[Football] Guardian Long Read - Refereeing, the Impossible Job

[Brighton Lines]

I'm as guilty as anyone as jumping off my seat and shouting "OI!!" at what at first seems like a horror tackle on one of our players and then braying for a card, only to watch the replay later and realise there was absolutely nothing wrong with the challenge.

Or insisting that a ball has gone out of play when all the evidence later proves it didn't. Or that an opposition player is timewasting, only for it to transpire they're concussed or have torn a ligament.

Refs have to make instant and important decisions with all this emotional crowd noise going on, and the in-your-face stuff from players and benches. To be honest it's no surprise that they make mistakes. The bigger surprise is that they don't make more.

Nothing wrong with having a jolly old boo at a referee. They expect it. But you will be wrong most of the time. It's all the toxic crap outside it, which I suspect you and very few on here engage with.

I love rugby and cricket too. In rugby there is more scope for a ref to get it wrong. In 2003, before Johnny scored the famous drop goal in the final, there was an absolutely clear situation when an Aussie came in from the side at the breakdown. No doubt at all. The commentator even mentioned it. A penalty between the posts. The ref missed it though. I sat there and thought 'Oh, well'. It happens, because in rugby so much is going on. You just accept it. England won in the next passage of play. But even if we'd lost I wouldn't have gone on about it. In rugby it's just accepted that, like the players, the ref is not perfect. Rarely do you see players ganging up.

In football, it drives me nuts how folk just can't accept the facts. No ref is perfect. But the EPL officials are there because they are right most of the time. And if we are beaten by a clear and obvious error by the ref I still accept it. The match is won and lost over 90 minutes.

This is not to say that refereeing shouldn't be constantly evaluated to make it better. But my view is that if folk cannot show respect to a ref then they should take up something else. Football is clearly too much for them. It's just a game.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Offside is also a subjective decision about the precise millisecond the ball leaves the passers boot. This makes marginal decisions about the position of the receiving player also non scientific. There is no ‘correct’ in anything to do with refereeing a football match, apart from goal line technology. Widespread lack of understanding of this subjectivity re-enforced by the fake science of VAR has made the position of referees even worse. Once the refs have gone there will be no games left.

LBW in cricket is also subjective but you get an Umpires Call. So, within a margin, trust the pitch side officials.

Under that, Pervis’s goal against Palace would have stood and so would Evan’s disallowed goal against Grimsby. One would have been just correct and one just wrong. I’m ok with that so long as people accepted it against us too.

 

[drew]

I'm about to read the article but my problem with refs is their abject failure to apply the rules of the game consistently. I'm not necessarily referring to subjective decisions but to clear cut breaches. An example would be a few years ago when we played Chelsea, Alonso pulled the shirt of a Brighton player but it was in our defensive right back position. That should be a yellow card irrespective of when during the game it happens, ie 1st minute or 90th minute. Free kick given which proved the ref saw it but no yellow card. Alonso then went on to do the same again later in the match nearer the halfway line and again a foul given but no red card (would he have repeated the offence had he got a yellow for the first?). He then got a yellow for taking out March which could have been a 'subjective' red.

Another example are refs not booking players at the first sign of time wasting rather than leaving it to the 89th minute when they've achieved what they've set out to do. And finally, why to they allow players to approach them in the manner they do and why do they not stand their ground? If players then keep pressing they'll touch the ref and that should be a red (double standards with Mitrovic and Fernandes, appreciate the degree of contact was different but both should be a red and/or retrospective action). If they want to talk to a player, don't walk over to him, get him to come to you. If he doesn't, yellow.

