Article on refereeing - well worth a read

[steveybadger]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/21/inside-world-premier-league-football-referees-pgmol-howard-webb-andre-marriner-darren-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[firstdivision]

33 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/21/inside-world-premier-league-football-referees-pgmol-howard-webb-andre-marriner-darren-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Yes, it is very interesting. Well worth a read. 

[cidercity1987]

Lovely article, England and Marriner come off well

The latter should still have given a pen for us versus Man City though 

 

[bcfc01]

Very good article which gives a good insight.

But the one thing that unfortunately stood out for me and validated my suspicions was;

"Mark Clattenburg recalls how, in the 2016 Champions League final, he awarded a soft penalty to Atlético Madrid to even up the game after he and his assistants had missed an offside and mistakenly awarded Real Madrid an opening goal. "

Says it all for me.

[arrytheb]

Read this the other day, very good article. 

 

I think media can do a lot more to help officials.

The dissecting of each decision, slowed, in lots of angles (and sometimes some weird VR format), discussed in 24 hour programming,  allows fans to see that a player was 2cms onside/offside (less so with VAR in top division), or there was the slightest bit of contact etc. I also think, if they're sticking with it, officials should be asked by VAR, 'did you see xxxxx or did you miss it so couldn't make a decision '. Therefore give them ability to review on screen but without guidance of 'I think you've made a mistake'. And don't slow thinks down with exception of freeze frame if needing to check where contact occurred. 

I enjoy the debate around decisions, but I don't feel they should be forensically dissected just to provoke emotions. 

I also feel, and I think it's mentioned in this article, VAR has given officials the option to not make a decision as it can be reviewed again. I'm not sure that's what it should be used for. Make the decision you feel is correct and then if VAR wants to intervene then deal with that if necessary.

I've always said I would prefer technology to be used for factual decisions only and let officials make the decisions. 

 

Rant over

[PHILINFRANCE]

5 minutes ago, arrytheb said:

Read this the other day, very good article. 

 

I think media can do a lot more to help officials.

The dissecting of each decision, slowed, in lots of angles (and sometimes some weird VR format), discussed in 24 hour programming,  allows fans to see that a player was 2cms onside/offside (less so with VAR in top division), or there was the slightest bit of contact etc. I also think, if they're sticking with it, officials should be asked by VAR, 'did you see xxxxx or did you miss it so couldn't make a decision '. Therefore give them ability to review on screen but without guidance of 'I think you've made a mistake'. And don't slow thinks down with exception of freeze frame if needing to check where contact occurred. 

I enjoy the debate around decisions, but I don't feel they should be forensically dissected just to provoke emotions. 

I also feel, and I think it's mentioned in this article, VAR has given officials the option to not make a decision as it can be reviewed again. I'm not sure that's what it should be used for. Make the decision you feel is correct and then if VAR wants to intervene then deal with that if necessary.

I've always said I would prefer technology to be used for factual decisions only and let officials make the decisions. 

 

Rant over

I must say, I don't consider your post a 'rant'; rather, a well-considered and valid argument, one with which I tend to agree.

[bcfc01]

1 hour ago, arrytheb said:

 

I've always said I would prefer technology to be used for factual decisions only and let officials make the decisions. 

 

Rant over

I thought VAR is supposed to be used where officials have missed a "clear and obvious" incident or where they have made a "clear and obvious error".

Not for establishing if a players toe nail is offside.

If it were used properly, I'd be a supporter of it just like I am of goal line technology (which is generally excellent) which helps officials immensely.

Unless it is going to be used properly moving forward, scrap it.

Edited March 22 by bcfc01

[luke_bristol]

An interesting article but I must say I am increasingly unsympathetic to the plight of referees after some of the scandalous incidents we’ve been the victim of over the last 18 months.
 

The fact the penalty issue went on for so long and the two we recently received seem to be statistical anomalies is particularly concerning.

 

The article also raises issues about referees over-sympathising and over friendly with the so-called top 6, particularly when facing teams like ours that the referee might never again share a pitch with.

[bcfc01]

2 hours ago, luke_bristol said:

An interesting article but I must say I am increasingly unsympathetic to the plight of referees after some of the scandalous incidents we’ve been the victim of over the last 18 months.
 

The fact the penalty issue went on for so long and the two we recently received seem to be statistical anomalies is particularly concerning.

 

The article also raises issues about referees over-sympathising and over friendly with the so-called top 6, particularly when facing teams like ours that the referee might never again share a pitch with.

Yep.

For me, they are either conciously bent or unconciously bent.

If a "top" referee (if there is such a thing) can "even things up" as per Clattenburgs comment (which means they are affecting the result), then its a waste of time, they're crap. Just as NP articulated a while ago - why bother, may as well just walk away.

Either way, the referees are shit imo.