Refereeing question

[FrankMunro-371]

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.

The lowest I have ever marked a referee is 62, and dear me did that create a right old storm. To mark a referee that low more or less guarantees he will not gain promotion that season irrespective of his performance in other games.

If an assessor marked only 20/100, then the assessment would be rejected and sent straight back. And the assessor himself would come under scrutiny.

 

[Kenny]

If an assessor marked only 20/100, then the assessment would be rejected and sent straight back. And the assessor himself would come under scrutiny.

Surely that is wrong though. A system that thinks the score is so low the assessor is the one in the wrong!! That is basically telling the assessor not to mark down a ref too much

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'd look on it as he has an argument for saying both the pens he gave were right (we get away with Dom's challenge another day but you can see why it was given). What else did he get right? He got advantage wrong for both teams on multiple occasions, his use of cards was inconsistent, the three obvious mistakes he made regarding Villa players, didn't control the players in the Coady/Grealish incident (and booked McCormack for nothing). I can't find any rationale for giving him more than 2/10 which extrapolates up to 20/100. Unless we're handing out points for turning up on time and wearing the right kit.

Worst I've seen since Mike Jones vs Bournemouth.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Surely that is wrong though. A system that thinks the score is so low the assessor is the one in the wrong!! That is basically telling the assessor not to mark down a ref too much

The guide which assessors have to abide by make it very difficult to mark a referee below 65. He starts of with 20 points for turning up, and having his kit with him.

 

[Kenny]

The guide which assessors have to abide by make it very difficult to mark a referee below 65. He starts of with 20 points for turning up, and having his kit with him.

Please tell me you are taking the piss!! 20% of the marks available for going to work and wearing the correct clothes. Do the refs have an IQ less than 20 and the 20 points is to make them feel special?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I'd look on it as he has an argument for saying both the pens he gave were right (we get away with Dom's challenge another day but you can see why it was given). What else did he get right? He got advantage wrong for both teams on multiple occasions, his use of cards was inconsistent, the three obvious mistakes he made regarding Villa players, didn't control the players in the Coady/Grealish incident (and booked McCormack for nothing). I can't find any rationale for giving him more than 2/10 which extrapolates up to 20/100. Unless we're handing out points for turning up on time and wearing the right kit.

Worst I've seen since Mike Jones vs Bournemouth.

Personally I thought he did ok in the first half. Sadly he lost his way in the second half. And I agree about his lack of consistency, something which the assessor would probably have mentioned. And I mentioned his failure to apply the advantage clause. At that level of football, players and coaches expect the referee to be aware when there is an advantage to be played.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Please tell me you are taking the piss!! 20% of the marks available for going to work and wearing the correct clothes. Do the refs have an IQ less than 20 and the 20 points is to make them feel special?

I kid you not Sir.

 

[Kenny]

And I mentioned his failure to apply the advantage clause. At that level of football, players and coaches expect the referee to be aware when there is an advantage to be played.

He did apologise for one of them....clearly thought having Doherty on the ball was no advantage.

 

[Kenny]

I kid you not Sir.

That is brilliant and wrong in equal measures.

What are the other 80 marks made up from. Is it like 10 marks for positioning, 10 for handling etc?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I kid you not Sir.

I only mentioned that in jest! You must have told me before and I've remembered it subliminally.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

He did apologise for one of them....clearly thought having Doherty on the ball was no advantage.

Doc is becoming king of the unintended great pass. Assist for Saville on the opening day and pass to Helder for the pen on Saturday.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

That is brilliant and wrong in equal measures.

What are the other 80 marks made up from. Is it like 10 marks for positioning, 10 for handling etc?

There are several factors taken into consideration. Match control and application of law are the most important. Other things such as appearance, use of advantage clause, and teamwork are also included. A referee who is marked down on application of law has got serious issues that need addressing.

 

[Kenny]

There are several factors taken into consideration. Match control and application of law are the most important. Other things such as appearance, use of advantage clause, and teamwork are also included. A referee who is marked down on application of law has got serious issues that need addressing.

but as long as they remembered to wear the correct shorts, all is good...

Maybe they should remove the points for not being an utter simpleton and simply mark that part as either - YAY well done you got here and your kit is good...now get out there and do your job or 2) You arrived late and you seemed to have packed your wifes knickers instead of your shorts...Piss off and find a new job, I hear KFC are hiring.

 

[PuntsWolf]

He must have knew the right decision was to send off Chester and give a penalty. It's impossible not too!

So it must come down to the fact that he bottled it or is biased. Whichever one of those it is, he shouldn't be a referee in professional football. He either doesn't have the mental strength or professionalism

 

[Johnny75]

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.

However the ones that are clear cut should be questioned as they are fact. That is not opinion.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Actually arriving in good time is important. All premier League and Football League clubs must report any match officials that are not at the ground 90 minutes before kick off.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

However the ones that are clear cut should be questioned as they are fact. That is not opinion.

Sorry but I must disagree. Opinion is not fact. Though like you I thought some bad decisions were made at Villa Park.

 

[Kenny]

Actually arriving in good time is important. All premier League and Football League clubs must report any match officials that are not at the ground 90 minutes before kick off.

still shouldn't be a mark on their performance in the game though. "He positioning was poor and lost control of the game but he was here at 1pm" means nothing. Might as well give them an extra 20 points if they make a Cuppa and bring some decent biscuits for the pre-match meeting with his team.

 

[Johnny75]

Sorry but I must disagree. Opinion is not fact. Though like you I thought some bad decisions were made at Villa Park.

I agree opinion isn't fact. The barge in the back is a foul, Chester kicking Helder Costa and Grealish stamping on Coady are all facts not opinion.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Turning up on time or not should merely be a warning on the first occasion & a reduction to the ranks for a second - should have no bearing on how he/(She - as we shouldn't be mysoginistic) referees the actual match which is what they are there for.

Shouldn't have much bearing on their overall score