The referee thread: discuss referees and their decisions

I can completely understand why football has been reluctant to bring in technology, esp replays. I'd rather have the game as it is than going too far with replays.
 
Godotelli said:
I can completely understand why football has been reluctant to bring in technology, esp replays. I'd rather have the game as it is than going too far with replays.
Click to expand...

so i'm not the only person in the world who doesn't look forward to technology in football? nice. it's good to know i'm not alone. :))
 
I can't help but disagree. If the options are have results decided by football not referees, then I'm all for quick stoppages in play for a 4th official to review things.
 
beachryan said:
I can't help but disagree. If the options are have results decided by football not referees, then I'm all for quick stoppages in play for a 4th official to review things.
Click to expand...

footballl match results are (and always will be) decided by whatever mistake anyone on the pitch makes (the players and the officials). and i'm ok with that. giving a tv monitor to the officials will probably slightly decrease the ammount of mistakes the officials make, but it won't make a difference in most cases.

to me it's a cultural thing... it's all about what u wanna focus your attention on. for every match, u might decide to focus your attention on that 1 mistake the ref did (and say it ruined the match).... or u might focus your attention on the dozens of mistakes the players did and find some peace of mind in that thought. no need to say i usually focus on the latter.

however beach, i completely understand your point of view. i don't think u're "wrong"... i just don't share your trust on tv replays and such. ;)

having said that, the way things are going, i'm sure sooner or later it will happen. and then, i hope my concerns will prove to be unmotivated. :))
 
Agree that some decisions will always be down to intepretation and hence not solveable by replay - but take offside goals.

If the 'rules' allowed play to continue until the 'phase of play' is over, and then officials could review, we'd basically stop the problem of incorrect offside goals - which are literally happening every week now. (either ruled out incorrectly like Newcastle Sunderland, or allowed like Arsenal Norwich just this weekend). It would take less time than celebrating the goal, but the right decision would be made.
 
lo zio said:
so i'm not the only person in the world who doesn't look forward to technology in football? nice. it's good to know i'm not alone. :))
Click to expand...

nope your note alone , i quote myself

LFC Albania said:
I hope there won't be a TV replay for refs , it would make this sport more ugly , mistakes com over and over again and this is what make football even more interesting , sometimes your team get some shits from ref sometimes they get some help this is how it works , as long as ref don't do that with wish im okay with how it is right now !

agree with Rentboy that ref are a bit more poor now days , maybe there should be more work !
Click to expand...
 
beachryan said:
Agree that some decisions will always be down to intepretation and hence not solveable by replay - but take offside goals.
Click to expand...
yeah, i'm sure on some circumstances technology might be helpful (such as offsides or those goal\no goal situations, when it's not clear if the ball got into the net), but when it comes to fouls (tackles, handballs, divings) a tv replay would be pretty much useless, coz the rules are "intentionally" open to interpretations (as proved by the fact that different refs often have different opinions on the very same same foul).

other sports are "simpler" than football. in tennis, the ball is either in or out (there's no margin for interpretation), so technology can be helpful. in american football a pass is either complete or not (although that's probably not the best example).
football is different. rules are less clear cut, and that's intentional, as it gives a good ref the chance to get a better "grip" on the players and to adapt his style to the flow of the game.
the human component in refereeing in football is vital to the game. of course that also means more opportunities for mistakes... but that's not a dealbreaker for me.

again, i understand where u're coming from, mate, and i certainly can't say "i'm sure i'm right and u're wrong"....
still, i'd rather leave things as they are right now. and mind u, this isn't because i enjoy the drama and the arguments surrounding referee's mistakes. infact i never talk about refs. i just don't care. i enjoy a good ref performing well, but a bad refereeing display doesn't really ruin the experience for me. but of course that's just how i feel about it, and i realise many others don't feel the same.

edit: quick question to the native english speakers in here.... should i say "as proved by" or "as proven by"? :SS
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
yeah, i'm sure on some circumstances technology might be helpful (such as offsides or those goal\no goal situations, when it's not clear if the ball got into the net), but when it comes to fouls (tackles, handballs, divings) a tv replay would be pretty much useless, coz the rules are "intentionally" open to interpretations (as proved by the fact that different refs often have different opinions on the very same same foul).

