Standard of Refereeing

[AyeDubbleYoo]

My belief is basically this, in principle:

 

The referee is in charge of the game, players and managers should respect his decisions and abide by them at all times. This includes admitting that they were made in good faith.

 

Referees should be given the training they need to be competent, and they should be assessed by completely independent people.

 

We should accept that referees are human and will make a number of mistakes in a game, no matter what.

 

Players and managers should be called-up and punished for disrespecting referees and attempting to deceive them during the game. This includes retrospective punishment for diving and fouling.

 

It's not a "disgrace" or a "farce" when a ref misses an incident or makes a wrong decision, it's a normal part of football. People just need to grow up and accept it.

[Scoreboard82]

Most are bad, but one who stands out in particular is Martin Atkinson. If i remember rightly he made a mess of our game at Man City and had a 'mare in the mackems/Stoke game. The thing is, how can 3 officials regularly not see major incidents between them?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Most are bad, but one who stands out in particular is Martin Atkinson. If i remember rightly he made a mess of our game at Man City and had a 'mare in the mackems/Stoke game. The thing is, how can 3 officials regularly not see major incidents between them?

 

I never understand how people can ask questions like this.

 

It happened, they missed it. It happens all the time, so how is it in any way surprising?

 

It's like we're judging referees against a non-existent ideal standard that has never ever been met.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Chris Foy, Mike Dean and Mark Clattenberg are all usually very good referees imo. The rest are either good and bad, or in Atwell, Atkinson and Marriner's case, consistently terrible.

[Guest neesy111]

Most are bad, but one who stands out in particular is Martin Atkinson. If i remember rightly he made a mess of our game at Man City and had a 'mare in the mackems/Stoke game. The thing is, how can 3 officials regularly not see major incidents between them?

 

I never understand how people can ask questions like this.

 

It happened, they missed it. It happens all the time, so how is it in any way surprising?

 

It's like we're judging referees against a non-existent ideal standard that has never ever been met.

Are you Martin Atkinson

 

It was the clearest hand-ball anyone will see and he had a perfect view of the whole incident, and as Lee Dixon said if you can't see that, you shouldn't be refereeing.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not denying they got it wrong, and obviously their assessments should reflect that.

 

But you can't possibly be shocked or surprised... it happens all the time, and always has done.

[cp40]

I'm not denying they got it wrong, and obviously their assessments should reflect that.

 

But you can't possibly be shocked or surprised... it happens all the time, and always has done.

 

 

its got worse and favours the big clubs more now. imo

[Guest neesy111]

I'm not denying they got it wrong, and obviously their assessments should reflect that.

 

But you can't possibly be shocked or surprised... it happens all the time, and always has done.

 

But it's getting worse, and people can clearly see that.

 

Btw, I think the FA are totally to blame for all of this.

[Ocho]

Chris Foy, Mike Dean and Mark Clattenberg are all usually very good referees imo. The rest are either good and bad, or in Atwell, Atkinson and Marriner's case, consistently terrible.

 

Best in the league IMO

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don't believe it's getting worse or is more biased towards big clubs than it ever was.

 

Obviously that's only my opinion and there's nothing scientific to back it up. I would like to see assessments of referees based on right and wrong decisions etc etc, does any independent body gather that sort of information?

[Aphrodite]

I'm not denying they got it wrong, and obviously their assessments should reflect that.

 

But you can't possibly be shocked or surprised... it happens all the time, and always has done.

 

But it's getting worse, and people can clearly see that.

 

Btw, I think the FA are totally to blame for all of this.

 

What's your solution then?

[Aphrodite]

I don't believe it's getting worse or is more biased towards big clubs than it ever was.

 

Obviously that's only my opinion and there's nothing scientific to back it up. I would like to see assessments of referees based on right and wrong decisions etc etc, does any independent body gather that sort of information?

 

http://tvnz.co.nz/2010-fifa-world-cup-news/fifa-referees-got-96-percent-right-3638147

 

Not independent but probably about right.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don't believe it's getting worse or is more biased towards big clubs than it ever was.

 

Obviously that's only my opinion and there's nothing scientific to back it up. I would like to see assessments of referees based on right and wrong decisions etc etc, does any independent body gather that sort of information?

 

http://tvnz.co.nz/2010-fifa-world-cup-news/fifa-referees-got-96-percent-right-3638147

 

Not independent but probably about right.

 

Very interesting!

 

They're definitely right about the one mistake overshadowing everything else.

 

That's the issue I have with people criticising referees, all the correct decisions get forgotten. It would be like slating Tiote for the 6% of passes he misplaced yesterday.

[Exiled in Texas]

To improve the standard of refereeing, you need impartial and unbiased assessment and review.  Allowing a manager to add his input is worthless because they are never "impartial and unbiased".

