Referees Accountability, Future?

Carcharodon

After such a frantic and controversial weekend of EPL games, referees have again come under the spotlight for the wrong reasons yet again.
In the eyes of some, the referees involved in the sunday fixtures had a profound impact on the result of the games and feel hard done by some of the referees decisions.

Mourinho stated that referees should be made to explain some of their decisions after the game. I fundamentally agree with this but do realise the difficult job the ref has and he has to make a split second decision on incidents during the game, its a difficult job but i do believe that this would be a step in the right direction.
Cole suggested referees are against The Blues and there are also claims Poll told the Chelsea players they needed to be 'taught a lesson'

I think Premiership refs can earn around £60,000 per year,this could be outdated but i read that was it a couple of years back. Although this is alot of money compared to what the regular Joe Soap earns, it is still only pocket change compared to what players earn and all the money in the game these days. If referees were payed that bit extra, they could truely be accountable for their performances, they could be on some performance based pay ?

I believe the ref has a very difficult job yet it is a very important one.
I hear that there are plans to introduce video replays in the future, which i think are a step in the right direction, people may argue it may slow the game down but in relation to incidents such as penalty decisions, ball crossing the line, violent conduct, off sides etc in could prove its worth.
I realise that there could be a hudred of these decisions in a game but there can surely be some middle ground to be found in its use.

Do people think that refs should be made to explain themselves after games ?
What do people think should be done to improve referees standards or does it all just balance out at the end of season?

Carcharodon

Think i posted thread at wrong time, fell down the pecking order quickly
but was just wondering after what Chesea said about Grahm Poll, do people think he should of been made to explain decisions after, can anything be done to improve things a bit

Jivin Turkey

No.

People make mistakes, I'm sure they don't do it on purpose. Should Cole have to explain why he lost his marker at one point during the game?

Also to admit immediately after a game, while under the spotlight, that they thought they may have made a mistake, could have reprecussions on any appeals etc.

Mr. Presentable

Poll. Punish players with multiple bookings in one game. Poll's an idiot.

Refs should not have to explain they're decisions. They are either considered up to the job or not. Let's face it, even with tens of cameras covering every event from every angle, there's still debate about what occured from TV viewers, so what chance the poor ref, with only one point of view, and an instant in which to decide. Replays for assaults, goal line clearances only.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

No.

People make mistakes, I'm sure they don't do it on purpose. Should Cole have to explain why he lost his marker at one point during the game?

Also to admit immediately after a game, while under the spotlight, that they thought they may have made a mistake, could have reprecussions on any appeals etc.

What you say makes perfect sense and is probably the most common sense approach but if after a game, the ref just outlined the reasons behind some decisions such as why exactly was Drogbas goal disallowed and why was Terry sent off, it would possibly ease the media speculation straight after games and give managers a clear reason to why certain decisions were given.

iregk

I think they should. One of the biggest problems in this country from a political point of view is the lack of accountability. Some guy gets a project (port tunnel) makes a mess of it and gets handed something else. Refs are in a similar situation. They have very little accountability and should be made to answer certain dicisions. This would eliminate the ego trippers such as Graham Poll and Uriah Rennie (how is he still a ref)

PHB

I think Poll should have come out and say exactly why Drogbas goal was disallowed and why Terry was sent off. Whether they should have to do it after the match is important, because it doesn't give them a chance to go back and justify their decision by looking at the tape.

It would at least add an air of transparancy to the whole situation, and hopefully force video reffing.

Jivin Turkey

iregk wrote:

I think they should. One of the biggest problems in this country from a political point of view is the lack of accountability. Some guy gets a project (port tunnel) makes a mess of it and gets handed something else. Refs are in a similar situation. They have very little accountability and should be made to answer certain dicisions. This would eliminate the ego trippers such as Graham Poll and Uriah Rennie (how is he still a ref)

Uriah Rennie spent some time in the Championship following a referee's review of some of his games IIRC.

Is that not accountability?

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Uriah Rennie spent some time in the Championship following a referee's review of some of his games IIRC.

Is that not accountability?

