Nige, Refs , PGMOL & Yellow cards

[1960maaan]

Just reading the piece by Bristol Live , very interesting. I like that Nige stands up and talks about the standard of Refs, not worrying about fines. Amazing that the Powers that be send 2 notes that don't even agree with each other. The whole thing is a shambles and I can't see it improving for a while. But not even being able to send an explanation letter ? That is pathetic. The whole system needs a massive shake up.
Also, how do you get booked without a reason for it. Surely there would be a report and they couldn't just make up a reason after.

I like the idea of being Mic'd up, though how a Ref would explain guessing a decision as he missed it would be interesting.

Bristol City manager tired of being patronised as he slams inconsistent messages from PGMOL

Nigel Pearson believes the PGMOL and standard of officiating in England remains in turmoil after suggesting Bristol City are being patronised by the regular inconsistencies and mixed messages when explaining in-game decisions.

The officiating was again called into question in Saturday's 2-1 victory over Rotherham United after the visitors were awarded a highly contentious penalty in the second half when Jordan Hugill went down under the soft challenge of Zak Vyner.

It led to Nigel Pearson receiving a yellow card on the touchline for his reaction that had been brewing following decisions which had gone against his side in the first half. City were also denied two spot-kicks from referee Josh Smith when both Sam Bell and Tommy Conway had strong appeals turned down.

"Could’ve, should’ve had a penalty, maybe but again, I get tired of talking about it in all honesty with the inconsistencies," Pearson would say after the game. "We get a penalty turned down and they get one that looks as though the player falls down in installments and he gives it."

Pearson then went into a lengthy tirade regarding the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) and MOAS (Match Official Administration System) having received two different explanations in the wake of a decision in the 1-0 defeat against Sheffield United.

It occurred in the first half at Bramall Lane when Bell was pulled back marginally outside the area when played through on goal, but referee Geoff Eltringham waved play to continue. Pearson added: "Having said that we received two emails yesterday (Friday) from MOAS which I think are rather embarrassing for them.

"We got one at 14:12 that said that the foul on Sam Bell against Sheffield United there’s a really good case for it being a free-kick and a red card and then half an hour later, we had another one that they’d taken out two paragraphs and put that it was a free-kick and a yellow card.

"They clearly are in turmoil, not only are the officials unclear as to how to officiate games but then the process of how they go through decisions that have either been complained about or people who understand football, like managers and coaches, look at it and I’m not sure they know what they’re doing, to be honest with you.

"The leadership within their group is... wow. Everybody thought Howard Webb would come in and have a positive impact but even in the Premier League, it’s getting things wrong even with VAR.

"The game is in a situation where there needs to be a bit more clarity until the leadership of officiating is improved and we get a consistency of officiating or we’re as coaches or the players are going to end up moaning all the time because it just happens week after week and I’ve said it many times, we’re sick to the back teeth of having these reports come back that just patronise us.

"I got booked and I don’t know what I even got booked for apart from the fourth official basically imploded because he couldn’t deal with anything, and the referee basically came over and gave me a yellow card and didn’t even tell me what it was for so I’m not sure they understand what’s happening in that regard either.

"I just find it laughable in all honesty. They’re irritating, very, very irritating, inconsistent, not good enough and it’s ruining the game.”

Last week, French official Benoit Millot was mic'd up during a top flight game between Lyon and Nantes which received wide praise for the clarity behind the decisions while providing an interesting insight into how officials interact with players.

The decision from the French Football Federation was to "continue to push for the modernisation of the country’s refereeing system". When asked whether the English game would benefit from the introduction of mic'd up refs, Pearson responded: "My answer to the question simply would be yes, I think it would be good for the game.

[Davefevs]

He’s spot on isn’t he.

[Midred]

Was it Blackpool last season when one of their players may or may not have had his heels clipped on one side of the area and finally collapsed when he reached the other side? Needless to say they were awarded a penalty!

[Betty Swallocks]

Just now, Midred said:

Was it Blackpool last season when one of their players may or may not have had his heels clipped on one side of the area and finally collapsed when he reached the other side? Needless to say they were awarded a penalty!

Hull on the opening day of this season. 

[Robbored]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He’s spot on isn’t he.

Yes he is and fair play to him for raising it without directly criticising the referee which would cost him a fine.

