[Football] Ref blaming

[drew]

I think this exposes the fundamental flaw in the conversation (not directing these comments specifically at you, your post was just the most recent). I'm sure I've said similar in a recent thread.

There often is no 'right' (or 'wrong') decision. That's what subjective means. This attitude of 'right/wrong' is the source of frustration. People don't really want the right decision, they want their decision. So a ref makes his decision, and an assistant/VAR who understands the laws make the Ref's decision the one that counts aren't looking to make sure the ref makes the 'right' decision as they see it, just an honest one. Hence the process of the ref explaining what he saw, and the VAR accepting his decision was based on what happened, or the VAR says 'that isn't what happened, have another look' then the ref looks and makes his own decision on the footage with the benefit of another angle/speed etc. It's why Deemot Gallagher so frequently says "I can see why he gave it" rather than "he's wrong".

If people could get out of their own heads, and realise that just because they (and even their friends/fellow fans/the ex players on TV) think a different decision should be made, it doesn't mean they are right and the ref is wrong, there would be a lot less frustration/anger with referees, VAR etc.

We see the disagreements on here, on various TV shows, radio phone ins, podcasts. If the ref made the same decision as I make in every instance, there would still be people saying he got it wrong, and VAR should have corrected him and what's the point of it if it's not going to correct him. If he makes the decisions that you (whoever is reading this) would make, there would be other people who think he's got it wrong and VAR should have corrected it and why have VAR if they're not going to get involved.

Yes, there are instances when refs get it wrong, they see everything as it happened, they just made the wrong call for whatever reason (brain fart/lapse in concentration, trying to show leniancy or fairness and overcompensating, etc) they are human beings. In those instances where the ref saw what happened and it matches what VAR saw, they're not allowed to advise the ref to look at the video. Perhaps they should be, but then how do you distinguish between the margins - how much contorting to see the ref's point of view when it is different from your own is too much?



I also think we should do a better job of distinguishing between a poor refereeing performance, and a bad law or bad instructions. Some of the decisions are made because that's how their paymasters tell them to make them, and if they don't make the decision that way, they get benched until they learn to do it the way they are instructed. While they may want to make a decision we'd like more, if they do they are punished for it, because it's not how they've been told to apply that law. And if we're being generous perhaps try to understand it - we approach games wanting the best outcome for our clubs/the worst outcome for our rivals, and/or entertainment. PGMOL and Premier league want laws that give the competition structure and attempt at fairness. That is going to lead to different interpretations.

Are you a ref?

I'm sorry but I don't accept most of what you say. Obviously there are calls that are close but this thread is highlighting at least two that weren't. Welbeck's penalty and Cucu's hair being pulled. In the first instance, what on earth do you think the ref said to Brooks for it not to be a penalty? "John, I saw the defender contact Welbeck shoulder to shoulder, can you confirm that is correct?"

Most people will argue the toss about close decisions but will still recognise that they are subjective, for example, the tackle on Havertz for Tottenham's first. There is nothing subjective about a player's hair being pulled enough to force you to the ground. Or do you also think Nunez headbutts are also subjective?

 

[TugWilson]

Ok I was not going to answer this, in order to get the topic back on track, but I think it might you help sleep better:
1. I'm not a non-believer in UFOs and I'm well aware of the situation in the 1950s. But you invited me (calling me stupid because of my take on refs) to wind you up, and so I did.
2. I think you're just about the only person in the world that believes you need to be a good footballer to be a good ref (or vice versa).

Now lets keep the UFOs - Kevin Friend aside - out from this thread.

1. You brought up UFOs not me.
2. At no point did i say "you need to be a good footballer to be a good ref (or vice versa )" i said they had never played and as a result have a lousy reading of the game compared to Ex players,as Paul Merson alluded to on Saturday .

 

[Acker79]

You may not be aiming at me particularly, but certainly generally. To suggest fans just want decisions to go their way misses the point entirely although I think I may also have missed the original point of the OP. That aside, I just want obvious reffing decisions reviewed effectively and corrected.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't say they want every decision to "go their way". I said they want the ref to make "their decision". "Their decision" may be one of self-interest, or it may be entirely neutral/go against their own team.