That rule kind of annoys me, they are saying your not good enough to ref this game but you are good enough to ref another game. How a game is refed in the championship is just as important as how it is refed in the premiership. There is a bit of accountability but it seems it does not benefit anyone, its not really a punishment

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

That rule kind of annoys me, they are saying your not good enough to ref this game but you are good enough to ref another game. How a game is refed in the championship is just as important as how it is refed in the premiership. There is a bit of accountability but it seems it does not benefit anyone, its not really a punishment

So should we do away with promotion and relegation of clubs as well?

growler

I think the FA's / UEFA's stance on this is that you go having different rules for different levels of the game, if a ref in a premiership game has to explain his actions post match then a referee in an U-16's club match would theoretically have to do the same.

It's a great cop out way of burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the technlogy that could be used to ensure that correct decisions are made, the number of incorrect decisions being made by refs at top levels is annoying and their policy of erring on the side of caution has reduced many games to a whistle fest of pointless free kicks and a poor form of entertainment for all but the referee.

Poll is and always has been as dodgy a ref as you get.

Chucky the tree

growler wrote:

their policy of erring on the side of caution has reduced many games to a whistle fest of pointless free kicks and a poor form of entertainment for all but the referee.

The players rolling around on the gorund like they have been shot when they are barely touch doesnt help either.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

So should we do away with promotion and relegation of clubs as well?

Yes, a very rational statement....
A game of football is a game of football whether it is in premiership or championship, same rules apply

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

Yes, a very rational statement....

Well seeing as I used your logic of "if your not good enough for one level your not good enough for another" I am not surprised that think that.............

Carcharodon wrote:

A game of football is a game of football whether it is in premiership or championship, same rules apply

Yes, and same mistakes happen. People make mistakes at all levels. The players are more to blame for the litany of woeful decisions than the refs. Players antics these days have put refs in the positions they are in.

How come 20 years ago you'd probably not even know the name of a ref outside George Courtney? Even the notion of the ref having to explain his decisions after the game is evident of that. You just want good watching, good entertainment. You want to see him on the spot so we can hang the guys who answer it wrong.

How about the ref explains his decisions to the teams, in private, something that I think may already happen on request after matches.

iregk

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Uriah Rennie spent some time in the Championship following a referee's review of some of his games IIRC.

Is that not accountability?

Well to be honest I don't agree with that rule. I think if they deem it enough that a ref can't ref a premiership game then he shouldn't be allowed to ref at all.

But if they have to face the camera after a game and say tell me why wasn't that a penalty. He cops out saying from the angle I had I couldn't see any handball. Look at the cam replay clearly shows the ref looking straight at the incident yards away means he did see it and didn't give it because he bottled it.

Jivin Turkey

iregk wrote:

Well to be honest I don't agree with that rule. I think if they deem it enough that a ref can't ref a premiership game then he shouldn't be allowed to ref at all.

Like I said, if your not good enough to play Premiership football you shouldn't be allowed at all?

Should we not allow Uriah Rennie to ref a pub game down the park?

iregk wrote:

But if they have to face the camera after a game and say tell me why wasn't that a penalty.

There's your problem. You want the entertainment of it.

iregk wrote:

He cops out saying from the angle I had I couldn't see any handball. Look at the cam replay clearly shows the ref looking straight at the incident yards away means he did see it and didn't give it because he bottled it.

Look at the camera replay? Since when did they put real time cameras in referee's eyes?

Have you ever reffed a game? At any level? Even a training match? It's not hard to miss incidents that are blatantly obvious to other people with different views.

growler

Chucky the tree wrote:

The players rolling around on the gorund like they have been shot when they are barely touch doesnt help either.

the referees pandering to their amateur dramatics doesn't discourage it either

Jivin Turkey

growler wrote:

the referees pandering to their amateur dramatics doesn't discourage it either

But who is really at fault there?