I think all managers and fans would like to hear refs mic’d up as the French Federation did to try and modernise the game. There are so many benefits one of which would be the players not being so vocal when moaning at the referee. Sadly I can’t see FIFA introducing it tho.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Robbored

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

15 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Yes he is and fair play to him for raising it without directly criticising the referee which would cost him a fine.

I think all managers and fans would like to hear refs mic’d up as the French Federation did to try and modernise the game. There are so many benefits one of which would be the players not being so vocal when moaning at the referee. Sadly I can’t see FIFA introducing it tho.

I agree that mic'd up refs would be good for the game. It should make players think twice about their behaviour when approaching the ref. Like you, however, I'm dubious they'll do it. A start would be to have the officials explain their decisions to camera after the game (and possibly at half time). 

[BCFCGav]

Well done again Nige, we have to call this nonsense out. To get no decisions for the foul on Bell against Sheff U, the blatant tangle with Conway in the box or the absolute crunching tackle on Bell in the box against Rotherham, then to get a penalty against because Vyner farted near Hugill... It's a good summary of what we're up against this past few seasons. 

I do wonder if our outward criticism of officiating is working against us though. It'd be a very poor attitude from these 'professional' refs, but they do seem weak and insecure enough to employ those kind of tactics. 

[Malago]

For the sake of consistency, I’d prefer they gave absolutely nothing unless it is clear and obvious.

[hinsleburg]

Seems the relevant thread for it, but was a bizarre interaction between Nige and the linesman first half Saturday...

The linesman decided to over exaggerate his lunge right in front of Nige which left him looking perplexed, Nige then decided to follow him down the line running like a Chicken. Got a few laughs from the crowd so did it again 10 seconds later!

Given our luck this year I'm surprised he didn't get a red and a fine but think it was a nice moment. Wasn't like Arteta's mimicking of the ref a few weeks ago which was in really bad taste, was a lot more jovial and light hearted!

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

He’s spot on isn’t he.

And I don’t give those away lightly!

[TheReds]

Get the refs mic'd up and we can at least hear why they have or haven't gave a decision. It wouldn't be so bad if they got a decision wrong if they said what their reasoning was, and it was just a mistake. But how it is at the moment everyone are just baffled by multiple decisions. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

I know every club has decisions go against them and it usually evens out over a season but can we really say that it's evened out for us? I don't think we can. 

We'd be a lot closer to the play offs if things did even out. 

[beaverface]

3 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Get the refs mic'd up and we can at least hear why they have or haven't gave a decision. It wouldn't be so bad if they got a decision wrong if they said what their reasoning was, and it was just a mistake. But how it is at the moment everyone are just baffled by multiple decisions. 

I've a feeling that Mic'ing the refs up will lead to other questions such as "why didn't the ref send that player off for swearing at him", whereas another referee may not let some fruity language go and send someone off.

[TheReds]

9 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I've a feeling that Mic'ing the refs up will lead to other questions such as "why didn't the ref send that player off for swearing at him", whereas another referee may not let some fruity language go and send someone off.

This will (should) then lead to more consistency if they enforce the laws, it will also embarrass players hounding the ref giving him abuse and will be called out. A yellow card for abusive language and it's on the mic too so the player cannot argue the decision, so yellow card the player (and multiple players at that if need be). This is where Nige has a huge point, it is the inconsistency and mic'd up refs will have to be more consistent, or we will at least hear an explanation.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Get the refs mic'd up and we can at least hear why they have or haven't gave a decision. It wouldn't be so bad if they got a decision wrong if they said what their reasoning was, and it was just a mistake. But how it is at the moment everyone are just baffled by multiple decisions. 

I can accept honesty though, e.g.

“I was in a bad position to see through Humphreys so couldn’t be sure of contact on Conway”

I can accept that, but I’d also then expect his bosses to be asking him why he got into a bad position, coach him to position himself better, etc.

Wouldn’t it have been good to hear Rebecca Welch’s conversation with her team when she gave a handball penalty against Fleetwood then changed it to be a free-kick outside the box.  Would’ve also been interesting to hear where her team thought the handball occurred, because the subsequent free-kick was not near where it hit the player.  Without hearing the conversation it comes across as guesswork, which nobody wants.

 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

He’s spot on isn’t he.

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

[ScottishRed]

11 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I've a feeling that Mic'ing the refs up will lead to other questions such as "why didn't the ref send that player off for swearing at him", whereas another referee may not let some fruity language go and send someone off.

One of the historic reasons given for refs not having a mic is the language of the players.