 

Pullis just wants a pound of flesh and wants to give the refereee a 0/5 score, whereas the winning manager would give 5/5. Thereby, giving an average rating of 2.5/5.  What's the point?

 

What they should do is publish the FA assessments and the important parts of the referee reports.....publish what the referee said that he saw, or thought or what process he went through.  Wouldn't it be great to hear WHY the referee gave a specific decision - perhaps he saw something that we all missed, perhaps he processed the LOTG in a manner that we hadn't expected. And perhaps he did just not see what the TV Slo-Mo replay saw.

 

But either way it's public and open with nothing to hide, and no closed door, closing ranks coverups.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

To improve the standard of refereeing, you need impartial and unbiased assessment and review.  Allowing a manager to add his input is worthless because they are never "impartial and unbiased".

 

Pullis just wants a pound of flesh and wants to give the refereee a 0/5 score, whereas the winning manager would give 5/5. Thereby, giving an average rating of 2.5/5.  What's the point?

 

What they should do is publish the FA assessments and the important parts of the referee reports.....publish what the referee said that he saw, or thought or what process he went through.  Wouldn't it be great to hear WHY the referee gave a specific decision - perhaps he saw something that we all missed, perhaps he processed the LOTG in a manner that we hadn't expected. And perhaps he did just not see what the TV Slo-Mo replay saw.

 

But either way it's public and open with nothing to hide, and no closed door, closing ranks coverups.

 

I agree with you in principle.

 

What if the referee just didn't see something though? Or in his opinion it wasn't a foul, when replays suggest it was? Would simple explanations like that be enough for people?

[Exiled in Texas]

To improve the standard of refereeing, you need impartial and unbiased assessment and review.  Allowing a manager to add his input is worthless because they are never "impartial and unbiased".

 

Pullis just wants a pound of flesh and wants to give the refereee a 0/5 score, whereas the winning manager would give 5/5. Thereby, giving an average rating of 2.5/5.  What's the point?

 

What they should do is publish the FA assessments and the important parts of the referee reports.....publish what the referee said that he saw, or thought or what process he went through.  Wouldn't it be great to hear WHY the referee gave a specific decision - perhaps he saw something that we all missed, perhaps he processed the LOTG in a manner that we hadn't expected. And perhaps he did just not see what the TV Slo-Mo replay saw.

 

But either way it's public and open with nothing to hide, and no closed door, closing ranks coverups.

 

I agree with you in principle.

 

What if the referee just didn't see something though? Or in his opinion it wasn't a foul, when replays suggest it was? Would simple explanations like that be enough for people?

 

Players, coaches and fans think that anything not called was "missed" by the referee, when in fact he might have seen it all and decided it wasn't a foul etc. They might not like the decision but the understand things a bit better if they know that you saw it (or perhaps were completely shielded from the view).

 

More openess would be good - and might be the added "incentive" to the referees really be on top of their game.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I agree, still think fans would be reluctant to accept a ref saying "At the time I didn't see Cattermole handle the ball of the line, but looking at the replay it's totally obvious". I wonder whether it would actually do much good.

[James]

Pulis' idea is so open for referee blackmail. You know some managers will be less generous than others, so refs will try and pander towards the likes of Pulis, Redknapp and Fergie to the disadvantage of more laid back managers such as Hughton and di Matteo.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Pulis' idea is so open for referee blackmail. You know some managers will be less generous than others, so refs will try and pander towards the likes of Pulis, Redknapp and Fergie to the disadvantage of more laid back managers such as Hughton and di Matteo.

 

Pulis's idea is total bollocks on many levels. He's just making himself look more of a tool suggesting things like this.

[PM]

Mike Dean was excellent yesterday, yet again.

[Jordan]

Mike Dean was excellent yesterday, yet again.

Didnt get a decision wrong iirc

[Exiled in Texas]

Mike Dean was excellent yesterday, yet again.

Didnt get a decision wrong iirc

 

Says the winning team.....wonder what the Gooner fans think 

 

[/fishing]

[Guest Geordiesned]

Pulis hasn't really thought this idea through tbh. The way Stoke are currently playing the 3 refs who are relegated at the end of the season would be refereeing Stoke games in the Championship next season!

[Neil]

Mike Dean was excellent yesterday, yet again.

Didnt get a decision wrong iirc

 

Says the winning team.....wonder what the Gooner fans think   

 

[/fishing]

 

Tbh, did Dean really have much to do? Got the red card right and got most free kicks right. Quiet game is a good game for a ref, I suppose.

 

Actually, I'm not so sure he got the red card right. Was perhaps a bit harsh. But it sure as hell didn't change the game. He did pretty well overall.

[Guest Geordiesned]

If anything Mike Dean was lenient on Arsenal players. Chamakh should have been booked for diving and several players escaped yellow cards for swiping Newcastle players legs away whilst Tiote was booked for a nothing challenge.