Because I'm sure the one time a ref tells a genuinely injured player to get up he gets slaughtered by the brigade we have here.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well seeing as I used your logic of "if your not good enough for one level your not good enough for another" I am not surprised that think that.............
.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: profesional clubs v profesional refs, not exactly the same are they. Relegatng a ref for a game does not exactly mean it will make him a better ref for the next game

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Yes, and same mistakes happen. People make mistakes at all levels. The players are more to blame for the litany of woeful decisions than the refs. Players antics these days have put refs in the positions they are in.

How come 20 years ago you'd probably not even know the name of a ref outside George Courtney? Even the notion of the ref having to explain his decisions after the game is evident of that. You just want good watching, good entertainment. You want to see him on the spot so we can hang the guys who answer it wrong.

How about the ref explains his decisions to the teams, in private, something that I think may already happen on request after matches.

All i want is better refereeing and whatever improvements can be made in todays modern game which would help this happen.
I dont blame refs, its a nightmare job to have and dispite your self rightous comments not all people want to watch refs been hung out to dry for our own entertainment, i would rather watch a good game

PHB

Have you ever reffed a game? At any level? Even a training match? It's not hard to miss incidents that are blatantly obvious to other people with different views.

I've reffed games, I've also played football. The level that professional footballers are beyond me should also be the level that the refs are.

The refs aren't good enough as a whole, and part of that is this culture of hiding from their decisions. If accountability existed, the best would emerge to the top (in theory)

bucks73

Referees have been making mistakes since football began and will go on making mistakes long after we are all dead.

There is no way possible you can get referees who will make zero mistakes in a game not to mind a whole season. The fact that referees now have tens of cameras picking out every little detail in a game does highlight their mistakes but I dont think they should be accountable and especially not straight away after a game. Players and managers alike have the option of NOT facing the media if they so choose. If it was compulsory for referees to face a barrage of questions after 90 minutes running around it would be totally unfair.

As most managers will tell you, the decisions and luck tend to even out over the season. Just take Terry for an example, he blocked a certain goal with his hands last season at home (cant remember who against) and got away scot free. Not picking on him but chose him as this seems to have arisen because Sundays game. What goes around, comes around.

There have been quite a few plain brutal decisions by referees and linesmen this season and most definitely if an official makes a number of errors then he should be sent down the divisions for a while but most top referees are good and an occasional mistake is something that has to be accepted. They are after all, only human.

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: profesional clubs v profesional refs, not exactly the same are they. Relegatng a ref for a game does not exactly mean it will make him a better ref for the next game

Ref's aren't just relegated for a game. And I'm not saying that is the best idea either. But it is accountability for their actions.

Your talk of accountability puts refs under more pressure to make the right decisions, which ultimately leads to them making wrong decisions, either when they are not sure and don't want to give it, or think they saw it and don't want to let it go.

Carcharodon wrote:

All i want is better refereeing and whatever improvements can be made in todays modern game which would help this happen.

Which I feel the same about. But getting a ref to explain to the public why he made certain decisions after a game is not doing this. It's only fueling the fire against them, and thus harming the modern game.

Carcharodon wrote:

I dont blame refs, its a nightmare job to have and dispite your self rightous comments not all people want to watch refs been hung out to dry for our own entertainment, i would rather watch a good game

I'm not being self righteous. Why else would you feel that a referee should explain how they saw an incident?

If you want to watch a good game, lets have refs as untouchable. Like in rugby. Argue at any decision, 10 yards, do it again 20. Get in his face, sin bin. No questions. If you want to keep on arguing, let the other team take the free fast and score.

The reason refs in rugby are never put under pressure is because players can't touch them. There is a respect bred through discipline. And it's no surprise to see refs offer to mic-up as a result.

Footballers lack this respect.

It's not the refs fault.

kippy

Referees have been making mistakes since football began and will go on making mistakes long after we are all dead.

There is no way possible you can get referees who will make zero mistakes in a game not to mind a whole season. The fact that referees now have tens of cameras picking out every little detail in a game does highlight their mistakes but I dont think they should be accountable and especially not straight away after a game. Players and managers alike have the option of NOT facing the media if they so choose. If it was compulsory for referees to face a barrage of questions after 90 minutes running around it would be totally unfair.

