Make Referees Irrelevant (or at Least Not In The Spotlight)

[PaddoSpurs]

Hi Everyone

The controversy over Howard Webb & the resulting JJ comments (as well as the countless other refereeing errors - and Petro Mendes no goal at OT certainly comes to mind) could be eliminated by giving each manager the power of video challenges like in NFL & now starting in cricket.

If Harry challenged the penalty it would be referred to the video referee to adjudge. If the challenge was not succesful then Harry would have lost a right to substitute.

In the future managers would be scrutinised by the media and the fans if they did not challenge a decision. Managers would not be able to complain about a referree's decision for their team's performance. Who would SAF then blame?

Other benefits include the elimination of diving and the bribing of referees would be pointless.

There would be few video challenges (& little lost time) as the consequences of a incorrect challenge to a team is too big.

But I bet the 'Big 4 cartel' would not support this plan as they know they get preferential refereeing treatment already and do not want a level playing field.

What does everyone think?

 

[dontcallme]

I disagree. Referess need more power and one hell of a lot more respect. Decisions go for and against you all the time in life and sport, grow up and deal with it. This constant whingeing is becoming as pathetic as our diving, prima donna footballers.

The FA simply need to set out some simple, effective rules regarding referees:

• If there's a questionable decision, let the opposing player and captain talk to the ref, if the ref isn't sure then he can confer with the linesmen.
• Any player other than the one commiting the offence and captain approaching the ref is immediately booked, no questions asked.
• Any player swearing/abusing the ref is immediately booked.

This will create more respect in football which is horribly lacking today. If the players and managers are forced to show the ref more respect then the ref will be less influenced.

Referess might make bad decisions sometimes which can influence the result of a game, but so can players actions and managers use of substitutions.

Time for the football world to grow up, become men and stop blaming everyone else for their own failures.

 

[MattyP]

I disagree. The beauty of football is that it is essentially the same game being played jumpers for goalposts, on Hackney Marshes or at Wembley.

I agree to using technology to determine if the ball had crossed the goal line, maybe a bastardisation of the system that they use in ice hockey where a light comes on when the puck crosses the line - but instead of a light that everyone can see maybe just the referee gets a buzzer or sound or something.

Other than that, no technology should be used. My reasoning is simple - if the ball has or has not crossed the line, subject to the technology being available, it is a matter of fact, it is not subjective, it is not one persons interpretation of the rules, it is fact.

Controversies happen, judgement calls go for and against each team, it is part of what makes the game interesting, why debates happen, why everyone on here thinks their opinion is more valid that the next person.

Take that away and we'll just be left with yet more debates about the merits or otherwise of JJ, in which case DC Boy will have everyone on ignore.

 

[steve]

I disagree. Referess need more power and one hell of a lot more respect. Decisions go for and against you all the time in life and sport, grow up and deal with it. This constant whingeing is becoming as pathetic as our diving, prima donna footballers.


The FA simply need to set out some simple, effective rules regarding referees:

• If there's a questionable decision, let the opposing player and captain talk to the ref, if the ref isn't sure then he can confer with the linesmen.
• Any player other than the one commiting the offence and captain approaching the ref is immediately booked, no questions asked.
• Any player swearing/abusing the ref is immediately booked.

This will create more respect in football which is horribly lacking today. If the players and managers are forced to show the ref more respect then the ref will be less influenced.

Referess might make bad decisions sometimes which can influence the result of a game, but so can players actions and managers use of substitutions.

Time for the football world to grow up, become men and stop blaming everyone else for their own failures.

It's hard to respect ref's when they get major decisions so massively wrong. I didn't respect the ref on Saturday I thought he was a **** for making such an obvious monumental **** up and changing the game. Touch and go decisions I totally understand and I'm sympathetic, but his decision on Saturday wasn't even close to being a pen and he got it horribly wrong.

If ref's want more respect (and I agree that it would be a good thing) then they need to earn it plain and simple.....

 

[Shanks]

I actually side with the technology being useful.
A penalty decision comes along, if the ref blows his whistle, he can check with Linesman and also fourth official who can check reply, and then base whether or not its a penalty.

Same for goals, over goal line technology. Quick camera feed, fourth official on sideline, to refer the decision making to the ref in the middle.

No need for this continued cycle of debate and loss/gain of points that never should have been in the first place.

 

[TheBlueRooster]

It's hard to respect ref's when they get major decisions so massively wrong. I didn't respect the ref on Saturday I thought he was a **** for making such an obvious monumental **** up and changing the game. Touch and go decisions I totally understand and I'm sympathetic, but his decision on Saturday wasn't even close to being a pen and he got it horribly wrong.

If ref's want more respect (and I agree that it would be a good thing) then they need to earn it plain and simple.....