You are still talking about "right" outcomes. My point is that often (note: "often", not "always") there is no "right" outcome.

We see on here, on soccer saturday, match of the day, MNF, supersunday, radio phone ins, there can be one single challenge that some people say is a fair challenge in a contact sport, some think it crosses the line into foul, some say a yellow, some say a red (obviously rare for all those to be opinions in a single incident, but there are frequently instances where a range of some of them are honestly held). It is subjective. There is no "right" decision - each is a valid opinion (some may be more popular than others but popularity does not equal validity).

So which should VAR give as the "right" call? If you're one of the people saying it should be a red card, you will want VAR to say red card. If you're one of the people saying no foul, you'll want VAR to say 'no foul'. That is what I mean by "their decision". How you interpret the incident is how you think the ref/VAR should view it to get the "right" decision, but when things are subjective you will often come to different conclusions, where none of them are "right" or "wrong" they're just different.

While this is probably tangential to the OP, it isn't entirely irrelevant. It's a lack of this understanding that there often isn't a "right" decision for the ref or VAR to make, just a different decision, that leads to so much criticism of refs/VAR.

By the way, you referenced Dermot Gallagher and even he said it was a penalty. Every Man Utd fan would have expected and accepted a penalty even at Old Trafford. That is not just demanding every decision goes your team's way

Right, I said he "frequently says "I can see why he gave it" rather than "he's wrong"" (i.e. he doesn't always say it). It's why I also said "Yes, there are instances when refs get it wrong, they see everything as it happened, they just made the wrong call for whatever reason (brain fart/lapse in concentration, trying to show leniancy or fairness and overcompensating, etc) they are human beings". Yeah, the non-penalty v Man Utd was one of those errors, I don't and haven't disputed that. It's one of those situations I've acknowledged where a mistake does happen.

 

[Acker79]

Are you a ref?

I'm sorry but I don't accept most of what you say. Obviously there are calls that are close but this thread is highlighting at least two that weren't. Welbeck's penalty and Cucu's hair being pulled. In the first instance, what on earth do you think the ref said to Brooks for it not to be a penalty? "John, I saw the defender contact Welbeck shoulder to shoulder, can you confirm that is correct?"

Most people will argue the toss about close decisions but will still recognise that they are subjective, for example, the tackle on Havertz for Tottenham's first. There is nothing subjective about a player's hair being pulled enough to force you to the ground. Or do you also think Nunez headbutts are also subjective?

TBH it's no skin of my nose whether you accept what I say or not. Obviously I think I'm right, I wouldn't have said it otherwise. I'm fully aware it's not a popular opinion. But to the highlighted point I would note this earlier reply:

The point being made is that managers (or players) escalating the vitriol after the game to the point where refs and their families get death threats is simply wrong.

And note that my tangential point was about one of the underlying issues with this, not about the one or two specific incidents where a mistake was made (and again, I don't dispute that mistakes were made).

 

[drew]

TBH it's no skin of my nose whether you accept what I say or not. Obviously I think I'm right, I wouldn't have said it otherwise. I'm fully aware it's not a popular opinion. But to the highlighted point I would note this earlier reply:



And note that my tangential point was about one of the underlying issues with this, not about the one or two specific incidents where a mistake was made (and again, I don't dispute that mistakes were made).

Anyone that is making threats to the refs, their families etc is a matter for the Police. Can't see anyone on this thread condoning such threats. Let's be honest, internet trolls make threats all of the time to a whole host of victims so I'm not sure what it adds to the debate on this particular thread.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

One of the main problems is commentators and interviewers asking Managers about incidents, after the game when still heated, rather than asking are you happy with how your team played today. They know it will be discussed on Motd anyway so why stir up angst. Wenger got dogs for saying he didn't see anything, maybe that was the best answer.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I know and the reason it is happening is because VAR is often not fit for purpose and social media.

You are not suggesting managers and players having hissy fits is something new are you?

