Refereeing question

[PuntsWolf]

That's fine Darlo. And on this occasion I cannot be accused of defending the referee....

Is there anyway you can get access or knowledge of what is said or what score he gets in his assessment?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Is there anyway you can get access or knowledge of what is said or what score he gets in his assessment?

I doubt it. I used to have a contact on the F.A. National assessors panel, but he has moved on. I will give it a try though.

Assessors are now called observers for some reason, but they still fulfil the same function. The assessment will not contain any mention of the penalties given or not given, as such decisions are made in the opinion of the referee. Though I dare say that mention will be made of consistency with decisions, use of the advantage clause, and more importantly whether the referee was in control of the game. Further mention may be made regarding the mass confrontation. The referee did the correct thing is speaking to his assistant on that side, but I would be asking why Grealish was not sent off.

 

[BillyDee]

The assessment will not contain any mention of the penalties given or not given, as such decisions are made in the opinion of the referee.

This, to me, seems very strange. Surely the 'observer' could state whether his 'opinion' was the same as that of the match referee's? And any variance used as basis for scoring?
It's not often that print reports at this level bother mentioning refereeing performance, given their brevity, but every one I have seen brings it up.

As always Frank, thank you for your inside insight on such matters.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

This, to me, seems very strange. Surely the 'observer' could state whether his 'opinion' was the same as that of the match referee's? And any variance used as basis for scoring?
It's not often that print reports at this level bother mentioning refereeing performance, given their brevity, but every one I have seen brings it up.

As always Frank, thank you for your inside insight on such matters.

Thank you. Assessors/observers are there to monitor the referee on several aspects of his game, but not on the award of free kicks. That is down to personal opinion, and while I think we all agree that Wolves had a stonewall penalty appeal turned down, the referee thought otherwise, and the assessor cannot criticise him for not giving the penalty.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Cannot see the point of having an assessor/observer there unless he can comment on all aspects of the Referees performance - why take certain aspect out of the equation?

Any inspection/overview should be allowed to include all areas

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Cannot see the point of having an assessor/observer there unless he can comment on all aspects of the Referees performance - why take certain aspect out of the equation?

Any inspection/overview should be allowed to include all areas

If I assessed a referee and criticised him for not giving a penalty, the referee would report it, and that section of the assessment would be removed. Assessors are there to monitor and assist the referee, but not to criticise him for his opinion.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That's bizarre. So if the referee drops an absolute rickett and the world and his mother know so, including the assessor, the assessor isn't allowed to make comment?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

There's a point where making a decision or not isn't opinion though, it's fact.

 

[Johnny75]

So the referee yesterday can just say it's his opinion and then it isn't discussed or action taken?

If so that system is broken and irrelevant. The PGMOL is a mess and referees should be accountable at every point, mistakes or not. If I employed them most of them would be sacked for sheer incompetence and unwillingness to accept responsibility.

 

[Johnny75]

There's a point where making a decision or not isn't opinion though, it's fact.

I think under the current regime, if the referee says he saw Grealish stamp on Coady but the assessor says he should've been sent off then the ref's word is taken and nothing will be done despite the fact he is clearly wrong. That can't be right can it?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I think under the current regime, if the referee says he saw Grealish stamp on Coady but the assessor says he should've been sent off then the ref's word is taken and nothing will be done despite the fact he is clearly wrong. That can't be right can it?

It isn't right, I'm thinking more of the non pen on Bod. You can't have an opinion that that isn't a foul, it just is a foul.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

But the assessor isn't allowed to point out that the referee being assessed made a decision so utterly and completely wrong that their abilities or eyesight should be questioned. Meaning that referee is free to go ahead and make the same mistake the next week.

How odd.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

If a referee makes a decision that is wrong in law, then that decision can and will be challenged. But although I think Wolves were denied an obvious penalty, the referee thought otherwise. So how can we question him on that. I would certainly challenge him yesterday for poor use of the advantage clause, and failing to maintain control of the game. And I would ask him to explain why Chester and Grealish were not sent off. That was where he let himself down rather badly.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

His explanation for the Chester incident will be the same for the Bod pen that we apparently aren't allowed to question, he didn't think it was a foul. But how can you think either weren't fouls? Especially when he had a clear unimpeded view of both. 'Opinion' isn't a defence there.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

My point is this Frank - and please don't think I am being excessive against referees as that is not my intention.

If a referee makes an opinion decision that is so clearly factually wrong that his opinion should actually be discounted as incorrect then he is allowed off because his opinion cannot be challenged by the PGMOL?

Well that is just odd.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

The laws of the game state that decisions are given in the opinion of the referee. Personally I thought he got key decisions wrong in the second half, particularly the incident involving Grealish. But I do not doubt his integrity, though you are correct that he was in an excellent position to have given the correct decisions. Only the referee knows why he did not do so. And right or wrong, the referee cannot be questioned on his opinion. For example I thought Southamptons penalty today was very soft, the referee thought otherwise, so that is that.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

My point is this Frank - and please don't think I am being excessive against referees as that is not my intention.

If a referee makes an opinion decision that is so clearly factually wrong that his opinion should actually be discounted as incorrect then he is allowed off because his opinion cannot be challenged by the PGMOL?

Well that is just odd.

Fair comment Paddy. But say you and I went to watch a game together, we could see an incident and both have differing opinions on it. The referee is there to adjudicate, and as such he gives decisions based on what he sees. An assessor can question a referees interpretation of the laws, his positions, his movement, his control of the game and his management of players, but we cannot question him on his opinion.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Why can't he be questioned on his opinion when his opinion is quite simply, blatantly, obviously, wrong?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

If I were sat in the passenger seat of Paddy's car, we passed a speed limit sign saying 30mph which I clearly saw, I glanced over to the speedo that I could clearly see and it said 60mph, I couldn't have the 'opinion' that he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Not possible.

Those non decisions yesterday are on that level. He knows the law, he saw the incidents, there is no nuance.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

It isn't right, I'm thinking more of the non pen on Bod. You can't have an opinion that that isn't a foul, it just is a foul.

if it happened in the street it would be an assault. Kicked in the legs from behind