Looking at it from the refs point of view contact was made and if the challenge brought Carrick down it's a foul even if Gomes made contact with the ball first. The problem in this case is Webb has supossedly admitted that it wasn't a penalty, at what point he came to this conclusion is the worrying bit for me. If it happened as soon as he blew the whistle he shouldn't have allowed the penalty to be taken. If it's afterwards via TV replays then he's just got it wrong.

He should have just kept his mouth shut or confirmed in his opinion it was a penalty.

 

[haxman]

I actually side with the technology being useful.
A penalty decision comes along, if the ref blows his whistle, he can check with Linesman and also fourth official who can check reply, and then base whether or not its a penalty.

Same for goals, over goal line technology. Quick camera feed, fourth official on sideline, to refer the decision making to the ref in the middle.

No need for this continued cycle of debate and loss/gain of points that never should have been in the first place.

I agree. As long as it can all be done reasonably quickly with minimal disruption to the game.

 

[TheBlueRooster]

I actually side with the technology being useful.
A penalty decision comes along, if the ref blows his whistle, he can check with Linesman and also fourth official who can check reply, and then base whether or not its a penalty.

Same for goals, over goal line technology. Quick camera feed, fourth official on sideline, to refer the decision making to the ref in the middle.

No need for this continued cycle of debate and loss/gain of points that never should have been in the first place.

The problem with technology to aid the referee all referee's at all levels should have access to it. With over 90% of football being played at ameture level it's unlikely to happen.

 

[JonnySpurs]

I'm all for technology being introduced, you can tell people to grow up and deal with it but how about saying in response to that, that you're just a sentimental fool who won't embrace the future and how we can improve the sport and make it more fair.

The bottom line is that EVERY single week we spend too much time talking about a controversial refereeing decision when in actual fact, the less we talk about a ref, the better a game he has had! Only referees get to be monumentally awful at their job on a consistent basis and they don't get sacked! How is that fair?

I do think that there could be more respect paid to them on a one on one basis and that players shouldn't swear at them or surround them like they have in the past but isn't it a little difficult to respect someone who can't do the job their being paid to do!

I just can't see the problem with introducing certain elements, technological or otherwise, that we are already seeing in numerous other professional sports around the world which have taken away what can only be described as utterly wasted time on debating whether a ref got a decision right or wrong!

As a side note, it has always struck me that refs seem to be men who love football but could never play the game because they didn't have any natural ability to learn it, even at an amateur level....I think most of us saw the refs do the crossbar challenge on soccer am a few years back....it was cringeworthy to say the least. An argument long pondered is that how can a person who can't play a sport, possibly officiate it? It's certainly worth thinking about, it's a shame that more ex-players can't be convinced into becoming refs after they finish playing.

Besides that, many of them have a baffling sense of grandeur that they simply haven't earned (points to Mike Dean especially, the man is walking arrogance, it literally drips off him!)

 

[haxman]

The problem with technology to aid the referee all referee's at all levels should have access to it. With over 90% of football being played at ameture level it's unlikely to happen.

No different than rugby then, and it works well there.

 

[JonnySpurs]

The problem with technology to aid the referee all referee's at all levels should have access to it. With over 90% of football being played at ameture level it's unlikely to happen.

This is not a personal thing against you but I fuckin hate this point. Rugby and Cricket are all played at the same amateur level as football and they don't get to use the technology that is used at the top level in both of these sports, ESPECIALLY in cricket, and nobody gives two shits about it so what difference does it make.

How is it any different to the fact that when I play footy on a sunday morning I have to already put up with the opposing team's sub running the line and flagging me offside when I'm like 3 yards onside!!?? It's no different, that's not fair but we just get on with it cos we accept that it's amateur football and in the same way that we don't get technology, we don't get proper linesman, nice immaculate, flat pitches or 50,000 fans to play in front of!

 

[Shanks]

But, sunday football isn't worth the multi millions that the top of the game attracts.

Thats the difference. There is no need for technology at amateur level, because, it cannot be afforded.
At the top it can and it should be, we are literally talking millions in cup games and league placements that are at stake. For the lower clubs, it seems that there is a trend that the big decisions go with the bigger club.

 

[hellava_tough]

I say get rid of refs altogether, and play the game 'Old-Skool' stylee :grin:

In fact, get rid of goal posts as well - the players can decide whether it was over or not!

And ditch the offside rule and play 'rush-goalies'

And also, have 20-aside games that go on for 3 to 4 hours with 70 people involved.

And then have a big BBQ at the end, and a few beers.

