Refereeing question

[FrankMunro-371]

It may not meet with universal approval Frank, but I have to say it is absolutely fascinating to learn this stuff.
Whilst some people's initial reactions may be a little knee-jerk or emotional, it is possibly because we have assumptions about how we think refs are monitored/managed etc, and it seems some of our assumptions are wrong.

Referees nowadays are monitored far more than they ever were. From the day they qualify there is help available. New referees are allocated a mentor, who has different role to that of the observer/assessor. The mentor does not mark the referee, nor does he make critical comments. His role is purely to advise the referee.

In Leicestershire, 40% of new referees do not last beyond their first year. For some they realise it is just not for them, but the vast majority who pack in do so because of the abuse they receive. Since the advent of the mentor, we are holding onto more referees, as they know help is just one telephone call away.

Every year when we have courses for would be referees, I wonder if one of them could one day emulate Kevin Friend and referee in the Premier League. It takes years of hard work for a referee to reach football league level, and they are mentored and assessed all the way through, so those who reach the top are there on merit. So while we may see referees drop a few clangers, in general referees now are fitter and and better prepared than they were in the past. Sadly, we are all human, and mistakes will happen.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yeah, I would agree things have progressed. We all give refs stick, but we've come a long way since the days when Keith Hackett, Philip Don and Roger Milford were our top refs, they really were not very good at all. I like to think this thread is largely constructive, we want to know why refs are struggling to get certain things right rather than vilifying them.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Yeah, I would agree things have progressed. We all give refs stick, but we've come a long way since the days when Keith Hackett, Philip Don and Roger Milford were our top refs, they really were not very good at all. I like to think this thread is largely constructive, we want to know why refs are struggling to get certain things right rather than vilifying them.

I qualified as a ref in the 90s. I loved Reffing. What I would really have loved was the chance to look at TV replays. The fourth official shoulkd have access and be able to point out things that get missed. Grealish stamp , sent off game changer. Not just us better for all. They have so much that could assist them I am bemused why its not allowed

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You don't have that number of cameras at normal Championship games.

 

[Johnny75]

You don't have that number of cameras at normal Championship games.

That used to be the case but I'm not sure anymore, I think it's the same as the Prem used to be. Admittedly below that you'd be struggling with more than 1 camera.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

The referee in the Whitehawk v Stourbridge game might have dome explaining to do. Whitehawk thought they had scored a late winner, but the referee blew for full time as the player struck the ball.

 

[Langers]

The referee in the Whitehawk v Stourbridge game might have dome explaining to do. Whitehawk thought they had scored a late winner, but the referee blew for full time as the player struck the ball.

I'd promote him. Come on you Glassboys!

 

[Langers]

I've seen this incident now and I'd like your take on this, Frank?

Is this a case where a bit of common sense should prevail, even though within the laws of the game the ref hasn't actually made an error? Stourbridge can consider themselves VERY lucky to be in the hat for round 2.

Cracking volley too. I'd be gutted if I'd scored that only for it to be chalked off.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Same as Clive Thomas at the world cup for me. Time was up.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I've seen this incident now and I'd like your take on this, Frank?

Is this a case where a bit of common sense should prevail, even though within the laws of the game the ref hasn't actually made an error? Stourbridge can consider themselves VERY lucky to be in the hat for round 2.

Cracking volley too. I'd be gutted if I'd scored that only for it to be chalked off.

Common sense should prevail. Yes time was up, but i would never blow the final whistle just as a player was about to shoot. Allow the shot to be taken and them blow the whistle. You may have noticed that in a lot of games the referee blows up when the ball is in mid air following a goal kick. A far more sensible option.

 

[Langers]

Common sense should prevail. Yes time was up, but i would never blow the final whistle just as a player was about to shoot. Allow the shot to be taken and them blow the whistle. You may have noticed that in a lot of games the referee blows up when the ball is in mid air following a goal kick. A far more sensible option.

Thanks - interesting to hear. Do you think that ref will be reprimanded for that or is it just one of those things where he wasn't technically wrong so nothing would be said?

Not that I think he needs to be punished for it - just that it's such a grey area that I really don't know what the correct protocol should be!!

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

There was another one last season, Trevor Kettle disallowed an Accrington goal against Wimbledon by blowing for half time as a shot was struck. It's serious jobsworth territory IMO. Kettle is a terrible referee all round mind.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Thanks - interesting to hear. Do you think that ref will be reprimanded for that or is it just one of those things where he wasn't technically wrong so nothing would be said?

Not that I think he needs to be punished for it - just that it's such a grey area that I really don't know what the correct protocol should be!!

No he will not be reprimanded. I am certain the assessor would have mentioned it, and I presume the referee would simply say that time was up. And the referee is the sole arbiter of time keeping, so apart from advising the referee to show a little bit of common sense, nothing else can be done.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

To be fair to the ref, he allowed one shot that was blocked and then blew his whistle - I am fairly sure if the first shot had made it past the defenders the referee would have waited to see the outcome before blowing. Time was up and how many attempts are allowed after this time before the ref calls time?

Maybe football should adopt the rule used by Rugby, when the referee calls time the game is over next time the ball goes out of play.

 

[VanWolfie]

Common sense should prevail. Yes time was up, but i would never blow the final whistle just as a player was about to shoot. Allow the shot to be taken and them blow the whistle. You may have noticed that in a lot of games the referee blows up when the ball is in mid air following a goal kick. A far more sensible option.

I thought FIFA issued a clarification after Clive Thomas (mentioned by Paddy) disallowed Zico's last minute goal against Sweden in the 1978 World Cup. The clarification essentially reinforced the common sense argument you put forth, Frank, and, as I recall from that period, all referees were subsequently required to follow it. Does this mean that the clarification is no longer taught to new referees or was this a case of the referee in question in the Stourbridge game being the kind of strict stickler for a literal law interpretation that made Clive Thomas famous?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Yes it was clarified, but only as advise. Though common sense should prevail. A referee should never blow the final whistle when there is a possible goal scoring opportunity. And the only time an assessor can question the referees timekeeping is if he believes the full 90 minutes has not been played.

 

[lemonjelly]

Given some displays many oif us here have witnessed recently, I wonder what people's views are on CAF's suspending poor referees for 3 months:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38052482

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I have no problem with a referee being suspended if his/her performances are below an acceptable standard. But not for three months. There should be a set period for suspension, based on the reason for the poor performance. Player suspensions are based on the severity of the offence, the same should apply to match officials.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Frank, what did you make of the non-penalty in the Stoke vs Bournemouth game? I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it. The most obvious wipe out and nothing given.

 

[Lord Knows]

Who come the referee allows a team to wear the same colour as the security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QFvb5tazMk