This weekend's officiating...

[gkmacca]

It's a difficult role to recruit for, because you do have to be a certain type to want to do it. It's like the job not even goalkeepers would consider. Most of the current refs look and behave like would-be prison warders or PE teachers. They have that chippy attitude that makes you want to punch them as soon as you see them. Lee Mason. Bloody hell. It doesn't matter even when you train them in all the rules and regulations, when they behave on the pitch like Lee Mason, most professional players will want to knock his block off. If their bosses watch the condescending way these refs behave, with all of their 'come here' finger wagging and their 'I'm ready for my close-up, Mr DeMille' expressions, and they can't see what absolute ARSES they are, there's little hope of improvement.

But one thing I'm all for is post-match interviews - they should all, without fail, have to do post-match interviews. The idea that they're above all that and cannot be compromised by such invasions of their privacy is absolute nonsense. They're public figures and they need to be accountable to the watching public, not just some cosy little boys club. If you want refs to stop acting like they're auditioning for EastEnders, and prancing around with those stupid smug grins after making appalling decisions, then make them talk in front of the cameras. That's the kind of pressure they need to focus the mind. And let managers talk about them and refs talk about managers, without this ridiculous fining system for honest opinions.

 

[FoxForceFive]

It's a difficult role to recruit for, because you do have to be a certain type to want to do it. It's like the job not even goalkeepers would consider. Most of the current refs look and behave like would-be prison warders or PE teachers. They have that chippy attitude that makes you want to punch them as soon as you see them. Lee Mason. Bloody hell. It doesn't matter even when you train them in all the rules and regulations, when they behave on the pitch like Lee Mason, most professional players will want to knock his block off. If their bosses watch the condescending way these refs behave, with all of their 'come here' finger wagging and their 'I'm ready for my close-up, Mr DeMille' expressions, and they can't see what absolute ARSES they are, there's little hope of improvement.

But one thing I'm all for is post-match interviews - they should all, without fail, have to do post-match interviews. The idea that they're above all that and cannot be compromised by such invasions of their privacy is absolute nonsense. They're public figures and they need to be accountable to the watching public, not just some cosy little boys club. If you want refs to stop acting like they're auditioning for EastEnders, and prancing around with those stupid smug grins after making appalling decisions, then make them talk in front of the cameras. That's the kind of pressure they need to focus the mind. And let managers talk about them and refs talk about managers, without this ridiculous fining system for honest opinions.

The interview would definitely help, I think the ref should wear a mic too, which would help cos you'd hear his explanation to the player & players would have to stop behaving like petulant children, or lose sponsorships etc for doing it which would presumably lead to most packing it in.

 

[gkmacca]

It reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall, where someone is proudly demonstrating a canned laughter machine, and the other one rubs his eyes sadly and says, 'Have you got booing on that?' Refs can be absolutely atrocious and if anyone dares to say it they get hit with fines and bans. It's ridiculous. Send the refs out to account for their performance - that would sober them up and make them focus on their job.

 

[Frogfish]

Sometimes they stick the flag up if an eyelash is offside.

Exactly. How does that fall in line with 'giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt' ? I just don't get it, why say it if you don't mean it.

 

[Frogfish]

Most in the Premier League are already on £70k a year. That's hardly so low that they can't be arsed to train properly.

I'm not suggesting that they are paid the same as players but there are two major reasons why it should be (a lot) more :
1) when most players on the pitch make that in a week, or a month at most, then it leaves referees open to corruption (we haven't seen it yet but I don't doubt it has happened) and
2) if you want to raise the standard of refereeing then it's not just better training /facilities that are need but (a lot) more people coming into the profession. Nobody is going to do it because they enjoy the vitriol and abuse they receive so it has to be for monetary gain.

 

[gkmacca]

I'm not suggesting that they are paid the same as players but there are two major reasons why it should be (a lot) more :
1) when most players on the pitch make that in a week, or a month at most, then it leaves referees open to corruption (we haven't seen it yet but I don't doubt it has happened) and
2) if you want to raise the standard of refereeing then it's not just better training /facilities that are need but (a lot) more people coming into the profession. Nobody is going to do it because they enjoy the vitriol and abuse they receive so it has to be for monetary gain.

