Refereeing question

[VanWolfie]

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.

Frank,
Your position on this is very correct but, as a former assessor (and therefore no longer current), I would have thought your first statement provides the opening for a conversation. "If a referee makes a decision that is wrong in law, then that decision can and will be challenged." If the assessor believes that this was an error in interpretation of the law, then they can have a conversation about how the referee came to the interpretation that constitutes his "opinion." It could always materialize in that conversation that the referee in question is not entirely confident in his interpretation of a particular law, e.g., the foul on Bod in the penalty area. That is when an assessor could point out error, although whether or not that should be included in the report is a matter of "opinion." And, of course, that means that the public and the fans never find out.

Am I wrong?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Frank,
Your position on this is very correct but, as a former assessor (and therefore no longer current), I would have thought your first statement provides the opening for a conversation. "If a referee makes a decision that is wrong in law, then that decision can and will be challenged." If the assessor believes that this was an error in interpretation of the law, then they can have a conversation about how the referee came to the interpretation that constitutes his "opinion." It could always materialize in that conversation that the referee in question is not entirely confident in his interpretation of a particular law, e.g., the foul on Bod in the penalty area. That is when an assessor could point out error, although whether or not that should be included in the report is a matter of "opinion." And, of course, that means that the public and the fans never find out.

Am I wrong?

No Sir you are not wrong, but it is a difficult situation. There is one way of helping the referee by pointing out his mistake. At the de-brief, go through a few points, both development and positive, and then say to the referee that he missed what looked like a penalty. I would then ask him how he saw it, and then based on his answer I could point out that better positioning or increased levels of fitness would have meant that he would have had a better view of the incident.

When I did the assessment, under positioning, I would highlight it as a development point, and remark that it is vital to be in the correct position in order to get the big decisions right. I would then mark him down on his positioning, and when he received the assessment he would know that he had been marked down because he missed a clear penalty. And it would have been done without mentioning the penalty in the assessment report.

 

[Lord Knows]

Is there a case as with Cricket of both sides having the right of review through the fourth official once each during a game?

 

[MARKakaJIM]

No Sir you are not wrong, but it is a difficult situation. There is one way of helping the referee by pointing out his mistake. At the de-brief, go through a few points, both development and positive, and then say to the referee that he missed what looked like a penalty. I would then ask him how he saw it, and then based on his answer I could point out that better positioning or increased levels of fitness would have meant that he would have had a better view of the incident.

When I did the assessment, under positioning, I would highlight it as a development point, and remark that it is vital to be in the correct position in order to get the big decisions right. I would then mark him down on his positioning, and when he received the assessment he would know that he had been marked down because he missed a clear penalty. And it would have been done without mentioning the penalty in the assessment report.

That wouldn't work in the case of the referee from Saturday though would it, as you've already said his positioning was fine and gave him a perfect view for the contentious decisions, or non-decisions as it were. Why is it seen as so taboo for a referee to have their decisions questioned in an assessment? Obviously there are going to be mistakes as there can be in any situation but what's so wrong about confronting those mistakes and asking the individual responsible for a brief explanation of their rationale?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Is there a case as with Cricket of both sides having the right of review through the fourth official once each during a game?

Not that I am aware of.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

That wouldn't work in the case of the referee from Saturday though would it, as you've already said his positioning was fine and gave him a perfect view for the contentious decisions, or non-decisions as it were. Why is it seen as so taboo for a referee to have their decisions questioned in an assessment? Obviously there are going to be mistakes as there can be in any situation but what's so wrong about confronting those mistakes and asking the individual responsible for a brief explanation of their rationale?

Assessors mark the referee on his control of the game, application of laws, positions, fitness and teamwork with the other officials. We cannot mark them based on an opinion. You, me and Kenny could all go to a game together, see an incident and have different opinions. And decisions such as penalty kicks are given in the opinion of the referee. And while we may disagree with his opinion, that is the one that matters. If however a referee fails for example to apply the laws of the game correctly, then that is something we can address.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Assessors mark the referee on his control of the game, application of laws, positions, fitness and teamwork with the other officials. We cannot mark them based on an opinion. You, me and Kenny could all go to a game together, see an incident and have different opinions. And decisions such as penalty kicks are given in the opinion of the referee. And while we may disagree with his opinion, that is the one that matters. If however a referee fails for example to apply the laws of the game correctly, then that is something we can address.

