Ref Watch Modern Referees... I've Had It!!

[Sarge]

As a relatively experienced and qualified referee, I feel the problem at the top end of refereeing is that officials just aren’t being allowed to apply ‘common sense’ any more and due to the spotlight on them (assessors, observers, cameras and fans all looking closely at their decisions) we tend to play it safe and stick to the rules.

Some of the current rules are just plain stupid. The offside rule is far too complicated. I favour adding a blue line to each half, 35m from goal. If the attacker is past this line and beyond the second last defender they’re offside. Simple.

The compulsory caution to players kicking the ball away even as little as 2M as they retreat for a free-kick is also not helping the referee/players relationships.

Finally, regional FAs have been using the sin bin for dissent successfully for several seasons. Just introduce it in the PL & EFL also and on-field respect will improve quickly and referees will be more relaxed about making other important decisions.

Cheers @Ewes - gives a bit of an insight
Can you throw a bit of light on the situation regarding the blatant shirtpulling that largely goes unpunished
and also the role of assistant referees ( formerly linesmen) , as in are they there to assist or does the referee have the right to tell them 'only throw ins and offsides0, in which case why arent assistants allowed to actually assist?

 

[MustardYellow]

Are refs actually worse or is there more focus on them and more expectation that they'll get it right, due to technology? Players shouldn't be allowed to question them, even if they are wrong - accept the decision and move on. They have to make a decision, and it's not up for discussion or negotiation.

Whether they're worse now or before the scrutiny of the internet is something that is probably impossible to answer, but even if they aren't worse it doesn't make it any better - the standard is still far too low.

Referees 100% should be questioned - why should they be allowed to make howler after howler without any consequence? Why should a player have to say nothing about being ragged about all game? Rodrigues was booked at the weekend for telling the ref he was wrong (and he was wrong, btw!).

The lack of accountability is part of the problem.

 

[Sarge]

A major factor in the inconsistencies, for me, is to do with when an incident occurs in the course of a match.

Whilst Rob Street's sending off was blatant and would have been given in the 1st minute, would Rodrigues have received 2x bookings for those same offences in the first half hour? Highly unlikely.

I think that's also what we saw with the handball penalty decisions v Wycombe - first half no penalty, second half penalty.

Referees have a propensity to be be overly cautious early on in games, reluctant to get a card out at all - and then seemingly throw caution to the wind as the game progresses with cards and major decisions dished out in increasing volume and with greater abandon late on.

It's almost as though they've been programmed to create drama as a game progresses, as though they believe that late controversy is what we come to expect in football and that the referees role is to administer that.

A quality referee will book a player for the same offence in the 1st minute as in the 90th minute. Indeed, an early (but fair) booking should serve to lay down a marker for the rest of the game.

I'd be interersted to see the timing stats on penalties and cards. I imagine these decisions are massively skewed to later in games, and whilst player tiredness or accumulation of fouls may be a factor, I definitely sense that many referees want to make massive game defining decisions late on.

Theres too many these days who think its all about them - Stockbridge & Purkiss come to mind instantly

 

[ThatSlopesATwelfthMan]

Good thread. A few other factors to throw in the ring when comparing modern refs with the past...

Number of laws, and therefore decisions per game. Refs in the pro leagues are now averaging 200+ decisions per match, rising to 250+ at PL level, with those numbers still rising year on year. Don't know what the figure would have been in the 80s/90s but certainly a lot less. The more laws any game has the more decisions are made and the number of mistakes rises accordingly. Fans *always* notice and remember the mistakes.

New rules are nuanced and subjective
Handball is a classic example. Was never 100% cut and dried but the general rule was a] deliberate (stuck his paw out, whistle) or b] accidental (thumped close range, balancing while jumping, play on). Now? OMG, even at junior level it's a nightmare. If you look at rule changes (or the endless changes to 'interpretation' of rules) over the last couple of decades they nearly all involve more subjective judgements in realtime. A lot of the most obvious inconsistencies we see (ie. the handballs in Wycombe game) are 55/45 level decisions where even a tiny difference in body shape or circumstances can tip the balance based on the hundreds of pages of guidance refs now have to consume. I wonder if tiredness plays a role here too, its fairly well evidenced that tired people remain fairly consistent at simple binary tasks but performance on complex tasks diminishes. Certainly feels like refereeing howlers are more common after the 60/70 minutes mark.