As most managers will tell you, the decisions and luck tend to even out over the season. Just take Terry for an example, he blocked a certain goal with his hands last season at home (cant remember who against) and got away scot free. Not picking on him but chose him as this seems to have arisen because Sundays game. What goes around, comes around.

There have been quite a few plain brutal decisions by referees and linesmen this season and most definitely if an official makes a number of errors then he should be sent down the divisions for a while but most top referees are good and an occasional mistake is something that has to be accepted. They are after all, only human.

Ditto,
Its easy for us to criticise refs when we have repaly upon repaly and over zealous television coverage and punditry.
The refs shouldnt have to explain their decisions to us-perhaps to a refereing board of such like but not the the public, as they will always have one section of people disagreeing with them.
Its the FA that should really stand up and defend refs as they are the ones who make the rules and the ways in which the referees enforce the rules.

EDIT: Great post from Jivan Turkey also.
Kippy

PHB

Your talk of accountability puts refs under more pressure to make the right decisions, which ultimately leads to them making wrong decisions, either when they are not sure and don't want to give it, or think they saw it and don't want to let it go.

by that logic, teams play worse when under pressure. The best players can handle the pressure and rise to it, just like the best refs should be able to. If they aren't good enough, new refs should be brought in.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Ref's aren't just relegated for a game. And I'm not saying that is the best idea either. But it is accountability for their actions..

Maybe not for a game but some have been relegated for a couple of games and then come back up to the premiership. Could be wrong but i think it happened to the ref involved in the Thatcher case

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I'm not being self righteous. Why else would you feel that a referee should explain how they saw an incident?

If you want to watch a good game, lets have refs as untouchable. Like in rugby. Argue at any decision, 10 yards, do it again 20. Get in his face, sin bin. No questions. If you want to keep on arguing, let the other team take the free fast and score.

The reason refs in rugby are never put under pressure is because players can't touch them. There is a respect bred through discipline. And it's no surprise to see refs offer to mic-up as a result.

Footballers lack this respect.

It's not the refs fault.

I agree that rugby refs do have an easier job and in my opinion do a better job but maybe thats because the rules are easier to define in rugby and just seem to be implemented better.
I have always thought that football could take a leaf out of rugbys book, video replays and the better use of touchline officials

kippy

Can anyone name one ref who hasnt made an alleged "bad" decision?
What is the line that the ref crosses to become a bad ref?
One bad decision (define bad decision) two, three, four?

Refs do not have video replays available to them, as such we cannot judge their performance based on video replays.
Kippy

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

by that logic, teams play worse when under pressure. The best players can handle the pressure and rise to it, just like the best refs should be able to. If they aren't good enough, new refs should be brought in.

There is a huge difference though between players and officials though.

Players thrive on pressure because they receive the glory of winning etc. A ref isn't lauded for awarding a penalty. If a ref makes one bad decision in a game he is destroyed. Players make bad decisions in games all the time and nothing happens them.

It all comes back to the situation 20 years ago, refs back then were anonymous people. What has changed? And I'll give you a hint, it's not the refs.

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

Maybe not for a game but some have been relegated for a couple of games and then come back up to the premiership.

And that's because they are in essence good enough referees, but made a bad decision (like everyone does in their lives) in a game, and got witch hunted for it by the Skysports mob.

Carcharodon wrote:

Could be wrong but i think it happened to the ref involved in the Thatcher case

Case in point.

Do you really think if we asked that ref now what he thought of that incident he would think it wasn't that bad? He saw it in real time, obviously presumed it was clumsy and gave Thatcher the benefit of the doubt (which whether he deserved or not is irrelevant), and only booked him.

Carcharodon wrote:

I agree that rugby refs do have an easier job and in my opinion do a better job but maybe thats because the rules are easier to define in rugby and just seem to be implemented better.

The rules are WAY harder to define in rugby, and a lot of it is down to the referees interpretation.

They have an easier job because they are respected, end of.

bucks73

PHB wrote:

by that logic, teams play worse when under pressure. The best players can handle the pressure and rise to it, just like the best refs should be able to. If they aren't good enough, new refs should be brought in.