How can anyone justify their opinion that Chester didn't trip Costa on Saturday? There's no nuance to that incident, he tripped him blatantly and should've received a second yellow for doing so.

You seriously don't think an oversight such or that is worthy of questioning, regardless of the current assessment criteria?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

How can anyone justify their opinion that Chester didn't trip Costa on Saturday? There's no nuance to that incident, he tripped him blatantly and should've received a second yellow for doing so.

You seriously don't think an oversight such or that is worthy of questioning, regardless of the current assessment criteria?

Yes it is worth questioning, as I said in my reply to van Wolfie. But we cannot question his opinion on an assessment report.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Yes it is worth questioning, as I said in my reply to van Wolfie. But we cannot question his opinion on an assessment report.

So you think the system should change?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

So you think the system should change?

There is always room for improvement, and we are constantly trying to improve the function of the assessment. But I believe that it is correct that we cannot question a referees opinion on the official assessment report.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

There is always room for improvement, and we are constantly trying to improve the function of the assessment. But I believe that it is correct that we cannot question a referees opinion on the official assessment report.

So where is the facility to highlight and question mistakes such as those seen on Saturday if not in the assessment?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

See, I can see where you could class the Chester handball as 'opinion'. But not the rest. It isn't opinion, there's no way he can hide behind that unless his opinion is 'I believe that clear foul isn't a foul', in which case he has no business being involved in football.

 

[Johnny75]

See, I can see where you could class the Chester handball as 'opinion'. But not the rest. It isn't opinion, there's no way he can hide behind that unless his opinion is 'I believe that clear foul isn't a foul', in which case he has no business being involved in football.

Indeed, he just hasn't got the laws of the game correct. A foul is a foul no matter what your opinion is. This is why there should be challenges and video decisions like rugby. It's just too big for one person to get right. It's not a 'talking point' or 'part of the game'. You're either going to be professional or not, it's all so half-arsed at the moment.

 

[Boozad]

The non decisions were absolutely awful, I don't think he was of the opinion that what were three clear fouls weren't fouls, I think he was just of the opinion that he wasn't going to acknowledge them no matter what. Nobody who knows anything about football would not have failed to penalise Chester, Grealish or Richards, the incidents were that obvious and clear cut.

Deciding they were punishable offences was off the table, that leaves him deciding to ignore them.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

So where is the facility to highlight and question mistakes such as those seen on Saturday if not in the assessment?

The facility is there within the assessment. And if a referee is marked less than 70/100 by the assessor then the assessor has to explain why. The system may not be perfect, but it is gradually improving. Referees are now accountable for their performances.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I like to think I can judge a referee objectively even if it's my team playing, I wouldn't give him 20/100 for that display let alone 70/100.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

See, I can see where you could class the Chester handball as 'opinion'. But not the rest. It isn't opinion, there's no way he can hide behind that unless his opinion is 'I believe that clear foul isn't a foul', in which case he has no business being involved in football.

The Chester handball was debatable, and while I have seen them given, I can understand why it wasn't. And yes an obvious foul is exactly that, but if the referee says to me that he saw it but didn't think it was a foul then what can I or any other assessor do?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Indeed, he just hasn't got the laws of the game correct. A foul is a foul no matter what your opinion is. This is why there should be challenges and video decisions like rugby. It's just too big for one person to get right. It's not a 'talking point' or 'part of the game'. You're either going to be professional or not, it's all so half-arsed at the moment.

There are plenty of tackles in any game where there may or may not be fouls committed. I do not think that every foul is a clear cut decision.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

The non decisions were absolutely awful, I don't think he was of the opinion that what were three clear fouls weren't fouls, I think he was just of the opinion that he wasn't going to acknowledge them no matter what. Nobody who knows anything about football would not have failed to penalise Chester, Grealish or Richards, the incidents were that obvious and clear cut.

Deciding they were punishable offences was off the table, that leaves him deciding to ignore them.

Chester and Grealish should have been sent off, and on those two incidents the assessor should be questioning the referee.

 

[Kenny]

All this debate and the ref in the game yesterday was one of the better ones I have seen this season in our games....