Not sure how that is missing the point as to my little brain it explains WHY it is happening

If the point is that it’s got to stop….well good luck with that, it’s not going to.

Well the ten match ban suggested by [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] may focus minds. When managers were paid less I recall them often saying in interviews that they had better not comment on decision X or 'I will get a fine'.....

And, no I did not suggest it is something new, and I don't care WHY it's happening.

Swansman has spotted a problem and suggested a solution. I like that sort of thinking. There is no need for any whataboutery.

 

[drew]

Right, I said he "frequently says "I can see why he gave it" rather than "he's wrong"" (i.e. he doesn't always say it). It's why I also said "Yes, there are instances when refs get it wrong, they see everything as it happened, they just made the wrong call for whatever reason (brain fart/lapse in concentration, trying to show leniancy or fairness and overcompensating, etc) they are human beings". Yeah, the non-penalty v Man Utd was one of those errors, I don't and haven't disputed that. It's one of those situations I've acknowledged where a mistake does happen.

It is one thing for the on field ref to miss something in real time but quite another when the VAR official has the opportunity to review an incident several times and from different angles. Most fans I know accept the match ref sometimes get's it wrong but wasn't the point of VAR to try and correct those decisions as much as possible.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

TBH it's no skin of my nose whether you accept what I say or not. Obviously I think I'm right, I wouldn't have said it otherwise. I'm fully aware it's not a popular opinion. But to the highlighted point I would note this earlier reply:



And note that my tangential point was about one of the underlying issues with this, not about the one or two specific incidents where a mistake was made (and again, I don't dispute that mistakes were made).

It is peculiar how this thread has gone from offering a possible solution to a potentially conerning situation to a rant session about the uselessness of referees.

Remember that poor sod who had to retire from refereeing after a decision at a world cup that resulted in death threats? *Friske Or something? The general attitude to referees is childish and wrong. Yes we can strive for better decision making but that is a totally separate issue from the abuse and online trolling that takes place, and managers gobbing off simply legitimises this.

Ironically, many of those ranting about shit referees are also vehement opponents of VAR. You couldn't make this stuff up. It's as daft as a football hooligan glorifying football hooliganism and fighting, then getting all hoity-toity about law and order when it involves 'our borders' (and foreigners).

*Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Frisk

 

[drew]

Well the ten match ban suggested by [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] may focus minds. When managers were paid less I recall them often saying in interviews that they had better not comment on decision X or 'I will get a fine'.....

And, no I did not suggest it is something new, and I don't care WHY it's happening.

Swansman has spotted a problem and suggested a solution. I like that sort of thinking. There is no need for any whataboutery.

Tuchel and Conte deserve what they get for their petulant behaviour. However, why can't players and/or managers question decisions made by referees? When there are bizarre decisions made that affect the outcome of a game, for example, Cucu's hair being pulled. At the moment, it seems if anyone challenges a decision by the refs then they're on a charge by the FA.

 

[Icy Gull]

Well the ten match ban suggested by [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] may focus minds. When managers were paid less I recall them often saying in interviews that they had better not comment on decision X or 'I will get a fine'.....

And, no I did not suggest it is something new, and I don't care WHY it's happening.

Swansman has spotted a problem and suggested a solution. I like that sort of thinking. There is no need for any whataboutery.

I'll leave you and Swansman to solve the problem then, not caring why something is happening is not a great way to find the solution imo but you are clearly not interested in any one else's opinion (well mine anyway) so carry on, I'll butt out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Tuchel and Conte deserve what they get for their petulant behaviour. However, why can't players and/or managers question decisions made by referees? When there are bizarre decisions made that affect the outcome of a game, for example, Cucu's hair being pulled. At the moment, it seems if anyone challenges a decision by the refs then they're on a charge by the FA.

Having a mechanism for managers to question poor refereeing, and complain about decisions, with perhaps a review rather like a disciplinary panel, is certainly worth pursuing.

But having managers spouting off to the media is not part of any useful process. What do they hope to achieve? As part of a shouty mob do they imagine the FA intervening and sacking the referee? The can't exactly recind a decision after the game.