If you were to get rid of refs who make mistakes you would be left with no refs at all.

There are no trophies or championships or untold riches for refs. They are not training and reffing to win anything. Their ultimate goal is probably to do the FA Cup final or if they are on the FIFA list maybe the World Cup finals.

bucks73

Jivin Turkey wrote:

If you want to watch a good game, lets have refs as untouchable. Like in rugby. Argue at any decision, 10 yards, do it again 20. Get in his face, sin bin. No questions. If you want to keep on arguing, let the other team take the free fast and score.

The reason refs in rugby are never put under pressure is because players can't touch them. There is a respect bred through discipline. And it's no surprise to see refs offer to mic-up as a result.

Footballers lack this respect.

It's not the refs fault.

I agree with you Jivin but the major factor in giving away 10 yards in rugby is the fact that the opposition have a chance of scoring 3 points. Give away ten yards in rugby and you give away a scoring opportunity, possibly the match and then a right rollicking from your captain/team/coach. Munsters win in Leicester is a good example. Back chat to the ref, 10 more yards, O'Gara wins game.

10 yards doesnt mean diddly squat in football. What I wouldnt mind see FIFA try is a sin bin for mouthing off. Ten minutes for abusive behaviour towards an official. After an early rash of sin binnings I bet most players keep their mouths shut. Of course it would be very hard to enforce it at grass roots level where games have only one official but something must be tried if the officials are ever going to have any kind of respect.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Do you really think if we asked that ref now what he thought of that incident he would think it wasn't that bad? He saw it in real time, obviously presumed it was clumsy and gave Thatcher the benefit of the doubt (which whether he deserved or not is irrelevant), and only booked him.


The rules are WAY harder to define in rugby, and a lot of it is down to the referees interpretation.

They have an easier job because they are respected, end of.

I totally back the ref in Thatchers case, he is only human and no ref can make perfect split second decisions. If the ref came out straight after game and said, i didn't see it clearly... it didn't like a vicous tackle from my angle..., i wouldn't have a problem with that, it would be end of story in regards to the refs decision in my view.

Maybe the rules in rugby are harder to define, i dont claim to have a great knowledge of its rules, it just seems that they are implemented better and when i think about it, you are right in saying rugby players do have more respect and accept decisions alot easier. It might all boil down to respect but i am sure there may be other things that could be done to improve things.

growler

I really hope that Poll will tell us all an unedited version of what Mc Fadden called him tonight.

Kold

Carcharodon wrote:

why exactly was Drogbas goal disallowed

This question annoys me, it wasn't ever a goal because the whistle went way before Drogba touched the ball. Maybe if the whistle hadn't gone, he wouldn't have gotten free or Robbo would've attempted a save.

I don't think they should have to explain their actions if they don't have access to video replays.

Carcharodon

Kold wrote:

This question annoys me, it wasn't ever a goal because the whistle went way before Drogba touched the ball. Maybe if the whistle hadn't gone, he wouldn't have gotten free or Robbo would've attempted a save.

I don't think they should have to explain their actions if they don't have access to video replays.

Fine, What was the whistle blown for ?? Does it really matter, iam sure you get the point anyway!

I think that a ref should maybe clearly state the reason he blows his whistle for a foul and can be heard by everyone. For instance - No 9 Blue penalised for illegal push on No 3 white, something like that maybe.
It is most annoying when refs dont give reasons for giving freekicks

Playboy

PHB wrote:

I think Poll should have come out and say exactly why Drogbas goal was disallowed and why Terry was sent off. Whether they should have to do it after the match is important, because it doesn't give them a chance to go back and justify their decision by looking at the tape.

It would at least add an air of transparancy to the whole situation, and hopefully force video reffing.

Drogba's goal wasnt disallowed afaik. The whistle had already been blown b4 drogba had put the ball in the net. Poll had spotted drogba pushing Dawson in box as the ball was being floated in and blew the whistle. The tottenham players stopped when they heard the whistle allowing Drogba to head the ball unchallenged into the net.

