Referee's, Rules and stuff

[Arkwright]

Had a good chat with a former Premiership ref and current FIFA assessor in the Post Office today.

Couple of things of interest, he saw the play back of the Barnes sending off and thought it was a tad harsh and that the Burnley player was lucky to get away without a caution.

I asked him what the 4th officials role was as it was him who sent off Vincelot and he said that they are allowed to make decisions on serious foul play (punhcing, kicking, ect). I asked if the 4th official had for example seen the Southampton penalty (away) was outside the box could he get involved and the simple answer is "No".

I have thought for a while that the 4th official should have more involvement and maybe in a Hockey style have two referee's one in each half of the pitch with two linesmen. It turns out that this has been trailed but does not work as each referee may have different interpretations of the rules. Made me laugh as if referee's have got different ideas of how the game should be run what chance do the players or us the supporters have.

I thought D'Urso did ok against Southampton this week but talking to Saints fans they thought he was poor I know it's all about interpretation but surely there should be more consistency from the referee's. In cricket the Laws are clear and there is no opinion it's simple In or Out but football the Rules are down to one man's opinion.

I never (well sometimes) slag off referee's as it's a difficult job but the authorities could make there job easier and just say that the Rules are the Rules and to take out interpretation and opinion (are we playing advantage this week or are we not?) at least the players and supporters would have some consistancy from match to match.

 

[Springal]

The Burnley player didn't get a caution....

 

[shaolinpunk]

The Burnley player didn't get a caution....

He didn't say he got a caution, he said he lucky not to get one

the Burnley player was lucky to get away without a caution

 

[Acker79]

I believe that former referee is a little outdated, last season (or possibly the one before) the laws of the game were changed regarding the fourth official.

He was limited to violent conduct (and to highlight any case of mistaken identity), but now he can advise on anything, but the referee remains the final authority.

He is tasked with, among other things, "He assists the referee to control the game in accordance with the Laws of the Game. The Referee, however, retains authority to decide on all points connected with play".


Besides, I heard the linesman told the ref it was outside the box, but the ref overruled him, any way. If the fourth official had told him, would Walton have listened?

 

[drew]

Had a good chat with a former Premiership ref and current FIFA assessor in the Post Office today.

Couple of things of interest, he saw the play back of the Barnes sending off and thought it was a tad harsh and that the Burnley player was lucky to get away without a caution.

I asked him what the 4th officials role was as it was him who sent off Vincelot and he said that they are allowed to make decisions on serious foul play (punhcing, kicking, ect). I asked if the 4th official had for example seen the Southampton penalty (away) was outside the box could he get involved and the simple answer is "No".

I have thought for a while that the 4th official should have more involvement and maybe in a Hockey style have two referee's one in each half of the pitch with two linesmen. It turns out that this has been trailed but does not work as each referee may have different interpretations of the rules. Made me laugh as if referee's have got different ideas of how the game should be run what chance do the players or us the supporters have.

I thought D'Urso did ok against Southampton this week but talking to Saints fans they thought he was poor I know it's all about interpretation but surely there should be more consistency from the referee's. In cricket the Laws are clear and there is no opinion it's simple In or Out but football the Rules are down to one man's opinion.

I never (well sometimes) slag off referee's as it's a difficult job but the authorities could make there job easier and just say that the Rules are the Rules and to take out interpretation and opinion (are we playing advantage this week or are we not?) at least the players and supporters would have some consistancy from match to match.

Take away Hawkeye or whichever system is used and LBW is quite clearly an opinion based decision. Without TV replays, did the ball carry to the fielder when claiming a catch? Was it a no ball etc etc. There are plenty of areas where umpires can make mistakes.

 

[Storer 68]

They are not Rules of the Game, they are Laws of the Game

Rules do not allow for interpretation (it is either right or wrong) but laws allow for interpretation

 

[Acker79]

Rules have exceptions (hence the expression "the exception that proves the rule"), laws do not.

 

[Storer 68]

Take away Hawkeye or whichever system is used and LBW is quite clearly an opinion based decision. Without TV replays, did the ball carry to the fielder when claiming a catch? Was it a no ball etc etc. There are plenty of areas where umpires can make mistakes.

No - the Umpire never makes a mistake because his decision is FINAL.

Umpires can only call for a replay if it is a matter of doubt regarding a fact (ie was his foot over the line, did the ball bounce before the catch was taken etc). Players can ask for a review of a decision in limited circumstances

 

[Clapham Old Mug]

I've often wondered if four linesmen wouldn't be more helpful to the referee than a "4th official". Stupid name, anyway.