I appreciate that football is panto, but panto doesn't end with death threats, and once the show is over everyone should dust themselves down and behave.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'll leave you and Swansman to solve the problem then, not caring why something is happening is not a great way to find the solution imo but you are clearly not interested in any one else's opinion (well mine anyway) so carry on, I'll butt out.

There's no need to be petulant.

Yes, we can see why managers gob off after the game, and behave like dicks during it. The reason is lack of respect for the authority of the referee, even if the referee gets it wrong.

Your solution appears to be to stop referees getting it wrong. Good luck with that. In the meantime incendiary behavior during and after the game needs to be punished. It may not stop it, but I bet it ameliorates it. Not punishing this behavior and instead focusing purely on the poor decision making of referees is missing the point.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying and why, I shake my head sadly

 

[Icy Gull]

There's no need to be petulant.

Yes, we can see why managers gob off after the game, and behave like dicks during it. The reason is lack of respect for the authority of the referee, even if the referee gets it wrong.

Your solution appears to be to stop referees getting it wrong. Good luck with that. In the meantime incendiary behavior during and after the game needs to be punished. It may not stop it, but I bet it ameliorates it. Not punishing this behavior and instead focusing purely on the poor decision making of referees is missing the point.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying and why, I shake my head sadly

Shake away, I thought that was the point of VAR. Send the ref to monitor and the second goal would not have happened and Tottenham would have been a man down and all the after match panto would not have happened. It's not rocket science.

 

[Seaview Seagull]

Tuchel and Conte deserve what they get for their petulant behaviour. However, why can't players and/or managers question decisions made by referees? When there are bizarre decisions made that affect the outcome of a game, for example, Cucu's hair being pulled. At the moment, it seems if anyone challenges a decision by the refs then they're on a charge by the FA.

I don't think anyone is saying decisions can be challenged but the way challenges are being made now is completely unacceptable. Surrounding the ref and trying to intimidate him into changing his view is surely just plain wrong as is the manager's rant saying this or that ref should not do their games. A protest by the team captain that asks for an explanation is ok.

I get that players and managers get wound up and invested in success but that doesn't excuse the histrionics we say at Stamford Bridge or see at other games most weeks.

 

[drew]

Having a mechanism for managers to question poor refereeing, and complain about decisions, with perhaps a review rather like a disciplinary panel, is certainly worth pursuing.

But having managers spouting off to the media is not part of any useful process. What do they hope to achieve? As part of a shouty mob do they imagine the FA intervening and sacking the referee? The can't exactly recind a decision after the game.

I appreciate that football is panto, but panto doesn't end with death threats, and once the show is over everyone should dust themselves down and behave.

Agree that it has to be a measured comment. Unfortunately, the tv companies insist on instant interviews in the heat of the moment, presumably because confrontation is exactly what they are looking for.

With regard to the FA, I suspect no one expects or wants match results to be changed but there should be some transparent review of officiating. I don't know whether the PGMOL issue a weekly report to their employers explaining the thinking behind decisions. If they don't, they should. The whole point would be to drive up standards and consistency. We all remember the mess Lee Mason got himself into with our game against WBA. The PGMOL issued statements supporting him (bizarrely) and then he was moved aside. Going back even further when Son ankle tapped Gomez who then fell and busted his ankle. Son was sent off and the PGMOL vindicated the decision by saying Son had put an opponent at risk. If that was the case, why did the FA rescind the red?

The PGMOL have a siege mentality when it comes to criticism and circle the wagons with incorrect statements. If they actually engaged with the debate, perhaps more progress could be made.

 

[drew]

I don't think anyone is saying decisions can be challenged but the way challenges are being made now is completely unacceptable. Surrounding the ref and trying to intimidate him into changing his view is surely just plain wrong as is the manager's rant saying this or that ref should not do their games. A protest by the team captain that asks for an explanation is ok.

I get that players and managers get wound up and invested in success but that doesn't excuse the histrionics we say at Stamford Bridge or see at other games most weeks.