I'm not sure if there's a profession where the morals of people improves with a hefty pay rise. More likely the opposite. Sorry to Adam Smith and all that moral sentiments stuff, but he never saw twenty-somethings on the stock exchange. Uriah Rennie probably made the most of any modern referee, and he was not only crap but also a raving egomaniac, and he got worse and worse as his profile and earnings increased. If you want better and more responsible refs, then make them accountable.

 

[Frogfish]

It's a difficult role to recruit for, because you do have to be a certain type to want to do it. It's like the job not even goalkeepers would consider. Most of the current refs look and behave like would-be prison warders or PE teachers. They have that chippy attitude that makes you want to punch them as soon as you see them. Lee Mason. Bloody hell. It doesn't matter even when you train them in all the rules and regulations, when they behave on the pitch like Lee Mason, most professional players will want to knock his block off. If their bosses watch the condescending way these refs behave, with all of their 'come here' finger wagging and their 'I'm ready for my close-up, Mr DeMille' expressions, and they can't see what absolute ARSES they are, there's little hope of improvement.

But one thing I'm all for is post-match interviews - they should all, without fail, have to do post-match interviews. The idea that they're above all that and cannot be compromised by such invasions of their privacy is absolute nonsense. They're public figures and they need to be accountable to the watching public, not just some cosy little boys club. If you want refs to stop acting like they're auditioning for EastEnders, and prancing around with those stupid smug grins after making appalling decisions, then make them talk in front of the cameras. That's the kind of pressure they need to focus the mind. And let managers talk about them and refs talk about managers, without this ridiculous fining system for honest opinions.

For one thing most careers have a 'type'. So it's no surprise that a position that demands a strong personality and authoritarian has people that fit that profile. Basically so what ? Who else is going to do it and actually want to stay in the job ?

I couldn't disagree more about putting them in front of cameras - as if they didn't have enough pressure already you now want to make them accountable in a way that could embarrass them or have them feeling that whatever they do on the pitch let's not be controversial - and that usually means not making any decision at all and just saying 'i didn't have a clear view'. By all means they should be accountable but not to the public and not in a way that drives them out of the industry for fear of being ridiculed.

 

[Brizzle]

It feels to me that in NFL the refs are almost unknown (is this right?!) as a) there are so many in a game and b) they generally just get on with it whatever. Part of the vilification of refs is that they get named in advance, people keep stats and dossiers on them etc.

Imagine a world where you didn't know who the ref was until kick off - much simpler and much less scrutiny on it.

 

[gkmacca]

I couldn't disagree more about putting them in front of cameras - as if they didn't have enough pressure already you now want to make them accountable in a way that could embarrass them or have them feeling that whatever they do on the pitch let's not be controversial - and that usually means not making any decision at all and just saying 'i didn't have a clear view'. By all means they should be accountable but not to the public and not in a way that drives them out of the industry for fear of being ridiculed.

Why on earth should refs be kept away from interviews? Managers have to risk being ridiculed, as do players. Why should refs be protected? The way to avoid being ridiculed is to try harder to perform better, not hide behind the protective cloak of the FA. If you actually read interviews with ex-referees, many of them say they'd have preferred that exposure rather than be made to shut up whilst their decisions are misinterpreted, their intentions misconstrued and their integrity is questioned by fans on social media, hacks in the press and pundits on TV. Those ex-refs say they hated the feeling of helplessness they had when they saw and heard all of that and didn't have the opportunity to explain themselves directly. They should be like anyone else - make them explain themselves, defend themselves, and give them the opportunity to teach others how complex their job is. It could actually work for them if they were honest. But they, like everyone else, must be made accountable.

 

[darkstarexodus]

I've never heard the suggestion of adding g a second on pitch referee, like hockey has. Perhaps the game has gotten too fast and too much occurs off the ball for a single ref to keep command over.

Ice hockey has two referees and two linesmen on the ice at all times.

A second set of eyes would take care of a lot of the fouls defending set pieces, nasty work off the ball, and should ensure at least one official is in a good position at all times.

 

[gkmacca]

I've never heard the suggestion of adding g a second on pitch referee, like hockey has. Perhaps the game has gotten too fast and too much occurs off the ball for a single ref to keep command over.

Ice hockey has two referees and two linesmen on the ice at all times.