 

[Swansman]

I'm about to read the article but my problem with refs is their abject failure to apply the rules of the game consistently. I'm not necessarily referring to subjective decisions but to clear cut breaches. An example would be a few years ago when we played Chelsea, Alonso pulled the shirt of a Brighton player but it was in our defensive right back position. That should be a yellow card irrespective of when during the game it happens, ie 1st minute or 90th minute. Free kick given which proved the ref saw it but no yellow card. Alonso then went on to do the same again later in the match nearer the halfway line and again a foul given but no red card (would he have repeated the offence had he got a yellow for the first?). He then got a yellow for taking out March which could have been a 'subjective' red.

Another example are refs not booking players at the first sign of time wasting rather than leaving it to the 89th minute when they've achieved what they've set out to do. And finally, why to they allow players to approach them in the manner they do and why do they not stand their ground? If players then keep pressing they'll touch the ref and that should be a red (double standards with Mitrovic and Fernandes, appreciate the degree of contact was different but both should be a red and/or retrospective action). If they want to talk to a player, don't walk over to him, get him to come to you. If he doesn't, yellow.

So in essence, "My problem with the refs is that they're not perfect".

 

[Acker79]

I'm about to read the article but my problem with refs is their abject failure to apply the rules of the game consistently. I'm not necessarily referring to subjective decisions but to clear cut breaches. An example would be a few years ago when we played Chelsea, Alonso pulled the shirt of a Brighton player but it was in our defensive right back position. That should be a yellow card irrespective of when during the game it happens, ie 1st minute or 90th minute. Free kick given which proved the ref saw it but no yellow card. Alonso then went on to do the same again later in the match nearer the halfway line and again a foul given but no red card (would he have repeated the offence had he got a yellow for the first?). He then got a yellow for taking out March which could have been a 'subjective' red.

CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES

A player is cautioned if guilty of:​

​

​

• delaying the restart of play
• dissent by word or action
• entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
• failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a dropped ball, corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• persistent offences (no specific number or pattern of offences constitutes “persistent”)
• unsporting behaviour
• entering the referee review area (RRA)
• excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if guilty of:​

​

• delaying the restart of play
• dissent by word or action
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
• unsporting behaviour
• entering the referee review area (RRA)
• excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal

​

Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc.​

Further elaboration on them can be found https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

The only mention of shirts is in the celebrating a goal section where it notes removing the shirt is a yellow card offence.

That is, you are wrong in your example to criticise the referee - pulling a shirt is not an automatic yellow card offence.

Another example are refs not booking players at the first sign of time wasting rather than leaving it to the 89th minute when they've achieved what they've set out to do. And finally, why to they allow players to approach them in the manner they do and why do they not stand their ground? If players then keep pressing they'll touch the ref and that should be a red (double standards with Mitrovic and Fernandes, appreciate the degree of contact was different but both should be a red and/or retrospective action). If they want to talk to a player, don't walk over to him, get him to come to you. If he doesn't, yellow.

There is part of the aritcle that talkks about the pyschology of handling the game.

But I would argue that if referees started acting like that, people would be criticising them more than they already do for making themselves the star, for their arrogance, for their being on a power trip. Citing how they should be managing the game better instead of winding the players up more and exacerbating the situation.

 

[drew]

So in essence, "My problem with the refs is that they're not perfect".

No, it's that they don't apply the rules, thougth that was clear from my post.

 

[drew]

CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES​

​

A player is cautioned if guilty of:​

​

​

• delaying the restart of play
• dissent by word or action
• entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
• failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a dropped ball, corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• persistent offences (no specific number or pattern of offences constitutes “persistent”)
• unsporting behaviour
• entering the referee review area (RRA)
• excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if guilty of:​

​

• delaying the restart of play
• dissent by word or action
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
• unsporting behaviour
• entering the referee review area (RRA)
• excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal

​

Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc.​

Further elaboration on them can be found https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

The only mention of shirts is in the celebrating a goal section where it notes removing the shirt is a yellow card offence.

That is, you are wrong in your example to criticise the referee - pulling a shirt is not an automatic yellow card offence.


There is part of the aritcle that talkks about the pyschology of handling the game.