Pace and athleticism
Everything is quicker these days. Not just marginally either. Mainly due to increased fitness but also the impact of rule changes. The distances covered by players and officials with minimal respite are off the scale versus football I grew up with in the 80s. Even at amateur level teams are pressing for 90 minutes, playing from the back and 'transitioning' through midfield rather than lumping it. As anyone who has reffed or even run the line will know the speed of a game is pretty much *the* main challenge.

Which all sounds like a get of jail card for refs. Which it is in some ways. But... I agree there are still far too many who make themselves centre of attention, abuse their positions to interupt rather than enable the game etc. At the higher levels the ridiculous layers of bureaucracy, politics and peacockery are laughable. When Rugby Union professionalised there was an accompanying process to support and help refs adapt to the massively increased levels of physicality, fitness and expectation. Football is a harder game to officiate but has never really had that moment.

 

[werthersoriginal]

Whether they're worse now or before the scrutiny of the internet is something that is probably impossible to answer, but even if they aren't worse it doesn't make it any better - the standard is still far too low.

Referees 100% should be questioned - why should they be allowed to make howler after howler without any consequence? Why should a player have to say nothing about being ragged about all game? Rodrigues was booked at the weekend for telling the ref he was wrong (and he was wrong, btw!).

The lack of accountability is part of the problem.

Refereeing is a quick, first-impressions task, and the ref's decisions are final - they aren't a basis for discussion or negotiation. Referees aren't accountable to players or managers, only to the adjudicators. I know it's annoying sometimes, and we do seem to have had worse ones this season, but that's the basis for how the game works.

 

[MustardYellow]

As a relatively experienced and qualified referee, I feel the problem at the top end of refereeing is that officials just aren’t being allowed to apply ‘common sense’ any more and due to the spotlight on them (assessors, observers, cameras and fans all looking closely at their decisions) we tend to play it safe and stick to the rules.

Some of the current rules are just plain stupid. The offside rule is far too complicated. I favour adding a blue line to each half, 35m from goal. If the attacker is past this line and beyond the second last defender they’re offside. Simple.

The compulsory caution to players kicking the ball away even as little as 2M as they retreat for a free-kick is also not helping the referee/players relationships.

Finally, regional FAs have been using the sin bin for dissent successfully for several seasons. Just introduce it in the PL & EFL also and on-field respect will improve quickly and referees will be more relaxed about making other important decisions.

But isn't it a referees job to understand the rules and apply them fairly and consistently? Players and fans feel aggrieved because refs seem to apply rules differently each week - there's no consistency and a lack of transparency.

I personally think the offside rule should be that as long as part of a players body is onside, they're onside. It will make games more exciting and is easier to apply. Let's face it, a player isn't gaining much of an advantage by being a shoulder or a knee ahead of the defender.

I also actually agree with bookings for kicking the ball away. We've seen so many teams use it to slow down play and prevent quick set pieces (Wycombe used to do it all the time!!).

As an official yourself, do you think refs being more open and transparent about the decisions they make would aid player/fan relations? To me it never seems like officials explain their decisions to players, and fans are just left in the dark which does nothing but breed more annoyance.

I've always believed officials should have a 'post-match interview' style thing like managers do. It would give referees a more 'human feel' and help fans and players alike understand *why* decisions are being made, which for me is one of the main contentious issues.

 

[OUFCGav]

I take your point, but I wouldn't say technology has made their job harder - I just think it's laid bare their incompetence!

I can accept the odd really tight wrong decision, but all too often the 'mistakes' we're seeing aren't those types of decisions. They're often so baffling and blatantly inconsistent that it's hard to find a rational reason as to why they've been given/not given (I again refer to the 2 almost identical handballs vs Wycombe).