So why doesn't the ref book the first player that comes waving his arms in his face? They can but choose not to. It's in their hands.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Shake away, I thought that was the point of VAR. Send the ref to monitor and the second goal would not have happened and Tottenham would have been a man down and all the after match panto would not have happened. It's not rocket science.

I agree with you that VAR should be used much more than it is, and that the ref should be told to view the monitor when TV picks up stuff like the hair pulling, or egregious errors over fouls. I agree that decisions should be better and that more VAR would help hugely.

I suspect that very few people on NSC want more VAR, though. Ironic that

Apologies for my arsiness over this. It all seems simple to me. Managers should behave, and if they can't they should get lengthy touchline bans, made to sit in the stands where they can be seen (to be not communicating with the bench).

Meanwhile, and as a non-conflated issue, let's seek ways of obtaining better decisions.

 

[Acker79]

It is one thing for the on field ref to miss something in real time but quite another when the VAR official has the opportunity to review an incident several times and from different angles. Most fans I know accept the match ref sometimes get's it wrong but wasn't the point of VAR to try and correct those decisions as much as possible.

I feel like this may be going around in circles, but this goes back to my point about "right" v "different" decisions. The laws of the game say "in the opinion of the refeee", so when there is a difference of opinion, the ref's has to be the default. That's what the laws say. So the point of VAR isn't making sure a (frequently mythical) "right" decision is made, it is making sure the ref is seeing what he thinks he is as the basis of his decision.

I accept it can be frustrating when his opinion isn't a popular one (frequent). Or when he makes a mistake but made that mistake based on what he actually saw (I suspect this was the case with the non-penalty, as it's the only explanation I can think of for VAR not intervening). But that is how VAR has been introduced, and how it has been decided it needs to work to play the game according to the laws of the game - the 'opinion of the referee'.

I suspect a popular alternative would be that the VAR not be about making sure the ref saw what he thought he saw, but having a second opinion and advising the ref to look at the video when he disagrees with the ref's decision (ref has to review the video for it to still be 'in the opinion of the referee'). I can see the VAR, with the same experience as the ref, same training, same instructions making the same decisions and rarely refer the Ref to the video for a second look.

Even if they eliminate all the actual errors, there will still be complaints about it not addressing the frequent instances where it's just "different" opinions rather than "wrong" opinions.

To me, I'd be fine with that - it eliminates all the errors - but the discussion around football would still be 'poor refereeing' or 'VAR still not getting all the calls right'.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Agree that it has to be a measured comment. Unfortunately, the tv companies insist on instant interviews in the heat of the moment, presumably because confrontation is exactly what they are looking for.

With regard to the FA, I suspect no one expects or wants match results to be changed but there should be some transparent review of officiating. I don't know whether the PGMOL issue a weekly report to their employers explaining the thinking behind decisions. If they don't, they should. The whole point would be to drive up standards and consistency. We all remember the mess Lee Mason got himself into with our game against WBA. The PGMOL issued statements supporting him (bizarrely) and then he was moved aside. Going back even further when Son ankle tapped Gomez who then fell and busted his ankle. Son was sent off and the PGMOL vindicated the decision by saying Son had put an opponent at risk. If that was the case, why did the FA rescind the red?

The PGMOL have a siege mentality when it comes to criticism and circle the wagons with incorrect statements. If they actually engaged with the debate, perhaps more progress could be made.

Good points

I appreciate that TV money funds the game, but this doesn't give the TV companies the right to imitate the shock-jock style of provocative interviewing.

That said, if a TV goon says 'How upset were you by the decision to not award a penalty?' the response is the responsibility (geddit? ) of the responder. Thus the manager should say 'let's stick to footballing matters and not concern ourselves with my emotional wellbeing' or somesuch.

No matter what anyone says, nobody would stop watching football on TV if the pleasure of watching the ranting of the manager of the opposition about a dodgy decision in favour of The Albion were denied. And 'did you think it was a penalty?' (or, by inference, do you think the referee is a **** and should have his house burned down?) are not lines of journalistic inquirey that should persist, in my view. If interviewers can't as sensible questions about performance they should look for another job.