other sports are "simpler" than football. in tennis, the ball is either in or out (there's no margin for interpretation), so technology can be helpful. in american football a pass is either complete or not (although that's probably not the best example).
football is different. rules are less clear cut, and that's intentional, as it gives a good ref the chance to get a better "grip" on the players and to adapt his style to the flow of the game.
the human component in refereeing in football is vital to the game. of course that also means more opportunities for mistakes... but that's not a dealbreaker for me.

again, i understand where u're coming from, mate, and i certainly can't say "i'm sure i'm right and u're wrong"....
still, i'd rather leave things as they are right now. and mind u, this isn't because i enjoy the drama and the arguments surrounding referee's mistakes. infact i never talk about refs. i just don't care. i enjoy a good ref performing well, but a bad refereeing display doesn't really ruin the experience for me. but of course that's just how i feel about it, and i realise many others don't feel the same.

edit: quick question to the native english speakers in here.... should i say "as proved by" or "as proven by"? :SS
Click to expand...

Good post - totally agree on a lot of decisions. But things like offside/goal line - that seems logical to me as there is a 'right' answer.

It's proven by :)
 
drekkard said:
Hey Bebo, didn't know that, it's great! And how does it work? Do you think that 5-10 minutes exclusions make the game better? Are cynical fouls and divers less frequent?

Very interested on this.
Click to expand...


I think the pressure is more on your team mates more than anything else. 5 minutes can change the game, divers usually jump right up afraid their fall could be seen as a dive. Does it stop cynical fouls,and theatrics . It depends on the ref ,some are very forgiving and then , theirs the ones that are very firm. I think more then anything refs hate being told how to ref.

High School can play 2 -3 matches in a week...injuries can leave a team with 2 or 3 ST. A yellow can leave a team toothless. 20 matches in 3 month then tourney!
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid that technology will result in matches who are stopped over and over. Football is a spectacle and that is the most important aspect.

Totally agree with lo zio about mistakes. Rarely ref's errors are decisive, they are seen as decisive but in most of the cases the players make mistakes that are important too...managers rarely mention those...
 
gerd said:
I'm afraid that technology will result in matches who are stopped over and over. Football is a spectacle and that is the most important aspect.

Totally agree with lo zio about mistakes. Rarely ref's errors are decisive, they are seen as decisive but in most of the cases the players make mistakes that are important too...managers rarely mention those...
Click to expand...
This is why I only agree with goal line technology.
The rest will use a lot of time and denaturate the game.
 
gerd said:
I'm afraid that technology will result in matches who are stopped over and over. Football is a spectacle and that is the most important aspect.

Totally agree with lo zio about mistakes. Rarely ref's errors are decisive, they are seen as decisive but in most of the cases the players make mistakes that are important too...managers rarely mention those...
Click to expand...

But players screwing up and not screwing up is what SHOULD determine the outcome of a football match.

Take a scenario with two outcomes: it's the 95th minute at the Etihad last season, City drawing 2-2 needing the win for the title. Balotelli looses it, but challenges and kicks towards Aguero.

Outcome 1: Aguero controls the ball, but shanks his shot wide. Final whistle goes. Mancini's out of a job, Sheikh Mansour determines that more than a billion pounds can't buy him the title, and goes to pursue his interests in F1 racing.

Outcome 2: Aguero scores, but is wrongly ruled out by an errant offside flag. Game ends on the resulting free kick. Mancini's out of a job, Sheikh Mansour determines that more than a billion pounds can't buy him the title, and goes to pursue his interests in F1 racing.

I think most fans would be okay with Outcome 1, but would feel Outcome 2 is a travesty of football. Both situations are mistakes that have massive repercussions for fans, owners, managers and players.

But in 1 situation the fault lies at the person being paid to play the sport. It's like Federer missing a bankhand to lose Wimbledon. Woods missing a birdie putt, an NFL kicker missing the game winning field goal.