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

I think that a ref should maybe clearly state the reason he blows his whistle for a foul and can be heard by everyone. For instance - No 9 Blue penalised for illegal push on No 3 white, something like that maybe.
It is most annoying when refs dont give reasons for giving freekicks

Good God man. Just go watch American football so.

Soccer is a fast flowing game, which is held up enough by players play acting and mobbing the ref. The last thing it needs is an extra two hours a game of referees explaining each of their decisions.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Good God man. Just go watch American football so.

Soccer is a fast flowing game, which is held up enough by players play acting and mobbing the ref. The last thing it needs is an extra two hours a game of referees explaining each of their decisions.

Yea i do watch it and enjoy watching it
seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder for some reason ??
How would a ref clearly stating why he has given a foul hold up a game for two hours ?? Sure some refs would spend this time anyway trying to explain to players why he has given the foul.
Would this not help the fast flowing game, make it so that players cant hassle ref and all decisions will be recorded and viewed afterwards.

ciaran76

growler wrote:

I really hope that Poll will tell us all an unedited version of what Mc Fadden called him tonight.

From Daily Post
JAMES McFADDEN claimed he did not call Graham Poll a "cheat" after being sent off as Everton slipped to a controversial Carling Cup defeat last night.
But McFadden said: "The referee has made his decision about the incident before it, and as I am running back I turned to the ref and said that (the decision) was fing s---e, and that was it."

Everton manager David Moyes confirmed he had been told by fourth official Graham Laws that referee Poll believed the word 'cheat' had been used by McFadden

Jimboo_Jones

Yes they should explain, but people should remember that they are only
human and do make mistakes.

So they should go 'I booked Player A for a push on Player B, looking back it wasn't a foul, but thats how I saw it at the time'

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

Yea i do watch it and enjoy watching it
seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder for some reason ??
How would a ref clearly stating why he has given a foul hold up a game for two hours ?? Sure some refs would spend this time anyway trying to explain to players why he has given the foul.
Would this not help the fast flowing game, make it so that players cant hassle ref and all decisions will be recorded and viewed afterwards.

If a referee had to explain every decision (foul, offside, throw) he made it would hold the game up immensely.

How often do we really have games that ref's make baffling decisions in? Think of all the games that get played every week without incident?

Why the need for refs to speil ad nauseum about every decision in every game just so when there is one that is not clear cut (like last weekend) we know what he thought at the time?

I fail to see the benefit of it. Particularly when they have to go public. Jose Mourinho (at his own request) is meeting referees chief Keith Hackett at the weekend, where I'm sure he will get an explanation of the decisions made.

Surely this is enough no? Or do we still want the public stoning?

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

If a referee had to explain every decision (foul, offside, throw) he made it would hold the game up immensely.

Surely this is enough no? Or do we still want the public stoning?

Not explain decision, state quick exact reason, a blackbox of sort. This will not mean that mistakes wont be made by refs, that will always happen, its human nature, refs can also be helped by video replays (surely something can be worked out so as not to slow down game too much) and by giving ref more protection on the field, as in only catains can approach ref or something.

stoning...sure why not, thats what everyone wants in your view anyway

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

Not explain decision, state quick exact reason, a blackbox of sort. This will not mean that mistakes wont be made by refs, that will always happen, its human nature, refs can also be helped by video replays (surely something can be worked out so as not to slow down game too much) and by giving ref more protection on the field, as in only catains can approach ref or something.

stoning...sure why not, thats what everyone wants in your view anyway

There is no need to explain decisions in in football, as 99% of them are completely clear cut. And even when a referee gets a decision wrong, most of the time it is understandable how he interpreted as he did given his angle.

American football, where they use this type of approach, is completely different as you have 30 or so people all running at each other at once and it is impossible to keep tabs on all the action.

Answer me one question, would you be happy if the referee went through his decisions in private with the teams after the game (if requested)?

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

There is no need to explain decisions in in football, as 99% of them are completely clear cut. And even when a referee gets a decision wrong, most of the time it is understandable how he interpreted as he did given his angle.

Answer me one question, would you be happy if the referee went through his decisions in private with the teams after the game (if requested)?