A second set of eyes would take care of a lot of the fouls defending set pieces, nasty work off the ball, and should ensure at least one official is in a good position at all times.

Yes, but you'd need two refs with the same perspective on the rules. If you had one who was very lenient with fouls and another who was card happy, for example, you'd have players complaining and the refs would be undermining each other. Of course, there should be uniformity of judgments but we know from experience of refs that individuals can be very different in their interpretations.

 

[Insignificance]

Why on earth should refs be kept away from interviews? Managers have to risk being ridiculed, as do players. Why should refs be protected? The way to avoid being ridiculed is to try harder to perform better, not hide behind the protective cloak of the FA. If you actually read interviews with ex-referees, many of them say they'd have preferred that exposure rather than be made to shut up whilst their decisions are misinterpreted, their intentions misconstrued and their integrity is questioned by fans on social media, hacks in the press and pundits on TV. Those ex-refs say they hated the feeling of helplessness they had when they saw and heard all of that and didn't have the opportunity to explain themselves directly. They should be like anyone else - make them explain themselves, defend themselves, and give them the opportunity to teach others how complex their job is. It could actually work for them if they were honest. But they, like everyone else, must be made accountable.

He got a good point. Managers are well paid on good contracts and can discuss a lot of things about a game afterwards. Refs would be put in front of camera for one single reason and that is pointing at close calls made in a high tempo. What do you want them to say? "Well I actually never liker Wayne Rooney so giving him a penalty is not something I am too fond of"?

 

[ctlovesred]

It reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall, where someone is proudly demonstrating a canned laughter machine, and the other one rubs his eyes sadly and says, 'Have you got booing on that?' Refs can be absolutely atrocious and if anyone dares to say it they get hit with fines and bans. It's ridiculous. Send the refs out to account for their performance - that would sober them up and make them focus on their job.

Let them be interviewed 24 hours after so they have a chance to watch the film and prepare for judgement.

 

[gkmacca]

He got a good point. Managers are well paid on good contracts and can discuss a lot of things about a game afterwards. Refs would be put in front of camera for one single reason and that is pointing at close calls made in a high tempo. What do you want them to say? "Well I actually never liker Wayne Rooney so giving him a penalty is not something I am too fond of"?

They can say what the hell they like. They can say they may have got something wrong, they can insist they got it right, they can explain how difficult the game was, the factors affecting their decisions, etc. They can even explain the rules (something that often needs explaining but seldom is). Whatever. How much they're paid is bloody irrelevant. For refs to act like preening popinjays, sometimes make calm games chaotic and make highly questionable decisions, and then waddle off into the night whilst everyone else involved is subjected to questioning, is ridiculous.

 

[gkmacca]

Let them be interviewed 24 hours after so they have a chance to watch the film and prepare for judgement.

Fair enough - but they should have a voice to defend themselves and explain themselves.

 

[Frogfish]

Why on earth should refs be kept away from interviews? Managers have to risk being ridiculed, as do players. Why should refs be protected? The way to avoid being ridiculed is to try harder to perform better, not hide behind the protective cloak of the FA. If you actually read interviews with ex-referees, many of them say they'd have preferred that exposure rather than be made to shut up whilst their decisions are misinterpreted, their intentions misconstrued and their integrity is questioned by fans on social media, hacks in the press and pundits on TV. Those ex-refs say they hated the feeling of helplessness they had when they saw and heard all of that and didn't have the opportunity to explain themselves directly. They should be like anyone else - make them explain themselves, defend themselves, and give them the opportunity to teach others how complex their job is. It could actually work for them if they were honest. But they, like everyone else, must be made accountable.

Makes sense - but then let that be done in another way. Maybe an official precis of the match with explanations of the major decisions. But don't put officials in front of the media - that's just asking for trouble.

 

[gkmacca]

Makes sense - but then let that be done in another way. Maybe an official precis of the match with explanations of the major decisions. But don't put officials in front of the media - that's just asking for trouble.

Yeah, leave the managers to answer questions about the refs. That's a much less problematic approach. I'm sure refs just love travelling home listening to Neil Warnock explaining where they went wrong. And it was great fun when Ginsoak used to pretty much call them cheats.