But only in football could so much come down to a referee FAILING TO APPLY THE RULES.

That's why I like technology. I don't watch football to see how well a poorly trained, poorly compensated amateur does an almost impossible job.
 
Last edited:
Last year's scenario wa a once in a lifetime.
The scenario in your post is not impossible, but highly improbable.

And let's not forget that basically Man City screwed up against QPR,even if in the end they won and everybody forgot, they played a bad match.

So in you r higly unlikely scenario everybody would blame the ref, but that is directing the blame to wrong person even in that scenario Man City's player would haver been to blame.

Blaming the ref is self-delusion.

EPL refs are not poorly paid, poorly compensated amateurs. If you compare them with players, they are, but football players are overpaid (and that is an understatement).
 
gerd said:
Last year's scenario wa a once in a lifetime.
The scenario in your post is not impossible, but highly improbable.

And let's not forget that basically Man City screwed up against QPR,even if in the end they won and everybody forgot, they played a bad match.

So in you r higly unlikely scenario everybody would blame the ref, but that is directing the blame to wrong person even in that scenario Man City's player would haver been to blame.

Blaming the ref is self-delusion.

EPL refs are not poorly paid, poorly compensated amateurs. If you compare them with players, they are, but football players are overpaid (and that is an understatement).
Click to expand...

No offence Gerd, but you're kind of dodging the actual question/ argument.

Refs are poorly paid when you consider they make in a year what every City player in that scenario makes each week.

And it's not that rare that a single refereeing decision is crucial. Football matches are mostly decided by a single goal. It's not easy to score - it happens about 2.5 times every 90 minutes for 2 teams. If a ref incorrectly rules one out or awards one, that's a big deal - it's a third of the goals in a match!

Football is almost unique in that entire matches can be decided (and usually are) by a single moment of brilliance, or a single moment of ineptitude. I have no problem with players producing either, but I have a huge problem when referees are the ones making the key moment.
 
gerd said:
Surely you know better than that. I wanted Chelsea to win that match (i like both Chelsea and Manchester City, but Chelsea a litle bit more because of Hazard).

You make it sound as if there is this big complot against Chelsea. That is bullshit.

I don't believe in collusion theories. Referees are human and they make mistakes. I've already said this: i am a referee occasionally and i can assure you that it is much more difficult than being a player or a coach (i've don both). Most referees have to resolve more dilemma's in one half than most people who criticize them in their entire life.

In this thread you are implying that the refs and the Fa are against Chelsea, in another thread other people are saying that Chelsea is always advantaged...do i have to say more to prove my point.

This said, there is a problem and it is not only in England. In Belgium, the Jupiler League is decided in play-offs. In the play-offs for the top six, every single game until now has been influenced by referee errors.

I think football has reached a point where referees simply can't follow any more, not only because of the speed of the game but also because of different factors.

First of all there is the cheating and diving that makes it extremely different for refs to take decisions. Players X falls down, was there a foul or not ? One has to take a decision in a split second.

And then there is something other (and this is much more important). There is an ongoing tendency to be more and more permissive towards all kinds of fouls. Twenty years ago if a player made contact in the 16, it was always a penalty. Nowadays pundits (don't underestimate their influence), papers, managers and players are speaking about "soft" penalties...that is the equivalent of being " a litle bit pregnant"...either it is a penalty or it isn't.... Same goes for fouls on corners an free kicks and for yellow an red cards.

Yesterday i watched a game in the Belgian play-offs between Standard and Genk (my favourite team). Genk played their best match in the play-offs, yet they lost for the first time and this with 3-0 and after the match everybody agreed that Genk was the better team. Of course this happens in football (it is even what attracts me to it, so i don't mind if it happens with my favourite team), but what was really a shame was that there were no less than 3 fouls which should have resulted in red cards. One of these fouls was after and assault which injured a player (he had to stop the match). The ref hadn't seen the foul but it took quite a while to attend to his injuries. In that time the fourth official indicated that the injury was the result of a foul (the defender tackled over the ball, always a red card). What did the ref do ? He gave a yellow card and the defender and his team mates were outraged. This was the worst possible outcome. Either you give a red card or you do nothing and then afterwards the player gets punished on the basis of the television images (this happens very regularly in Belgium, i can't really believe that FIFA don't want this). Now the defender got a yellow and that was it. Refs, FA's, UEFA and FIFA should at least protect players...this doesn't happen now. That is a major problem.