Actually, that sounds more fun than the Premiership :-|

 

[TheBlueRooster]

This is not a personal thing against you but I fuckin hate this point. Rugby and Cricket are all played at the same amateur level as football and they don't get to use the technology that is used at the top level in both of these sports, ESPECIALLY in cricket, and nobody gives two shits about it so what difference does it make.

How is it any different to the fact that when I play footy on a sunday morning I have to already put up with the opposing team's sub running the line and flagging me offside when I'm like 3 yards onside!!?? It's no different, that's not fair but we just get on with it cos we accept that it's amateur football and in the same way that we don't get technology, we don't get proper linesman, nice immaculate, flat pitches or 50,000 fans to play in front of!

Rugby and Cricket have different versions of their sport and are ruled by different body's, football is governed by FIFA and the laws of the game cover from the World Cup to schoolboys. P_lus rugbu and cricket are very stop star and have more natural breaks in play. If a player takes time over a goal kick in football the crowd are up in arms.

The other thing is refs at the top level also ref at lower levels there will be a time when a ref will have acces to technology and times when he won't, which IMO won't be beneficial.

I suppose being a former referee I see it from the other side. I just don't think technology will benefit football. Even after seeing something on TV replays you can't always get it right.

The only way to change it is to bring in something like PFIFA making the pro game seperate from the ameture.

 

[steve]

Looking at it from the refs point of view contact was made and if the challenge brought Carrick down it's a foul even if Gomes made contact with the ball first. The problem in this case is Webb has supossedly admitted that it wasn't a penalty, at what point he came to this conclusion is the worrying bit for me. If it happened as soon as he blew the whistle he shouldn't have allowed the penalty to be taken. If it's afterwards via TV replays then he's just got it wrong.

He should have just kept his mouth shut or confirmed in his opinion it was a penalty.

100% wrong, incorrect, not true. Why you would think it is correct is beyond me. It was not a penalty, not now, not ever. That's not how football is played and the fact some people either Spurs fans or not are suggesting that because Gomes touched Carrick after connecting with the ball, that it was a penalty is incomprehensible to me. It's like people have never played or watched football before...

 

[C0YS]

but video reffing doesnt have to take ANY time it could work in a matter of seconds. You have a seperate ref who is watching the game on a monitor and the ref on the field of play. Only in major desisions should the video ref intervine he could tell the ref while the play still goes on things like that was a pen/ that wasnt. Also if someone scores a goal from an offside position then the video ref can overule the ref However if the layer failes to score in that ocasion it no longer matters

 

[nightgoat]

but video reffing doesnt have to take ANY time it could work in a matter of seconds. You have a seperate ref who is watching the game on a monitor and the ref on the field of play. Only in major desisions should the video ref intervine he could tell the ref while the play still goes on things like that was a pen/ that wasnt. Also if someone scores a goal from an offside position then the video ref can overule the ref However if the layer failes to score in that ocasion it no longer matters

Bent's goal against Newcastle took 13 seconds from Gomes throwing the ball out to the ball ending up in their net... If goals ended up being canceled out because of TV refs calling the game back for penalties or whatever there'd be even more problems...

 

[C0YS]

Bent's goal against Newcastle took 13 seconds from Gomes throwing the ball out to the ball ending up in their net... If goals ended up being canceled out because of TV refs calling the game back for penalties or whatever there'd be even more problems...

no there wouldnt this will take 6 secs to make a desion...its another ref. theyre all wierd up. The ref wont ask for the desion the desion will be made as quickly as the ref on the field. He will work alongside the ref...he wont review what the ref wants reviewed...The BBC made an experement very similar to this one...the longest it took was 6secs noramlly 3/4 secs was the norm

 

[striebs]

There can be only 1 referee and we can't stop the game whilst all the officials have a debate .

Technology could help with the goal-line issue but is as much use as tits on a boar hog for missing Palacios tackle or allowing Scholes to continue with persistent fouling when Jenas was walking on eggshells after an innocuous challenge .

Sending Scholes off , booking Ronaldo etc aint good for business and too much of that sort of behaviour would get the ref relegated to the Championship with a reduction in wages .

 

[TheBlueRooster]

100% wrong, incorrect, not true. Why you would think it is correct is beyond me. It was not a penalty, not now, not ever. That's not how football is played and the fact some people either Spurs fans or not are suggesting that because Gomes touched Carrick after connecting with the ball, that it was a penalty is incomprehensible to me. It's like people have never played or watched football before...

If his going for the ball ended up with him fouling Carrick in the area then it could be construed as a penalty. It doesn't matter that he got the ball first. Gerrard had one without even being touched it was given for intent. For me that was a far worse decision than the Gomes one.

What annoys me is that afterwards he thought he got it wrong and if, like two top refs have suggested, he thought that at the time he shouldn't have allowed the penalty to be taken. That's worse than giving the penalty in the first place.