This is where the frustration comes from - that it's often hard to even understand why decisions are, or aren't, being made.

The decisions there - whilst they are similar involve some subjectivity, and there may be things in the now overly complicated rules that cover the difference. What would help is explanation for things - whether that is live like rugby, or after.

 

[OUFCGav]

You're certainly right about the behaviour of some people at grassroots level, but I don't think the solution is a Rugby style attitude.

What people want is accountability and change. If the ref gets a decision wrong, why shouldn't players, fans, or managers be allowed to tell them? I personally believe part of the reason why players are sometimes aggressive with officials is because they're instantly dismissed and met with hostility from referees - it's an 'I've just f****d you over, but go away I refuse to talk to you' type mentality.

Taking away any element of accountability to players and fans, which is essentially what they've already done, does nothing but heighten the anger toward officials.

Players during the game, like managers after the game are not always the best judge of what has happened (even if they are not trying it on). As an example in the women's game yesterday, the first goal was set up by Jenna Legg winning a strong tackle in midfield, before passing forward. Afterwards their players were suggesting to the referee (with physical examples) that the tackle was high (more than a foot off the ground), the referee showed (as was the case) that the Legg's heel was on the ground, so couldn't have been high.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

Theres too many these days who think its all about them - Stockbridge & Purkiss come to mind instantly

You'll be pleased to know that Mr Purkiss is the referee for tomorrow's game.

 

[MustardYellow]

A major factor in the inconsistencies, for me, is to do with when an incident occurs in the course of a match.

Whilst Rob Street's sending off was blatant and would have been given in the 1st minute, would Rodrigues have received 2x bookings for those same offences in the first half hour? Highly unlikely.

I think that's also what we saw with the handball penalty decisions v Wycombe - first half no penalty, second half penalty.

Referees have a propensity to be be overly cautious early on in games, reluctant to get a card out at all - and then seemingly throw caution to the wind as the game progresses with cards and major decisions dished out in increasing volume and with greater abandon late on.

It's almost as though they've been programmed to create drama as a game progresses, as though they believe that late controversy is what we come to expect in football and that the referees role is to administer that.

A quality referee will book a player for the same offence in the 1st minute as in the 90th minute. Indeed, an early (but fair) booking should serve to lay down a marker for the rest of the game.

I'd be interersted to see the timing stats on penalties and cards. I imagine these decisions are massively skewed to later in games, and whilst player tiredness or accumulation of fouls may be a factor, I definitely sense that many referees want to make massive game defining decisions late on.

I think you may be right, which is concerning in itself - we're basically recognising that officials are consciously picking and choosing when to apply the rules of the game, and whom they are applied to in order to impact the game, and inherently therefore it's outcome.

Isn't this essentially, and dare I say it... corruption...?

 

[m]

Isn't this essentially, and dare I say it... corruption...?

Bloody Hell.

 

[OUFCwaffle]

Could the answer be for every referee in a professional match to issue a publicly accessible decision report after each game. Where they go through every decision they make in a match and match it up with the applied rule clause, there could be a short clip with it too for evidence. This way it would show up any errors and go directly into their record. Would be a great tool for assessing performance.

 

[MustardYellow]

You'll be pleased to know that Mr Purkiss is the referee for tomorrow's game

Uh oh...

 

[m]

Could the answer be for every referee in a professional match to issue a publicly accessible decision report after each game. Where they go through every decision they make in a match and match it up with the applied rule clause, there could be a short clip with it too for evidence. This way it would show up any errors and go directly into their record. Would be a great tool for assessing performance.

At the risk of repeating myself...

Bloody Hell.

 

[Ewes]

Cheers @Ewes - gives a bit of an insight
Can you throw a bit of light on the situation regarding the blatant shirtpulling that largely goes unpunished
and also the role of assistant referees ( formerly linesmen) , as in are they there to assist or does the referee have the right to tell them 'only throw ins and offsides0, in which case why arent assistants allowed to actually assist?

Thanks.

So ‘pulling, pushing, tripping etc an opponent’ is not only a direct free-kick but it’s also a yellow card offence. For every shirt pull in every game a caution should be given. Those are the rules.

But as others have said and as an official I fully agree, there is no consistency. Even at my level as a Step 4 assistant/Step 5 referee, I see my own tolerance levels questioned by other referees who say they won’t punish shirt-pulling unless a player is heavily impeded or goes down.

I personally have a very low tolerance of this - 2 handed pushes in an opponent’s back or grabbing a handful of shirt is always a direct free-kick when I’m referee. As a linesman I need to know before a game starts whether the referee has the same view as we work as a team and very rarely undermine each other.

Linesmen have a specific area in which all offences are down to the Lino because they have the best view - it’s from the touch line they’re stood on, up to the edge of the penalty area and the halfway line. So in that rectangular part of the pitch all decisions are down to me as linesman unless the referee is close by and has a better view. This is always agreed between officials pre-match.

Observers and assessors only ever assess the 4 officials individually and never how well they work as a team. So if I’m linesman and I flag for an offence but the referee waves ‘play on’, and the assessor agrees with my decision then the referee gets marked down, not me.

But it’s fair to say we do whatever we can to never undermine the referee so that’s why we often see late flags particularly at a throw-in. Comms at NL South and above help - we use buzzer flags and microphones so it’s common for a lino to tell the referee we’ve seen a shirt pull but the referee says ‘no foul don’t flag’. This helps ensure we’re giving consistent decisions but it can infuriate the lino and fans with a better view.

 

[Sarge]

Thanks.

So ‘pulling, pushing, tripping etc an opponent’ is not only a direct free-kick but it’s also a yellow card offence. For every shirt pull in every game a caution should be given. Those are the rules.

But as others have said and as an official I fully agree, there is no consistency. Even at my level as a Step 4 assistant/Step 5 referee, I see my own tolerance levels questioned by other referees who say they won’t punish shirt-pulling unless a player is heavily impeded or goes down.

I personally have a very low tolerance of this - 2 handed pushes in an opponent’s back or grabbing a handful of shirt is always a direct free-kick when I’m referee. As a linesman I need to know before a game starts whether the referee has the same view as we work as a team and very rarely undermine each other.

Linesmen gave a specific area in which all offences are down to the Lino because they have the best view - it’s from the touch line they’re stood on, up to the edge of the penalty area and the halfway line. So in that rectangular part of the pitch all decisions are down to me as linesman unless the referee is close by and has a better view. This is always agreed between officials pre-match.

Observers and assessors only ever assess the 4 officials individually and never how well they work as a team. So if I’m linesman and I fkag for an offence but the referee waves ‘play on’, and the assessor agrees with my decision then the referee gets marked down, not me.

But it’s fair to say we do whatever we can to never undermine the referee so that’s why we often see late flags particularly at a throw-in. Comms at NL South and above help - we use buzzer flags and microphones so it’s common for a lino to tell the referee we’ve seen a shirt pull but the referee says ‘no foul don’t flag’. This helps ensure we’re giving consistent decisions but it can infuriate the lino and fans with a better view.

thanks for that too @Ewes , appreciated and more than a bit enlightening

 

[MustardYellow]

Could the answer be for every referee in a professional match to issue a publicly accessible decision report after each game. Where they go through every decision they make in a match and match it up with the applied rule clause, there could be a short clip with it too for evidence. This way it would show up any errors and go directly into their record. Would be a great tool for assessing performance.

Going through every decision may be excessive, but I certainly think the 'main' decisions should be addressed and explained.

Both players and fans have a right to understand how and why decisions are being made.

 

[Sarge]

You'll be pleased to know that Mr Purkiss is the referee for tomorrow's game.

Yes I know - never mind its 1st V 3rd in L1, its almost a given its going be all about him

 

[Ewes]

But isn't it a referees job to understand the rules and apply them fairly and consistently? Players and fans feel aggrieved because refs seem to apply rules differently each week - there's no consistency and a lack of transparency.

I personally think the offside rule should be that as long as part of a players body is onside, they're onside. It will make games more exciting and is easier to apply. Let's face it, a player isn't gaining much of an advantage by being a shoulder or a knee ahead of the defender.

I also actually agree with bookings for kicking the ball away. We've seen so many teams use it to slow down play and prevent quick set pieces (Wycombe used to do it all the time!!).

As an official yourself, do you think refs being more open and transparent about the decisions they make would aid player/fan relations? To me it never seems like officials explain their decisions to players, and fans are just left in the dark which does nothing but breed more annoyance.

I've always believed officials should have a 'post-match interview' style thing like managers do. It would give referees a more 'human feel' and help fans and players alike understand *why* decisions are being made, which for me is one of the main contentious issues.

Yep fully agree with referees needing to be more transparent and explaining their decisions. I also feel professional referees should be forced to attend post-match press conferences and explain their decisions.

Without boasting, I usually receive pretty good marks from teams I referee (we’re marked out of 100, anything less than 70/100 and we get called before the FA to explain ourselves).

I feel I’m marked highly because I’m humble and honest during a game - I apologise immediately if I’ve got a decision wrong or my view was impeded so I couldn’t possibly see the handball etc. I communicate constantly with both captains (e.g. warning them when a team-mate has committed 2+ fouls, questioned my decisions etc) and then I expect the skippers to manage that player.

The downside of referees getting a decision wrong is that we invariably try to compensate for a bad decision by giving the aggrieved team the next ‘soft free kick, penalty appeal’ etc. This isn’t the right way to officiate a game but it’s called being a human. It helps us to better manage a game and both teams if when we let a probable offside decision go because we or the lino couldn’t be 90% certain, then the next similar decision down the other ends goes the same way.

Of course this adds to the players’ and fans’ view that officials aren’t consistent because one week a decision is given and the next week it’s not. But I have to be honest, as an official I don’t care about consistency* and what happened in a team’s match the previous week.

* The only consistency I care about is (a) are my own performances from one week to the next OK with good marks awarded to me, plus (b) whether I and my assistants are giving consistent team decisions within that 90mins match.

 

[Sarge]

Yep fully agree with referees needing to be more transparent and explaining their decisions. I also feel professional referees should be forced to attend post-match press conferences and explain their decisions.

Without boasting, I usually receive pretty good marks from teams I referee (we’re marked out of 100, anything less than 70/100 and we get called before the FA to explain ourselves).

I feel I’m marked highly because I’m humble and honest during a game - I apologise immediately if I’ve got a decision wrong or my view was impeded so I couldn’t possibly see the handball etc. I communicate constantly with both captains (e.g. warning them when a team-mate has committed 2+ fouls, questioned my decisions etc) and then I expect the skippers to manage that player.

The downside of referees getting a decision wrong is that we invariably try to compensate for a bad decision by giving the aggrieved team the next ‘soft free kick, penalty appeal’ etc. This isn’t the right way to officiate a game but it’s called being a human. It helps us to better manage a game and both teams if when we let a probable offside decision go because we or the lino couldn’t be 90% certain, then the next similar decision down the other ends goes the same way.

Of course this adds to the players’ and fans’ view that officials aren’t consistent because one week a decision is given and the next week it’s not. But I have to be honest, as an official I don’t care about consistency* and what happened in a team’s match the previous week.

* The only consistency I care about is (a) are my own performances from one week to the next OK with good marks awarded to me, plus whether I and my assistants are giving consistent team decisions within that 90mins match.

Have the likes of Stockbridge and Purkiss, ( and until he retired Kettle) got reserved parking spaces at FA HQ?

seriously though , it would be informative if assesors scores were made public post match - supporters are partisan by nature, and often view things through a certain perspective., so a bit more transparency regarding match officials would maybe help?