What we need is a broad debate about the refereeing problem (and i'm not implying that the refs themselves are the problem, i tend to think they are not). A debate between refs, players and managers/coaches. A debate about the use of television images (you know that i'm not so sure if that is the best solution) and other means that could help to solve this problem that is getting bigger and bigger.

I started this thread to discuss about these problems, not for rants of individual fans who think their team is harmed or disadvantaged by the referees. Let's solve this debate in one sentence: every fan thinks is favourite club is disadavanted. Once in a while we all are right to think that, but mostly it's bullshit.

I'm sorry mehtab, this isn't personally directed at you...but i don't want this to become the thread with 47 different collusion theories...
Click to expand...

It's a mistake if it's for the first time otherwise it's a choice. Chelsea fan will know it better because they watch all/most of their matches and in every matches, something happens to a ref(doesn't matter if he's professional or not).
 
Very well argumented reply mehtab. I'm baffled... I certainly can't win this discussion.

Beach, no offense (i mean it, this is not sarcasm) but IMO you are missing the point.

How many matches are decided by one moment ? Very, very rarely, i'm even tempted to say that it never happens, but there has to be one or two.

Do you know matches that end up 1-0 the goal being the single shot on goal ? So a 1-0 is the result of an 100% result in attempts on goal ? IMO that is virtually impossible.

Let's take a match that ends 0-0 and where the ref has ruled out the single goal for an off-side that wasn't an off-side. And in that match there would'nt have been a single decent chance apart from the ruled out goal. I'm not saying it is impossible, but that is very highly improbable.

Let's take a recent example of a blatant referee mistake and the impact it had on a match.
Nani's sending off against Real Madrid (bear in mind that i supported united in that match, i don't like Real Madrid).
Was it really all about the ref ? Well he started it, i grant you that. But Mourinho reacted immediately brought in Modric and Real started to play from their rigt side a lot more. They scored two beautiful goals (that has to have some merit too). All in all United lost it for a short period (not even 10 minutes and afterwards were the better team once again). So the ref started it, but United lost it, in a match where they were the better team they let themselves distracted by the refs error for a short period and both Madrid and Mourinho exploited this ruthlessly.

Did the ref lost that match for United or did United lost it because of their own mistakes ?
Well let's say that the ref's mistake led to United's mistakes, but in the end United made mistakes. Ferguson completely lost it whereas Mourinho stayed cool and reacted immediately.

With a "better" ref (and that ref isn't bad at all) United might not have made those mistakes. With a better manager (i know this sounds harsh) United wouldn't have passed out for 10 minutes...

I think United lost that match and not the referee although his decision had an impact.

Ok, his decision had an impact. But was that impact bigger than United first goal which was well deserved but was a freak goal.

Let's take another example: Barcelona may 1999. Bayern Munchen is leading 1-0 in injury time after being the best team for the whole of the match. It's injury time and Peter Schmeichel comes up with a corner. United score and immediately after that they score again. Did United won it or did Bayern lost it ? Of course Bayern lost it.

Same for Milan against Liverpool.
Same for Bayern against Chelsea.

Those 3 examples have nothing to see with referee decisons, but most Englis fans will say those are 3 big triumphs for English clubs (and of course in a way they are), but in reality their opponents made big mistakes and lost it more than the English clubs triumphed.

Fans are very biased, that is what i'm saying. And you only have to look at Mehtab's post in this thread to be perusaded of that...
 
@ Gerd - I understand the point you're making, but your argument appears to be that it's okay for a ref to screw up a match because players screw up matches all the time. That's what I disagree with.

The Nani example is a poor one because that particular incident is 'open to interpretation'. A better example would be the Dortmund and Malaga offsides. These are simply incorrect calls.

I know it happens and generally speaking there are numerous moments in a match that a team can have a chance to 'right' the referees' mistakes. But shouldn't we want more?