That is the main point, if all decisions were clearly explained, the ref does not have to come out in front of you or me, it would be perfectly viable to do it in private so as to stop managers and players commenting on specific refs decisions after games.

BaZmO*

Am I missing something here? Surely Referees are accountable? In any football game that I've played in (amateur level, obviously!!). If you didn't know why a decision was made you just asked the ref there and then. You might not agree with the decision, but he'd always tell you. No need for a post mortem after the game. Is this not the case in all professional games?

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

That is the main point, if all decisions were clearly explained, the ref does not have to come out in front of you or me, it would be perfectly viable to do it in private so as to stop managers and players commenting on specific refs decisions after games.

Ok. And doesn't Jose Mourinho have a meeting with the referees chief this weekend to discuss the game in question and the highlighted decisions that we are all debating?

So in otherwords, does this process not exist already?

bucks73

Not all referees give an explanation for every decision. I have had my fair amount of run ins with refs and now know the ones who will give an explanation and those who wont even look at you. Nothing you can do but just get on with it.

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Ok. And doesn't Jose Mourinho have a meeting with the referees chief this weekend to discuss the game in question and the highlighted decisions that we are all debating?

So in otherwords, does this process not exist already?

How did i know you were going to say that!
And yet we have countless comments and queries from the people involved till then!
Would it not be better to hear it from the horses mouth, rather than having it filtered out a week later.
Refereeing standards are poor in all fairness, this is not totally the refs fault, alot of blame has to fall to players and the system as a whole. It may be heightened due to media coverage but it is still poor and today football is not just a game its an important business so things will come uder extra scrutiny.
Making the ref accountible is only one suggestion on how it may improve things, people want progression dont they ?

Jivin Turkey

Carcharodon wrote:

How did i know you were going to say that!

Because it's a valid point.

Carcharodon wrote:

Would it not be better to hear it from the horses mouth, rather than having it filtered out a week later.

But there is a danger of putting a ref on the spot after a game, just like there is a danger of putting a player on the spot following a controversial incident during a game.

Why should ref's have to talk, when players and managers don't?

Besides I'm sure if a ref was quizzed about any decision after game, and prior to seeing a replay his stock answer would be "That's how I saw it at the time".

Carcharodon wrote:

Refereeing standards are poor in all fairness

This is debatable. What sort of percentages are we talking about in right and wrong decisions in a single game?

How many decisions are so bad that we can still remember them a week or two on? How many bad decisions over the course of a season do you remember? Very few. Now how many games are there again?

How can you say the standard of refereeing is poor when they get probably over 90% of decisions correct?

I also love the bile spat towards referees after a bad decision, yet do think we will ever have a thread applauding a ref on nailing a penalty decision spot on?

Carcharodon wrote:

Making the ref accountible is only one suggestion on how it may improve things, people want progression dont they ?

Of course I want progression but putting a ref in front of Sky TV after a game is not going to help.

ciaran76

Graham Poll v Henry !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjalieY5uEk

Carcharodon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Because it's a valid point.
.

obvious point

Jivin Turkey wrote:

This is debatable. What sort of percentages are we talking about in right and wrong decisions in a single game?

How many decisions are so bad that we can still remember them a week or two on? How many bad decisions over the course of a season do you remember? Very few. Now how many games are there again?

How can you say the standard of refereeing is poor when they get probably over 90% of decisions correct?

I also love the bile spat towards referees after a bad decision, yet do think we will ever have a thread applauding a ref on nailing a penalty decision spot on?
.

Because its their job, they are paid to make the correct decisions, and before you go on about players making mistakes in games so its acceptable for refs to be equally as wreckless, refs are not competing with anyone so the two roles dont relate.

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Of course I want progression but putting a ref in front of Sky TV after a game is not going to help.

Its obvious you have a big problem with Sky and todays game, i never said anything about putting a ref in front of Sky.
We are not all hungry media whores, you should loosen your collar a bit
gud.luc

iregk

In Italy Collina has often come out after a game and told them about decisions made during a game. Should we not use him as an example?