 

[ROSM]

When I used to run the tours at withdean stadium we met a number of referees and their assistants getting ready pre match. On one particular occasion the officials were already in the changing rooms so we didnt go in but did hear a wonderful conversation where the ref (an experienced premiership one) was heard to tell his assistants 'you're only here to give offsides and throw ins and even then only if I dont have a better view'.

Can you guess the ref?

 

[Notters]

Referee's what?

 

[Springal]

When I used to run the tours at withdean stadium we met a number of referees and their assistants getting ready pre match. On one particular occasion the officials were already in the changing rooms so we didnt go in but did hear a wonderful conversation where the ref (an experienced premiership one) was heard to tell his assistants 'you're only here to give offsides and throw ins and even then only if I dont have a better view'.

Can you guess the ref?

That is what I tell my sunday league club linos

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

When I used to run the tours at withdean stadium we met a number of referees and their assistants getting ready pre match. On one particular occasion the officials were already in the changing rooms so we didnt go in but did hear a wonderful conversation where the ref (an experienced premiership one) was heard to tell his assistants 'you're only here to give offsides and throw ins and even then only if I dont have a better view'.

I worked with an ex-pro who, on having his career ended prematurely by injury, ran the line during the 70s and into the 80s. He once saw a player punch another in the face on the blind side of the ref - a certain individual famous for his perm and his apparent desire to be the star of the show. Not push, not slap, a clear punch. He called him over, told him what he'd seen and said it was a clear red. To which the ref basically replied 'Eff off, I'm here to make the decisions on the cards,' and instead booked the bloke.

He resigned after that game and never ran the line again because he'd got sick of the refs being as arrogant and pompous with their linesmen as they were/are with the players. It's not a new thing - refs are under considerably more scrutiny now but I maintain that you need a certain something in your psyche to want to be a football ref, some deep need to be in control and in the spotlight. They're a weird lot.

Edit: In deference to Springal, and any other amateur refs, I should amend that to 'you need a certain something in your psyche to want to be a professional football ref'.

 

[magoo]

What i am getting increasingly annoyed about with linesmen is the fact that they won't give a decision without seeing what the Ref has given first. They always take that sly look to the Ref to see whose throw-in it is or if it's a foul.

Also, why aren't more ex pro footballers encouraged into refereeing? There are many advantages to this.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I'm staggered that the burnley player didn't receive a retrospective red.

 

[Ernest]

When I used to run the tours at withdean stadium we met a number of referees and their assistants getting ready pre match. On one particular occasion the officials were already in the changing rooms so we didnt go in but did hear a wonderful conversation where the ref (an experienced premiership one) was heard to tell his assistants 'you're only here to give offsides and throw ins and even then only if I dont have a better view'.

Can you guess the ref?

Poll or Bennett

 

[ROSM]

Poll or Bennett

It was Steve Bennett

Well done Ernest.

I also spoke to Roger Milford at a do. He said that premiership refs are not assessed when they cover lower league games and said that means they generally ref the game using their own instincts. He cited was why Durkin, Ellery etc usually had good flowing games with few bookings. He then added that was why Bennett was a bigger cock than usual as there was nobody to stop his ego getting in the way.

 

[Ernest]

It was Steve Bennett

Well done Ernest.

I also spoke to Roger Milford at a do. He said that premiership refs are not assessed when they cover lower league games and said that means they generally ref the game using their own instincts. He cited was why Durkin, Ellery etc usually had good flowing games with few bookings. He then added that was why Bennett was a bigger cock than usual as there was nobody to stop his ego getting in the way.

I think Bennett is now something to do with training refs so sums up why some are such cocks

 

[Storer 68]

I've often wondered if four linesmen wouldn't be more helpful to the referee than a "4th official". Stupid name, anyway.

Stupid but correct.

For games you require
A referee
Two Assistant referees to run the line
A reserve official .
Another official (known as the "fourth official") to ensure that all the above positions are filled, and replace the referee in cases where the referee is unable to complete the game. This used the duty of the primary lineman. He is also required to act as an independent timekeeper, which was previously the duty of the referee and ensure that players and staff not on the field of play, are acting within the laws of the game.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

What i am getting increasingly annoyed about with linesmen is the fact that they won't give a decision without seeing what the Ref has given first. They always take that sly look to the Ref to see whose throw-in it is or if it's a foul.

Also, why aren't more ex pro footballers encouraged into refereeing? There are many advantages to this.

Its funny when the lino looks over to the ref for a pointer and the ref stares back with a "how the f*** do I know ?" look on his face.