But I would argue that if referees started acting like that, people would be criticising them more than they already do for making themselves the star, for their arrogance, for their being on a power trip. Citing how they should be managing the game better instead of winding the players up more and exacerbating the situation.

Do you watch much football?

 

[drew]

Nearly spilt my tea when I read that referees are 'formidable athletes' and the image of Moss and Mason sprung to mind!!!

 

[Acker79]

‘We’re always easy to have a go at’: behind the scenes at a PGMOL referee training camp

St George’s Park visit shows lengths officials go to in pursuit of right decisions and how they deal with things going wrong

www.theguardian.com

 

[BBassic]

‘We’re always easy to have a go at’: behind the scenes at a PGMOL referee training camp

St George’s Park visit shows lengths officials go to in pursuit of right decisions and how they deal with things going wrong

www.theguardian.com

Easy to have a go at because they're making table altering incorrect decisions far too regularly.

 

[Nobby]

Martin Atkinson is a referees coach for the PGMOL

I'll leave that one there

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah I was being a touch hyperbolic.

I was trying to make the point that, using our disallowed Palace goal as the example, we as fans would rate that performance way below 97%. Regardless of how much other stuff he got right. But that ref probably got upwards of 90% on his report.

I just find it interesting the levels of difference we have compared to the people who actually do the job.

I'm aware that this post was written nearly a month ago and, how shall I put it, there have been some issues related to the original article affecting B&HA in the interim.
That said, do read the article. It provides a different perspective, offering insight into officiating and its challenges. In it, you'll find that there are c300 decisions that referees (and their assistants) make during a match -- some of which are objective, others of which aren't -- and that the 97% figure refers to how officials are assessed in terms of the % of those 300 decisions they get right.
We tend to remember the ones that are wrong that is go against us (we rarely remember the ones that are wrong and go for us), but these are rarities. To take the Chelsea game, for instance, I don't remember getting upset about any of the decisions that I witnessed. It transpires that there was a handball from which we should have got a penalty. I don't blame the referee for not picking up on it, because it wasn't obvious, it was at high speed, and the referee was in a good position yet the incident looks as though it was obscured. You might want to then say that VAR should have picked up on it, and that's a fairer point -- especially given Estupinan's reaction. If you do want to say that VAR should have picked up on it, then you're effectively accepting VAR -- and I know that this is a validly contentious point. All I'll say on that particular matter is that the reason why VAR was introduced was because of the constant moaning of football fans about officials' decisions.

 

[BBassic]

I'm aware that this post was written nearly a month ago and, how shall I put it, there have been some issues related to the original article affecting B&HA in the interim.
That said, do read the article. It provides a different perspective, offering insight into officiating and its challenges. In it, you'll find that there are c300 decisions that referees (and their assistants) make during a match -- some of which are objective, others of which aren't -- and that the 97% figure refers to how officials are assessed in terms of the % of those 300 decisions they get right.
We tend to remember the ones that are wrong that is go against us (we rarely remember the ones that are wrong and go for us), but these are rarities. To take the Chelsea game, for instance, I don't remember getting upset about any of the decisions that I witnessed. It transpires that there was a handball from which we should have got a penalty. I don't blame the referee for not picking up on it, because it wasn't obvious, it was at high speed, and the referee was in a good position yet the incident looks as though it was obscured. You might want to then say that VAR should have picked up on it, and that's a fairer point -- especially given Estupinan's reaction. If you do want to say that VAR should have picked up on it, then you're effectively accepting VAR -- and I know that this is a validly contentious point. All I'll say on that particular matter is that the reason why VAR was introduced was because of the constant moaning of football fans about officials' decisions.

I've read both "won't somebody think of the referees?!" pieces the Guardian have done recently and I do agree that, broadly speaking, it's a difficult job they do in an absolute pressure cooker of an environment. I couldn't do it.

That said - there have been too many atrocious decisions recently and they'll get short shrift from me as a result.