I am of the opinion that football should take a lesson from rugby and only the captain can speak to the ref during the game.

I am all for refs talking to the media to explain their decisions and even admitting mean they got it wrong. - it’s not going to happen but it would be good for the game.

[Laner]

30 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Get the refs mic'd up and we can at least hear why they have or haven't gave a decision.

Not sure we would. I'd imagine refs would simply wave players away saying the decision has been made. With no explanation given on the pitch.

[beaverface]

15 minutes ago, TheReds said:

This will (should) then lead to more consistency if they enforce the laws, it will also embarrass players hounding the ref giving him abuse and will be called out. A yellow card for abusive language and it's on the mic too so the player cannot argue the decision, so yellow card the player (and multiple players at that if need be). This is where Nige has a huge point, it is the inconsistency and mic'd up refs will have to be more consistent, or we will at least hear an explanation.

To be honest, and I'm truly with you, I'd hope that it would stamp things out, however there will be situations that will be subjective like we get with Var. One persons interpretation of something being offensive isn't the same as the next person. 

Also, how can you be sure who said what if a mic just picks up someone swearing? it could be any number of players rather than the one the ref is asking to speak to.

Some people also don't like having their integrity questioned - look at the Tony Adams\David Elleray example - the ref took a harsh dislike to being called a cheat. Calling someone a cheat isn't foul or abusive language, but the referee might really take it to heart and book or send off a player whilst the rest of us listening may think it's a very harsh call.

All in all, I'm sure it would be better to hear the refs, I just feel that extra baggage will come if that happened, and that extra baggage will be interpreted in different ways by different people watching on.

Edited April 24, 2023 by beaverface

[Robbored]

10 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

One of the historic reasons given for refs not having a mic is the language of the players.

I am of the opinion that football should take a lesson from rugby and only the captain can speak to the ref during the game.

I am all for refs talking to the media to explain their decisions and even admitting mean they got it wrong. - it’s not going to happen but it would be good for the game.

You’re not alone in that opinion SR. However the last time FIFA tried to use a rugby rule - moving  a free kick 10 yards for player protests died a death - FIFA’s explanation was that ‘not enough countries play rugby”………. It’s hard to believe.

[TheReds]

9 minutes ago, beaverface said:

To be honest, and I'm truly with you, I'd hope that it would stamp things out, however there will be situations that will be subjective like we get with Var. One persons interpretation of something being offensive isn't the same as the next person. 

Also, how can you be sure who said what if a mic just picks up someone swearing? it could be any number of players rather than the one the ref is asking to speak to.

Some people also don't like having their integrity questioned - look at the Tony Adams\David Elleray example - the ref took a harsh dislike to being called a cheat. Calling someone a cheat isn't foul or abusive language, but the referee might really take it to heart and book or send off a player whilst the rest of us listening may think it's a very harsh call.

All in all, I'm sure it would be better to hear the refs, I just feel that extra baggage will come if that happened, and that extra baggage will be interpreted in different ways by different people watching on.

Of course decisions will still be incorrect, but at least we would then know why they were given. When Rotherham should have had a second yellow and us a pen (imo), if the ref truly thought it was a soft dive, blatant dive, no contact because he couldn't be 100% sure etc, I'd rather hear him say that (even if he was wrong), rather than waving play on and nobody having a clue why it wasn't given. Same with their pen, what did he actually see to warrant a pen where it looked like there was hardly any contact and Hugill went down like he was shot. An explanation just to the Captain would suffice.

I don't really care if someone is swearing out of shot, I mean blatant swearing and abuse in the face of the refs, just yellow card them all and then when a second yellow comes for players they will soon change their ways/habits. The 4th official could also help out if they heard and seen something too. If a player called the ref a cheat then card them, what's the issue? 

It doesn't really matter what people looking on thinks really, the point is consistency imo (everything already is interpreted in different ways as it is). If one week it's a booking and the next it isn't and that becomes the norm then the PGMOL need to step in and sort it out. Nothing is improving at the moment, abuse is probably worse than ever, and something needs changing very quickly.

[StefanDimz]

33 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

Josh Smith is that you?

[1960maaan]

 

57 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I've a feeling that Mic'ing the refs up will lead to other questions such as "why didn't the ref send that player off for swearing at him", whereas another referee may not let some fruity language go and send someone off.