 

[Actonian]

As refs are now full-time employees they're presumably subject to employment law and could only be sacked after due process. For that to work you'd need the assessors to be pulling no punches game after game. The fact that Friend, Mason, East and Moss have survived in that elite group for so long can only suggest that that's not happening.
VAR? There was a cup game this season in which the match official was Kevin Friend and the VAR official was Lee Mason. Talk about the blind leading the blind...

 

[Insignificance]

Fair enough - but they should have a voice to defend themselves and explain themselves.

That was my point... it will be an arena to put them against the wall. Correct decisions ain't interesting...

 

[gkmacca]

Correct decisions ain't interesting...

Yes they are. Many pundits and many fans don't understand the rules - offside, phases of play, handball, etc etc. To have a ref explain why they were right when some thought they were wrong WOULD be interesting and educational. We need to move beyond this either/or thinking, in the sense it'll be either really bad for refs to be questioned or really good. It depends, like it does for players and managers. Do well, enjoy it, do badly, face up to it.

 

[ctlovesred]

Fair enough - but they should have a voice to defend themselves and explain themselves.

Absolutely agree

 

[darkstarexodus]

Yes, but you'd need two refs with the same perspective on the rules. If you had one who was very lenient with fouls and another who was card happy, for example, you'd have players complaining and the refs would be undermining each other. Of course, there should be uniformity of judgments but we know from experience of refs that individuals can be very different in their interpretations.

This comes down to clearer rules and direction from the governing bodies. The same issue would arise in hockey as well but this just isn't an issue. There is, of course, poor officiating in hockey as well, but the officials work as a team and not all subject to one egomaniacal overlord of the process as we see on the pitch.

 

[ctlovesred]

This is long and specific to the NBA, but worth the read when it comes to the psychology and skills training of officials trying to keep up with the speed of modern pro athletes as well as the scrutiny. I assume the PL takes similar steps to train and prepare its officials?

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/10/12/17961936/nba-referee-official-job-stats-psychology-calls

 

[Insignificance]

Yes they are. Many pundits and many fans don't understand the rules - offside, phases of play, handball, etc etc. To have a ref explain why they were right when some thought they were wrong WOULD be interesting and educational. We need to move beyond this either/or thinking, in the sense it'll be either really bad for refs to be questioned or really good. It depends, like it does for players and managers. Do well, enjoy it, do badly, face up to it.

I agree. But it is possible to use a ref that have a good overview and the benefit of a replay to discuss that. The media is not interested in anything but crucifying a ref to admit a mistake after they show him the fifth angle of the situation. Have you seen "experts" summarizing the weekend?

 

[darkstarexodus]

This is long and specific to the NBA, but worth the read when it comes to the psychology and skills training of officials trying to keep up with the speed of modern pro athletes as well as the scrutiny. I assume the PL takes similar steps to train and prepare its officials?

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/10/12/17961936/nba-referee-official-job-stats-psychology-calls

That's a good read and shows the professionalism involved. The article alludes to the relationships and coordination between the officials and how they work together despite inevitable differences of opinion of foul v non-foul, as well as how they cope with player attempts at deceit.

 

[juniormember]

Yes they are. Many pundits and many fans don't understand the rules - offside, phases of play, handball, etc etc. To have a ref explain why they were right when some thought they were wrong WOULD be interesting and educational. We need to move beyond this either/or thinking, in the sense it'll be either really bad for refs to be questioned or really good. It depends, like it does for players and managers. Do well, enjoy it, do badly, face up to it.

On the other hand, managers get to enjoy it by having interviews after wins.
If a ref gets zero wrong, what TV station or sponsor will be interested in a ref getting interviewed after making no obvious errors? They’d only be called up for interviews when they’ve done shite. Don’t think any ref union in the world would agree to it.

 

[Frogfish]

Yeah, leave the managers to answer questions about the refs. That's a much less problematic approach. I'm sure refs just love travelling home listening to Neil Warnock explaining where they went wrong. And it was great fun when Ginsoak used to pretty much call them cheats.

Expecting referees to be grilled in public right after a game is myopic to say the least. Managers are paid millions and are just making general comments mostly on aspects they couldn't control anyway - the media just likes to see them vent for the next day's headlines.

I don't suppose anyone gives a rats' arse about what Neil Warnock says .. and if a precis was issued, possibly the next day, then that would clarify the reasons behind any decisions. Why does it have to be 'right after the match' ?