The Red Card Effect

[FrankMunro-371]

I do not accept that referee standards have fallen. It is amazing how every little mistake by a referee is big news, yet how often are players subjected to such abuse for the mistakes they make.

 

[Tredman]

The FA cannot take retrospective action against the Watford player. The referee acknowledged that he saw the incident and sent off Sako for violent conduct. We all know that was wrong, but the FA do not have the power to take any further action on an incident that the referee has already dealt with.

But he couldn't have seen sako hit him, so the referee lied? But still gets no punishment?

Amateur hour again from a boys club keeping their noses in the trough.

 

[Alan]

We're not too harsh at all. We accept they make mistakes, no-one expects perfection. We do not expect them to be guessing on big decisions (this prat on Saturday) or getting their own version of the red mist and making split second decisions when they have ages to think about it (Jones vs Bournemouth), and we do expect them to have an understanding of the game (very few of them seem to have this).

Oliver got praise last night and rightly so. He stood out precisely because referees generally have fallen to a woeful standard. There is no excuse for it either - they have got worse with increasing professionalism and the lack of accountability is a stain on the game.

Then I'll ask a question that has baffled me since I started watching the sport: why in the world are there only three referees on the pitch?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

One. Linesmen aren't on the pitch.

And it has been that way since 1870 dot when the rules were first done.

 

[machin05]

Surely the rescinded red implies that FF dived. How can it make any sense for that particular of the incident not to be retrospectively dealt with too?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

But he couldn't have seen sako hit him, so the referee lied? But still gets no punishment?

Amateur hour again from a boys club keeping their noses in the trough.

Only the referee knows if he was telling the truth, but it could be from his angle he thought that Sako raised his arms. He was wrong and should have admitted it.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

But he couldn't have seen sako hit him, so the referee lied? But still gets no punishment?

Amateur hour again from a boys club keeping their noses in the trough.

Only the referee knows if he was telling the truth, but it could be from his angle he thought that Sako raised his arms. He was wrong and should have admitted it.

 

[Alan]

One. Linesmen aren't on the pitch.

And it has been that way since 1870 dot when the rules were first done.

Semantics.

My question still stands. Three isn't enough to cover the whole field of action.

 

[Kenny]

how often are players subjected to such abuse for the mistakes they make.

Visit Molineux, they get abuse every 30 seconds...

 

[lemonjelly]

Pretty much agree with this. I think we're much too harsh on the refs, generally. There's only so much they can do.

Having seen too many poor performances this season, I cannot agree with this. Previously I may have agreed, but this season I have said too many times "surely this ref cannot be as bad as the last one".
If standards haven't fallen, then refs must have been poor for a while. It has become the norm for a ref to be poor, hence Olivers praise last night.

Getting too many basic, game changing decisions wrong regularly is just not on.

 

[Alan]

Having seen too many poor performances this season, I cannot agree with this. Previously I may have agreed, but this season I have said too many times "surely this ref cannot be as bad as the last one".
If standards haven't fallen, then refs must have been poor for a while. It has become the norm for a ref to be poor, hence Olivers praise last night.

Getting too many basic, game changing decisions wrong regularly is just not on.

I'll concede as my perspective is obviously different (only really hearing about big calls and not seeing all the little ones along the way).

Still think the three ref system is bogus, though.

 

[lemonjelly]

Semantics.

My question still stands. Three isn't enough to cover the whole field of action.

If they are fit, it is. Rugby for example. It can be done, it just isn't currently.

 

[lemonjelly]

I'll concede as my perspective is obviously different (only really hearing about big calls and not seeing all the little ones along the way).

Still think the three ref system is bogus, though.

Why? American football aside, most sports have 1 ref/umpire don't they?

 

[Alan]

If they are fit, it is. Rugby for example. It can be done, it just isn't currently.

I don't buy that for a second. I really don't, and I'm not sure there's any way to prove that it is enough.

 

[Alan]

Why? American football aside, most sports have 1 ref/umpire don't they?

Up to 6 in baseball, 3 in basketball, 7 in Am. football.

 

[Johnny75]

I do not accept that referee standards have fallen. It is amazing how every little mistake by a referee is big news, yet how often are players subjected to such abuse for the mistakes they make.

This is part of the problem, assessors and referees think they're doing OK or getting better then the stark reality is the general standard is getting worse.

I'd advocate quite a few rule changes to help referees and I do think technology would help, that it is the FA that are hindering the makes no sense but then the FA is an archaic body in itself.

Alan, I kind of agree with you, 2 referees on the field would be good, one to observe and one to give decisions. However, I've come across ref's who say they are the law and the assistants do not give anything but offside. Until that is remedied then no matter how many officials are present, the ego of the man is the one factor nobody can control.

 

[Alan]

I just think the pitch is too big for three refs to properly survey all the goings-on. It's exacerbated by the abundance of cameras around that catch everything that the refs don't (and then some).

The assistant refs only being on one side of the pitch especially puzzles me because doesn't that inherently make offside calls further away from the assistant more difficult to make?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Not really as you're looking at a flat line (or should be, anyway). If you're looking at two cars racing each other then you should be able to tell, from a side on view, which one is front of the other be they one yard away from you or 100 yards away.

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

The FA cannot take retrospective action against the Watford player. The referee acknowledged that he saw the incident and sent off Sako for violent conduct. We all know that was wrong, but the FA do not have the power to take any further action on an incident that the referee has already dealt with.

I understand the rule but I actually believe this is the FA hiding

The FA are bring the game into disrepute by NOT addressing the cheating that goes on

Time to change the rule and take action for the good of the game

 

[Alan]

Not really as you're looking at a flat line (or should be, anyway). If you're looking at two cars racing each other then you should be able to tell, from a side on view, which one is front of the other be they one yard away from you or 100 yards away.

I dunno, after the British Medical Journal concluded that the human eye is literally incapable of properly determining offside (not all the time, obviously).

Really just thinking out loud at this point, as I don't have a huge problem with things as they are, in truth.