Referees

[Lofthouse Lower]

Why can we not be told the assessors mark?

If, let's say, Clattenberg got anything over 3/10 on Saturday, let us know and I'll stop wasting my hard earned, cos if he refereed that game well, I've had enough

There was something similar written in this months' When Saturday Comes and it makes a valid point - a league table of assessor's markings is a much more transparent way of gauging their competence than something like Pulis' relegation idea.

[boltonboris]

But, and here's the problem..

If you get a 'league table' for refs, every single team is gonna whinge like fook if you get one of the bottom 2 or 3

[Lofthouse Lower]

Well there'll be one somewhere - even if it is only on Old Mother Riley's excel spreadsheet.......so it's happening

[Lord Kangana]

But, and here's the problem..

If you get a 'league table' for refs, every single team is gonna whinge like fook if you get one of the bottom 2 or 3

I hear what you're saying, but would such a public marking system make the refs try harder because of public pressure not to be in the bottom 3 (like the football teams they are reffing?)?

The reality is, there are 2 teams on a pitch, so there'll be 2 opinions. I'm guessing whatever system is introduced won't be perfect, because there is an element of human input, and therefore an element of opinion being used over fact. I'm personally in favour of some form of technology being introduced at the top level to reduce that human impact. How and what are matters for further discussion elsewhere.

[BWFC_Insane]

But, and here's the problem..

If you get a 'league table' for refs, every single team is gonna whinge like fook if you get one of the bottom 2 or 3

I hear what you're saying, but would such a public marking system make the refs try harder because of public pressure not to be in the bottom 3 (like the football teams they are reffing?)?

The reality is, there are 2 teams on a pitch, so there'll be 2 opinions. I'm guessing whatever system is introduced won't be perfect, because there is an element of human input, and therefore an element of opinion being used over fact. I'm personally in favour of some form of technology being introduced at the top level to reduce that human impact. How and what are matters for further discussion elsewhere.

LK is it that refs "don't try hard enough" or is it that given they have to make a split second decision in increasingly fast moving games that they're often going to get things wrong? And that the current problem is that when in doubt they tend to favour (whether deliberately or not) the bigger teams?

The ONLY answer is to either suck it up and carry on as we are OR use video technology. Its an either or for me. Owt else is just playing around with the margins.

[Latham8wfc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9379989.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite an interesting article.....

[TANGODANCER]

The question shouldn't be about how many, yellow/red cards or penalties are given, but whether the decision was right and fair. That's the only pertinent fact. A home player going down in the opposition box can have as many as 40,000 referees giving an immediate penalty and the ref, an absolute villain if he doesn't give it and a good ref if he does. Same applies with bad tackles or cheating. The ref has nano-seconds to decide, rightly or wrongly, and no replays to help his judgement. Technology has now become a must for game-affecting decisions if fairness is to be applied. As long as it isn't, it'll all just go one based on human error depending which team you support. The never-ending story.

[Lofthouse Lower]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9379989.stm

Quite an interesting article.....

Fascinating. Still think they're all bells though.

[Owen_Coyle]

There are undoubtedly good refs and bad refs but, as in my arguments thus far, I surely can't be the only one to see that dealing with the referees at this point would be merely "treating the symptoms", and it is the dishonesty of the players, that seems to have been "accepted as the norm" in the modern game (scandalously in my opinion), that needs to be addressed first.

I don't how that can be done, as I think it has gone too far, as football today has long since become a non-contact sport because of the acceptance of these antics.

[seanworth]

There are undoubtedly good refs and bad refs but, as in my arguments thus far, I surely can't be the only one to see that dealing with the referees at this point would be merely "treating the symptoms", and it is the dishonesty of the players, that seems to have been "accepted as the norm" in the modern game (scandalously in my opinion), that needs to be addressed first.

I don't how that can be done, as I think it has gone too far, as football today has long since become a non-contact sport because of the acceptance of these antics.

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

[TANGODANCER]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

[fatshaft]

On a serious note, it makes you wonder what Riley's job actually entails. Being provided footage surely warrants a reply, while failing to do so merely increases the chances of inept refereeing continuing, as Clatterberg, Foy and the like know damn well they can get away with such awful performances. As far as I can see, the ref's association or whatever they like to call themselves, are simply a complete joke. It''s sadly obvious that when Clattenberg is made ref for one of our games we already know we will get screwed over, and again this is what has happened at Spurs, Coyle recognises this and sadly the most he can do is make a tape and send it to the 'appropriate' person. The standard of ref'ing on the Premier League is seriously poor, but at the end of the day there is little that can be done.

Foy is probably the #1 ref in England right now.

[Tombwfc]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

I agree with you entirely about technology in games.

However, I still reckon it'd be unfeasible to accurately decide if someone is cheating during a game, even if you did use technology. Really, arguing against retrospective punishments for divers because it won't change the result is a bit like arguing against prison sentences for murderers because it won't bring back the victim.

[HMX]

I'll just leave this here.

