh as a sending off, I agree, but surely an accidental trip is a foul?

 

r.e: Challenging a red card decision, again, only if the 5th official deems the original decision to be straight up wrong.  Likewise, if the 5th official sees a horror tackle that the referee misses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Simply saying they have to be better isn't enough, they do work exceptionally hard as it is. Physically and mentally. 

It's as if some people think referees are pulled off the streets. These guys train hard and try to do the best they can. The problem is football is so quick and there is such a large area for a referee to cover that it's hard to make them any better.

It's like saying a linesman who gets a goal line decision wrong doesn't need the help of goal line technology and that he should 'just be better'. No, the technology is there, use it. If the game lasts an extra 5 minutes to get all the big decisions correct, so what? What's the problem there? I don't understand this desperation of a football game being as short as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

It's as if some people think referees are pulled off the streets. These guys train hard and try to do the best they can. The problem is football is so quick and there is such a large area for a referee to cover that it's hard to make them any better.

It's like saying a linesman who gets a goal line decision wrong doesn't need the help of goal line technology and that he should 'just be better'. No, the technology is there, use it. If the game lasts an extra 5 minutes to get all the big decisions correct, so what? What's the problem there? I don't understand this desperation of a football game being as short as possible. 

said before refs arent operating on a similar level of professionalism as the rest of the top flight of football, nowhere near it, what do you think the refs budget for sports science and physios are compared to a PL club? 

of course refs should be better, some of this is fundamental stuff, not every decision a ref gets wrong is because they didn't see or cant keep up, a lot of it is stuff they see, sometimes right in front of them and they're still getting it wrong, look at the comments through the cardiff match thread, video replays arent helping with that, again that QPR sending off, im not sure video replays are helping with that

the first step has to be improving the refs, instead we've gone straight to thinking that technology will right their wrongs, the common sense approach should be to not get it wrong in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sometimes get it wrong because the game is so quick moving and they only get one split second opportunity to see it. How do you improve that? You, to a realistic extent, can not IMO. The issue is that the game is too fast and they only get one opportunity to see it. So the answer is to slow it down and get multiple views - that's what video replay will do. 

Take the Feghouli one. A long ball was played forward, so there is absolute no chance Mike Dean can be to the side or in front of the incident that is going to occur. He sees the incident from behind and no amount of training or anything would change that. He sees Feghouli overplay the ball and launch himself off the ground towards Jones. How can he not give a red card? What else could he do in that situation? 

"The common sense approach would be to not get it wrong in the first place" is incredibly short sighted. Do you think goal line technology is wrong then? Do you think linesman should be better trained to get all of those decisions right? No, the technology is there to help them because the speed of the game and how powerful some shots are make it impossible for them to get them all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not really a fair comparison, the ball being over the line involves a much finer margin, faster speeds, a restricted distance to it and with a known obstruction meaning they'll only ever be partially sighted to it, in that instance they have no choice but to admit they will always be at a disadvantage, goaline technology also establishes fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Imagine the problems that not pausing the game for substitutions would have with injuries.  If you then implement a ruling for "only when injured", you'll find players going down all the time just to be subbed off "injured".  It wouldn't work.

I don't think it would have any problems with injuries. If it's a bad injury then the game would be stopped at some point anyway so the change can be made then. And as mentioned I don't think the game should be stopped for an injury anyway. Let the physios on as soon as they decide they're needed and the game carries on. Players won't stay down because their team is at a disadvantage, and those that do will be actually injured. The game can be stopped at the next stoppage.

The majority of substitutions I'd wager aren't forced by injury anyway.

It wouldn't be perfect. There probably would be occasions where the new system causes a few problems or doesn't quite work. But it would improve the absolute farce that it currently is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

not really a fair comparison, the ball being over the line involves a much finer margin, faster speeds, a restricted distance to it and with a known obstruction meaning they'll only ever be partially sighted to it, in that instance they have no choice but to admit they will always be at a disadvantage, goaline technology also establishes fact

Tackles are also made at a fast speed and can be obscured by other players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â