Me and few mates have talked about this before, and I've seen it mentioned with ex Pros, the theory is it could cut out some of the swearing and aggressiveness towards Refs. Players will soon see what ****ts they were and hopefully it would reduce the ganging up on Refs . I do think they would have to have a choice of Ref Mic on TV, and if they did go down the route of the Rugby and Live games, they could just turn on the Mic to explain when the game pauses. Not sure a live 90 minute Mic is practical or wanted, just bigger decisions , or non decisions, explained.

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I can accept that, but I’d also then expect his bosses to be asking him why he got into a bad position, coach him to position himself better, etc.

Caught some of a program at the weekend, ex Pro at "Ref School" . The little I saw had him doing some training and getting involved with practice matches. They then questioned him on decisions he gave and didn't , interestingly they highlighted positioning on a TV screen. Pointed out where he was and where the better (best) position was.
It is an incredibly difficult job, made worse by players basically cheating and bullying the Ref in every game. Anything that make their job easier is good, we don't see their angle so if he was to say I couldn't see or wasn't sure, it would make it easier to accept.
Never going to be perfect, but there is much to improve.

Edited April 24, 2023 by 1960maaan

[BCFC Rich]

39 minutes ago, TheReds said:

This will (should) then lead to more consistency if they enforce the laws, it will also embarrass players hounding the ref giving him abuse and will be called out. A yellow card for abusive language and it's on the mic too so the player cannot argue the decision, so yellow card the player (and multiple players at that if need be). This is where Nige has a huge point, it is the inconsistency and mic'd up refs will have to be more consistent, or we will at least hear an explanation.

I think this is right. You would have to allow for things to be kind of worse in the short term. But then getting better as everything would be way more transparent. There would be no hiding from poor or inconsistent decisions and no hiding for players that are abusive to officials. I think mic would expose how inconsistent everything is much more blatantly, but that would lead to the improvements that are needed. - in fact it might be one of the only ways to actually get there.  

[Cowshed]

27 minutes ago, beaverface said:

To be honest, and I'm truly with you, I'd hope that it would stamp things out, however there will be situations that will be subjective like we get with Var. One persons interpretation of something being offensive isn't the same as the next person. 

Also, how can you be sure who said what if a mic just picks up someone swearing? it could be any number of players rather than the one the ref is asking to speak to.

Some people also don't like having their integrity questioned - look at the Tony Adams\David Elleray example - the ref took a harsh dislike to being called a cheat. Calling someone a cheat isn't foul or abusive language, but the referee might really take it to heart and book or send off a player whilst the rest of us listening may think it's a very harsh call.

All in all, I'm sure it would be better to hear the refs, I just feel that extra baggage will come if that happened, and that extra baggage will be interpreted in different ways by different people watching on.

Calling a official a cheat is dissent. The sanction will be a yellow, or red card. That is not harsh. 

[Midred]

Would.make it very difficult to turn down one appeal for a penalty and then give another one later for a similar offence if a reason was given for the first incident.

What I can't understand sometimes as in the Bell foul just outside the area why the linesman on that side couldn't have drawn attention to it?

Edited April 24, 2023 by Midred

[Midred]

1 minute ago, Midred said:

Would.make it very difficult to turn down one appeal for a penalty and then give another one later for a similar offence if a reason was given for the first incident.

What I can't understand sometimes as in the Bell foul just outside the area why the linesman on that side couldn't have drawn attention to it?

Or are there still occaisions where the referee doesn't want any input from from his or her linespeople?

And yes I know they talk to each other all the time which in it's way makes some decisions all the more inexplicable.

[the1stknowle]

53 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

Where is the abuse? I agree with your general point - and think it applies to some managers, like Warnock (who loads of people on here seem to think is good for the game but I think is pernicious precisely because of the way he treats referees).

But that is different from a very legitimate criticism of the mass of decisions that have gone against us over last few years and the shambolic admin process Nige describes in the article. 

Having elite referees mic'd and with a gopro is a good solution to try to change culture of abuse. Players and many managers would not look good with current behaviour.  Nige is not one of those. If anything, considering some of the penalty decisions, he's been pretty sanguine towards refs.

 

[Northern Red]

"Mr Pearson"....

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, TheReds said:

it will also embarrass players hounding the ref giving him abuse and will be called out

They should do like in Rugby where only the captain has the right to talk with the ref. Players abusing a referee should be yellow carded without hesitation. 
It just adds to the the diminution of the game as officials lose authority and respect at all levels.