[Lofthouse Lower]

On a serious note, it makes you wonder what Riley's job actually entails. Being provided footage surely warrants a reply, while failing to do so merely increases the chances of inept refereeing continuing, as Clatterberg, Foy and the like know damn well they can get away with such awful performances. As far as I can see, the ref's association or whatever they like to call themselves, are simply a complete joke. It''s sadly obvious that when Clattenberg is made ref for one of our games we already know we will get screwed over, and again this is what has happened at Spurs, Coyle recognises this and sadly the most he can do is make a tape and send it to the 'appropriate' person. The standard of ref'ing on the Premier League is seriously poor, but at the end of the day there is little that can be done.

Foy is probably the #1 ref in England right now.

a sad indictment in itself

[Lord Kangana]

Do we have corresponding ref figures for Anfiled and The Emirates?

[BWFC_Insane]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

I agree with you entirely about technology in games.

However, I still reckon it'd be unfeasible to accurately decide if someone is cheating during a game, even if you did use technology. Really, arguing against retrospective punishments for divers because it won't change the result is a bit like arguing against prison sentences for murderers because it won't bring back the victim.

Surely video technology would sort out divers in the box for penalties and such like?

At least the big calls would be more likely to be right!

[seanworth]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

Disagree entirely well almost. If the cheats started getting nailed on a regular basis they will stop the cheating immediately. Imagine Walcott getting nailed 1st game of the season. Wham 3 game suspension. He comes back pulls the same stunt. Wham 4 game suspension. Do you honestly think he is going to try it again? These players cheat because they can, and they get away with it. The worst offense for a dive in the box is a yellow. If that dive results in a game deciding goal hit them with a 10 game suspension without pay. Players will think twice before attempting it. You won't need to change results because after 4-5 games that it has been implemented the cheating will stop.

[Latham8wfc]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

Disagree entirely well almost. If the cheats started getting nailed on a regular basis they will stop the cheating immediately. Imagine Walcott getting nailed 1st game of the season. Wham 3 game suspension. He comes back pulls the same stunt. Wham 4 game suspension. Do you honestly think he is going to try it again? These players cheat because they can, and they get away with it. The worst offense for a dive in the box is a yellow. If that dive results in a game deciding goal hit them with a 10 game suspension without pay. Players will think twice before attempting it. You won't need to change results because after 4-5 games that it has been implemented the cheating will stop.

I agree that suspending divers using technology would hopefully eradicate the non-contact diving from the game, but define a dive......Alot of players these days trail their back foot on the ground waiting for contact to be made and then go over, happens more than the non-contact dive. So is this considered diving???

[Owen_Coyle]

Reviews after games and hit the cheating bastards with 3-5 game suspensions or up to 10 games if it is determined that it effected the outcome of a match. Watch how fast they learn.

"After the event" judgements and suspension don't change results. It's the results of games affected by bad decision that are the crux of it all. Get em right during the game, not after it.
Everything else in football has become modernised, why not refereeing standards? Technology, I tells you, technology.

Disagree entirely well almost. If the cheats started getting nailed on a regular basis they will stop the cheating immediately. Imagine Walcott getting nailed 1st game of the season. Wham 3 game suspension. He comes back pulls the same stunt. Wham 4 game suspension. Do you honestly think he is going to try it again? These players cheat because they can, and they get away with it. The worst offense for a dive in the box is a yellow. If that dive results in a game deciding goal hit them with a 10 game suspension without pay. Players will think twice before attempting it. You won't need to change results because after 4-5 games that it has been implemented the cheating will stop.

I agree that suspending divers using technology would hopefully eradicate the non-contact diving from the game, but define a dive......Alot of players these days trail their back foot on the ground waiting for contact to be made and then go over, happens more than the non-contact dive. So is this considered diving???

I would welcome absolutely anything that started to address this "cancer" but the arguments here only serve to prove my point that everything hinges on the honesty or not of the players. As we have pointed out, diving, simulation, buying a foul, call it what you will, is second nature to the players now and they are good at it, so the referees have an impossible task when they see this just once and they have a split second to make a decision.

As a start the football authorities (FIFA downwards) need to give the referees the mandate to book any player they think has not been fouled legitimately (ie. bought a foul, cheated etc.), with a sending off (obviously) for any further occurrence. But more importantly they must back the refs "to the hilt" on their decisions. Hopefully the players MIGHT then start to think, but my fear is that with the amount of "buying fouls" that goes on in every game that if things didn't change very quickly then with the furore that would cause with players, managers and fans alike, pressure would be brought on FIFA/PL to "water down" the mandate or scrap it completely. It would need sustained effort for that to work.

One thing I am in favour of, that has been suggested here, is using technology to prove that a player has dived without any contact whatsoever. Surely that could be a "quick win", and may not affect the results, as it would probably have to be done retrospectively, but again it just might make the players think twice. But again it would not be popular and would have to be implemented forcefully.

Drastic measures are required my friends to get rid of this, but it is the players alone who can sort it out.