Put it another way, how would the game be worse if every offside decision was made correctly?
 
beachryan;2697250 Put it another way said:
Put it like that: i agree. But if that means that every match lasts 110 minutes (and worse: is continually interupted) because of it, i'm against it.
Click to expand...
 
But if the decision is down to the referee and only make use of it in important decisions when the match is already stopped (a subious goal has been scored, a potential aggression/dive...) then it would hardly take more than 5 minutes of the match overall.

If those 5 minutes help having more fair results and less cheating and less bad refeering decisions deciding matches, then I'm all for it.

The problem is a logistic one. Richer leagues and more important tourneys would make use of it, while lesser leagues/divisions wouldn't be able to afford it. But this happnes already in tennis.

But as others have expressed, as long as football continues no be the sport no 1 in the world this won't change. They prefer to have bad ref decisions in the newspapers and sell more. But I work in advertising, so I'm no one to teach moral lessons here.
 
Nice to see - someone has hacked the FIFA Twitter accounts:

Joseph S Blatter ‏@SeppBlatter 13m
So what if I took money from Qatari prince? I am the family's bread earner pic.twitter.com/HdrJONjAPY

FIFAWorldCup ‏@FifaWorldCup 4m
It was decided that the president Sepp Blatter is to step down due to corruption charges

Both are official :)
 
Anybody else here thinks Simon Mignolet should have been sent off for handling that long back pass...what he did in that instance is the equivalent of a field player handling the ball to prevent a goal...that is always a red card.

IMO that was a severe mistake from the ref. This is an example where a referee really makes a serious mistake...it would have been harsh on Mignolet, but it was a crystal clear sending off IMO.
 
gerd said:
Last year's scenario wa a once in a lifetime.
The scenario in your post is not impossible, but highly improbable.
Click to expand...

It's all the wrong decisions during the season that leads up to this point just as much as that single match as well. It just happens that humans aren't capable of processing every bit of detail so the last deciding point always count as the "main factor". If someone compile all this information to prove a point, those who already agreed gets more certain, and those who didn't agree in the first place call it a conspiracy, this is also human nature.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An allusion;
Take WWI for example, the shots in Sarajevo is widely regarded as the start of the war, but that was only the "final tiny drop of water that filled the glass and made it spill over the edges". If there wasn't already a bunch of other reasons, those shots wouldn't have caused a war.

Conclusion;
So, even if bad decisions aren't obviously deciding the title by a wrong decision in the dying minutes of the last match, they're a VERY strong factor in the outcome of the league during the other 37 matches.


My view;
I welcome goal line cameras, and it wouldn't be difficult to install offside cameras either. Other decisions also influence the results but we need to draw the line somewhere. I also like that the associations are allowed to use TV captures to punish players in retrospect based on the video evidence to get rid of biting, ball grabbing and spitting and more. I'd like them to be able to overrule the cases where the ref was too lenient as well because it may indicate that the ref didn't really see what was going on.
 
Last edited:
gerd said:
Anybody else here thinks Simon Mignolet should have been sent off for handling that long back pass...what he did in that instance is the equivalent of a field player handling the ball to prevent a goal...that is always a red card.

IMO that was a severe mistake from the ref. This is an example where a referee really makes a serious mistake...it would have been harsh on Mignolet, but it was a crystal clear sending off IMO.
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered to look it up, but the ESPN Podcast were saying there's actually a specific rule for the back pass which means the keeper can't be sent off, in the guidelines. Not 100% sure, I was with you when I saw it in real time, but the guys on the pod were saying the yellow was actually a wrong decision, as there is an explicit rule preventing it.

Which is really weird.
 
Ok, How many handballs inside the box against Barcelona did you count? I counted two.

What are these assistant refs doing behind the goal? Absolutely nothing. Two hand balls on his side of the box! Not one peep.

Seriously, I'd like to read the job description for those assistants behind the goals.
I'm thinking about applying for that and watching free CL footie :D
 
First one was a crystal clear penalty, the second was from very, very close...that was not a penalty IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom