Football Referees

[Seagull27]

I was thinking earlier, the vast majority of football pundits for matches are either ex-players, managers or have something to do with the game. Why don't any referees get involved? Surely they'd be better than most of the idiots you normally see, they (hopefully) know the rules of the game better than most and probably know a lot of the players and teams fairly well.

 

[firemandan]

I was thinking earlier, the vast majority of football pundits for matches are either ex-players, managers or have something to do with the game. Why don't any referees get involved? Surely they'd be better than most of the idiots you normally see, they (hopefully) know the rules of the game better than most and probably know a lot of the players and teams fairly well.

what a twat x

 

[Foolg]

what a twat x

Quality response, any reasoning behind your view?
I think the OP has a point, they know the rules far more so than 99% of the pundits. Luckily Andy Gray has now been taken off air, because his knowledge of the rules EVERY single week was absolutely attrocious for somebody paid to analyse football matches. Its not as though refs' are alien to the game, you don't get involved in the job without a knowledge of football.

 

[drew]

I was thinking earlier, the vast majority of football pundits for matches are either ex-players, managers or have something to do with the game. Why don't any referees get involved? Surely they'd be better than most of the idiots you normally see, they (hopefully) know the rules of the game better than most and probably know a lot of the players and teams fairly well.

 

[Acker79]

I was thinking earlier, the vast majority of football pundits for matches are either ex-players, managers or have something to do with the game. Why don't any referees get involved? Surely they'd be better than most of the idiots you normally see, they (hopefully) know the rules of the game better than most and probably know a lot of the players and teams fairly well.

SSN frequently have former refs on to comment about big issues.

I would be concerned that there is a current culture in football that paints the referees as the enemy of the game, they get the criticism for applying the laws as they are employed and instructed do when the criticism should be placed with fifa and the law itself. There is also the fact that having a referee there to explain the laws is like saying the pundits don't know them, which the pundits may take offence to and may be seen as an admission from sky they've been employing people who don't know what they're talking about to discuss the laws. Even subconsciously, the other pundits may become belligerent and dismissive of the ref's interpretation of the law because he isn't using common sense (ignoring the fact that the pundits can often disagree on what the common sense decision should be - see the disagreements on soccer saturday), or simply because the ref hasn't played the game.

Pundits, players, and fans have become almost conditioned to automatically question and judge the ref, with a default position of the ref is wrong unless replays prove him right. Putting a ref on the panel may provide more accurate information on the laws of the game, but it also provides a target, and I imagine would produce more confrontation than actual advancement in football punditry/commentary.

I think it would be worse with older commentators. I think a panel of Phil Thompson, Graeme Souness, and Dermot Gallagher, would be more confrontational than say Jamie Redknapp, Chris Coleman and Dermot Gallagher because I feel the old guard have a harder time letting go of the old blood and guts football they grew up with in the face of the modern laws.


You'd also have to convince the refs to take part, and they may be reluctant to comment on fellow refs, feeling they would be undermining them. Given the above mentioned culture as refs as the enemies, would any of the brethren want to do that, even if they intend to explain how many decisions he make are right, he would also by default be highlighting when they actually are wrong, and these will undoubtedly get disproportionate coverage?

 

[Seagull27]

How is this fishing? It was a serious question, I'd rather hear the views of a game from an experienced ref than someone like Gray or Claridge who have absolutely no idea.

 

[Acker79]

Also, for an example of how much respect the audience has for refs, just look at the people here accusing you of fishing simply for suggesting a ref joins the discussion panel on a football show.

 

[Seagull27]

SSN frequently have former refs on to comment about big issues.

I would be concerned that there is a current culture in football that paints the referees as the enemy of the game, they get the criticism for applying the laws as they are employed and instructed do when the criticism should be placed with fifa and the law itself. There is also the fact that having a referee there to explain the laws is like saying the pundits don't know them, which the pundits may take offence to and may be seen as an admission from sky they've been employing people who don't know what they're talking about to discuss the laws. Even subconsciously, they my become belligerent and dismissive of the ref's interpretation of the law because he isn't using common sense (ignoring the fact that the pundits can often disagree on what he common sense decision should be - see the disagreements on soccer saturday), or simply because the ref hasn't played the game.

Pundits, players, and fans have become almost conditioned to automatically question and judge the ref, with a default position of the ref is wrong unless replays prove him right. Putting a ref on the panel may provide more accurate information on the laws of the game, but it also provides a target, and I imagine would produce more confrontation than actual advancement in football punditry/commentary.

I think it would be worse with older commentators. I think a panel of Phil Thompson, Graeme Souness, and Dermot Gallagher, would be more confrontational than say Jamie Redknapp, Chris Coleman and Dermot Gallagher because I feel the old guard have a harder time letting go of the old blood and guts football they grew up with in the face of the modern laws.


You'd also have to convince the refs to take part, and they may be reluctant to comment on fellow refs, feeling they would be undermining them. Given the above mentioned culture as refs as the enemies, would any of the brethren want to do that, even if they intend to explain how many decisions he make are right, he would also by default be highlighting when they actually are wrong, and these will undoubtedly get disproportionate coverage?

Good point on that refs are often the target for abuse, more unwarranted than deserved. I just think it could be interesting to get a different perspective on the game from people who see it in a different light to players, managers etc.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

what a twat x

What is wrong with some people on here?

I think having an ex ref would be a great addition to the pundits panels on footy games personally. They make mistakes, at least with an ex official he can give a refs eye view or even criticise them (being, to be fair, the best person in the position to do so). We all might understand their decisions a little better.

 

[Foolg]

What is wrong with some people on here?

I think having an ex ref would be a great addition to the pundits panels on footy games personally. They make mistakes, at least with an ex official he can give a refs eye view or even criticise them (being, to be fair, the best person in the position to do so). We all might understand their decisions a little better.

Exactly.
I gave up playing last year, and referee twice each Sunday now instead. It's amazing how many people are happy to have a go at you regarding a decision, yet when you explain it to them, they actually realise that they didn't know the rules.

 

[Gwylan]

I remember that the BBC frequently had Clive Norling as a pundit on Rugby Special and very good he was too. I think there's less need to have a ref on the panel since the ref has been wired up.

I'd love to see the odd football ref as a pundit, it would be a refreshing change.

 

[Smithy24]

Graeme Poll is on 5live quite a lot. I know its not technically being a pundit, but its a step in the right direction

 

[Kazenga <3]

what a twat x

 

[NMH]

Poll has commented on a game or two.
He was a bit boring though - the authoritative side tends to be a bit alienating I think.

 

[drew]

How is this fishing? It was a serious question, I'd rather hear the views of a game from an experienced ref than someone like Gray or Claridge who have absolutely no idea.

Several reasons really.

1. The referees are there to apply the laws of the game but all too frequently get it wrong.
2. Lack of consistency. They will apply a rule and when the same thing happens again will ignore it.
3. Failed to follow through with the respect campaign. The attitude of players to refs is entirely the referee's fault. Best example was Mike Riley trying to be friends with Rooney when he should have carded him straight away. The ref has the power to book a player for foul language yet time and time again they take it on the chin.
4. Referees calling for a player to come to them and eventually meeting them halfway. FFS stamp your authority on the game.
5. Allowing groups of players to harangue you and making you run backwards. Stand your ground and book/send off the first player that touches you or gets in your face.

The referees don't help themselves by lying (Clattenburg about Rooney's elbow) nor by refusing to come on tv to explain away decisions. Admittedly they aren't helped by the FA who, in the Rooney incident declined to retrospectively punish him when they could have.

In my opinion, because referees are weak, and that probably goes right to the very top of their organisation, they aren't fit to comment on matches. Having said that, anyone who thinks the likes of Lawrenson and Claridge are worth listening to needs their heads examined. If you want to know the laws of the game get on the Fifa website. They are there together with explanations.

 

[Acker79]

Several reasons really.

1. The referees are there to apply the laws of the game but all too frequently get it wrong.
2. Lack of consistency. They will apply a rule and when the same thing happens again will ignore it.
3. Failed to follow through with the respect campaign. The attitude of players to refs is entirely the referee's fault. Best example was Mike Riley trying to be friends with Rooney when he should have carded him straight away. The ref has the power to book a player for foul language yet time and time again they take it on the chin.
4. Referees calling for a player to come to them and eventually meeting them halfway. FFS stamp your authority on the game.
5. Allowing groups of players to harangue you and making you run backwards. Stand your ground and book/send off the first player that touches you or gets in your face.

The referees don't help themselves by lying (Clattenburg about Rooney's elbow) nor by refusing to come on tv to explain away decisions. Admittedly they aren't helped by the FA who, in the Rooney incident declined to retrospectively punish him when they could have.

In my opinion, because referees are weak, and that probably goes right to the very top of their organisation, they aren't fit to comment on matches. Having said that, anyone who thinks the likes of Lawrenson and Claridge are worth listening to needs their heads examined. If you want to know the laws of the game get on the Fifa website. They are there together with explanations.

Huh? What has any of that got to do with the ability of a retired ref to sit in a studio and explain the laws of the game? Sky sports news frequently has dermot gallagher on to do such a thing and none of the above causes any issues. Graham Poll writes regular columns in the daily mail without any of the above being an issue.

Nor does any of that mean that seagull27 was fishing when coming up with the suggestion.

 

[NMH]

The referees don't help themselves by lying (Clattenburg about Rooney's elbow) nor by refusing to come on tv to explain away decisions. Admittedly they aren't helped by the FA who, in the Rooney incident declined to retrospectively punish him when they could have.

If Rooney gets reviewed by the FA and remains unpunished for an off-ball incident, that is entirely down to them. Clattenburg even gave them total reign over that, by NOT carding Rooney. If he yellow cards him after not seeing all the incident - he can't be further punished, so the ref HAS allowed full punitive ability over Rooney, which the FA have chosen to let slide. Ref right, FA wrong.

 

[Smudger...]

Several reasons really.

1. The referees are there to apply the laws of the game but all too frequently get it wrong.
2. Lack of consistency. They will apply a rule and when the same thing happens again will ignore it.
3. Failed to follow through with the respect campaign. The attitude of players to refs is entirely the referee's fault. Best example was Mike Riley trying to be friends with Rooney when he should have carded him straight away. The ref has the power to book a player for foul language yet time and time again they take it on the chin.
4. Referees calling for a player to come to them and eventually meeting them halfway. FFS stamp your authority on the game.
5. Allowing groups of players to harangue you and making you run backwards. Stand your ground and book/send off the first player that touches you or gets in your face.

The referees don't help themselves by lying (Clattenburg about Rooney's elbow) nor by refusing to come on tv to explain away decisions. Admittedly they aren't helped by the FA who, in the Rooney incident declined to retrospectively punish him when they could have.

In my opinion, because referees are weak, and that probably goes right to the very top of their organisation, they aren't fit to comment on matches. Having said that, anyone who thinks the likes of Lawrenson and Claridge are worth listening to needs their heads examined. If you want to know the laws of the game get on the Fifa website. They are there together with explanations.

This quote indicates to me a lack of understanding of both the Laws of the Game and the duties of the referee.

Take item 1, how well do you actually know the laws of the game? (I might put a quiz together on here sometime if anyone wants me to)
Item 2, they are not rules, they are not laws.
Item 3, "The ref has the power to book a player for foul language". He does not. If a player is guilty of using offensive, insulting and/or abusive language, he shall be sent off, the referee has no authority to caution a player for this offense. See law 12. And when it was discussed in refereeing circles that any player swearing should be sent off at all levels of the game, the fans, players et al said that it would be the referees throwing their weight about, and people don't go to games to see the referee, and they should put up with it.
4. meeting the player half way is what referees are supposed to do, they are not there to belittle the players by making them talk to the referee like a scalded child!
5. I agreee to a point with this, but it's easier said than done in the heat of the moment, and would leave the referee open to accusations of being a stickler for the rules. The referee cannot win really.

Why don't you give it a go, even Sunday football with a dozen people watching, it might surprise you how hard it is to get everything right, and make everyone think you are doing a good unbiased job. The losing team will blame you, 99 times out of 100, trust me!

Smudger, ex referee and Referee Instructor, if you couldn't guess!!

 

[drew]

If Rooney gets reviewed by the FA and remains unpunished for an off-ball incident, that is entirely down to them. Clattenburg even gave them total reign over that, by NOT carding Rooney. If he yellow cards him after not seeing all the incident - he can't be further punished, so the ref HAS allowed full punitive ability over Rooney, which the FA have chosen to let slide. Ref right, FA wrong.

If he didn't see the incident why did he give a free kick? He either saw the collision or he didn't. Which is it?

 

[drew]

Huh? What has any of that got to do with the ability of a retired ref to sit in a studio and explain the laws of the game? Sky sports news frequently has dermot gallagher on to do such a thing and none of the above causes any issues. Graham Poll writes regular columns in the daily mail without any of the above being an issue.

Nor does any of that mean that seagull27 was fishing when coming up with the suggestion.

Graham Poll does make good comments but he is the only one. The refs I've seen at the Withdean seem incapable, in the main, to apply the rules of the game so why should I trust them to advise on them as a pundit?