The Red Card Effect

[darlowolf64]

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.

Lets get 10 referees armed with hankies...That'll improve decisions in "Soccer" :neer_neer: :happy: :icon_wink:

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

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

The issue is that for passes played over any length, you can't physically watch the ball being played AND check how the last defender/attacker are aligned. It's a matter of microseconds though.

Having four linesmen would make no difference to that. It isn't depth perception which causes that issue.

 

[Alan]

Lets get 10 referees armed with hankies...That'll improve decisions in "Soccer" :neer_neer: :happy: :icon_wink:

Careful, I have guns and apple pie and I'm not afraid to use them!

Okay, I don't have guns.

 

[Alan]

The issue is that for passes played over any length, you can't physically watch the ball being played AND check how the last defender/attacker are aligned. It's a matter of microseconds though.

Having four linesmen would make no difference to that. It isn't depth perception which causes that issue.

Maybe not, but just having more eyes on reduces the probability that everyone misses the call, no?

 

[Del Woppio]

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.

By rescinding the red card, the FA have confirmed that they believe that the referee's interpretation of events was incorrect. That stands for the actions by both players in question.

The FA do have the power, but they're choosing not to exercise it.

The standard of referees has declined in the last five years, it's impossible to put a coherent argument forward to contradict that.

I accept that the players' actions don't help, but the referees haven't adapted to the modern climate, which in the professional era is unforgivable.

Have referees ever studied body movements or simulation when compared to impact? Who knows, if you studied enough, trends may become apparent in body part movements at impact, flight or landing. Whilst diving is a cancer on our game, the referees are the ones buying the fags as opposed to giving it chemo. There's zero effort going in to seriously stopping it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Maybe not, but just having more eyes on reduces the probability that everyone misses the call, no?

What if one linesman says it's offside and the other says it isn't? Which one are you believing?

 

[Alan]

What if one linesman says it's offside and the other says it isn't? Which one are you believing?

In my world then it would go to video replay. Of course that's for a different discussion.

 

[Haggstone]

The standard of referees has declined in the last five years, it's impossible to put a coherent argument forward to contradict that.. .

Other than anecdotal evidence, Im yet to see a coherent argument that suggests the opposite is true either.

 

[slink]

In my world then it would go to video replay. Of course that's for a different discussion.

Doesn't work, when do you stop the game?

 

[Alan]

When the linesman flags, as is done now. If the call is shown by replay to be incorrect, the possessing team is given a free kick.

It's not perfect but I think it's better than just going on with the incorrect call.

 

[Wolf of Ashford]

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.

I do agree mainly with this, but I do also think there needs to be a far bigger emphasis on getting players to stop acting the twat all the time. The refs do take stick when they make mistakes but The job of the ref is very difficult. Made all the more difficult that they're constantly having judge if they're bring cheated or not.

 

[Wolf Hunting]

It's going to take something radical, which the FA has shown so many times that it's beyond them.

But if someone was watching the match live and there was a foul or he wasn't offside and the goal should stand, they should contact the ref through his earpiece to say, "Let that go, or You can award a goal, or the number 7 should be booked, or next time the ball goes dead, number 4 needs a 2nd yellow and the blue 9 needs a talking to about pulling shirts and wrestling in the goalmouth at corners".

They should also be able to take action retrospectively... they do now but only part way.
They could really take a big step forward to cleaning up the game right here, but lack the will, the conviction, the sense or the balls to do so.

If the ref thought Sako had struck Forestiere then what took place was right. But retrospectively, (and not for the 1st time) he didn't, so we reverse everything and do it right. The red card for Sako goes, Forestiere gets a yellow for raising his hands and another instant yellow for simulation, then he gets a red. They sort the ref out out behind the scenes. Maybe give him a Clarkson, but all guilty parties in the incident get to feel the wrath.

 

[Leigh Griffiths' Hairline]

Offsides aren't even an issue really, the vast majority of offside decisions are spot on. Linesmen are incredibly good with offside decisions. That's one bit of credit the officials do deserve.

 

[Alan]

A study was done examining offside decisions in 165 of the 380 matches played in 2007-2008 in the EPL (if I'm reading the paper correctly, anyway). The short version of the findings reads:

In the present study, we investigated the accuracy of offside judgements of assistant referees in the English Premier League. The moment in the match, the position and movement speed of the assistant referee, attacker and second-last defender, together with the angle of view for the assistant referee were all considered to underlie incorrect decisions. The error rate was 17.5% (868 of 4960 situations). As the English assistant referees tended not to signal in doubtful situations (c = 0.91), there was an overall bias towards non-flag errors (773 non-flag errors vs. 95 flag errors).

That means the refs were correct 82.5% of the time, for those of you rusty on your math(s). Obviously this will vary from year to year but it's probably a relatively indicative number.

 

[Law's Bus]

The standard of referees has declined in the last five years, it's impossible to put a coherent argument forward to contradict that.

I accept that the players' actions don't help, but the referees haven't adapted to the modern climate, which in the professional era is unforgivable.

I think the problem with poor refereeing has come alongside the drop in bookings for "dissent". I agree completely that too many referees are making snap decisions that turn out to be completely wrong, but also that sometimes they have an unconscious bias built in - we all saw in the Premier League just how many of the "big" teams surround refs and get in their faces in order to sway decisions.

The only way to sort it out is to take a leaf out of the Rugby book - only captains allowed to talk to referees, ignore that and you're in the book for dissent. If a player does it twice, they're off. Simple and can't be argued with - and will then buy the officials time to confer and actually make a sensible decision, as well as stopping all the "Ashley" and "Frank" nonsense we all saw referees spout in the Premier League.

Then, once we've bought them a bit of breathing space can we start weeding out poor officials.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I think the problem with poor refereeing has come alongside the drop in bookings for "dissent". I agree completely that too many referees are making snap decisions that turn out to be completely wrong, but also that sometimes they have an unconscious bias built in - we all saw in the Premier League just how many of the "big" teams surround refs and get in their faces in order to sway decisions.

The only way to sort it out is to take a leaf out of the Rugby book - only captains allowed to talk to referees, ignore that and you're in the book for dissent. If a player does it twice, they're off. Simple and can't be argued with - and will then buy the officials time to confer and actually make a sensible decision, as well as stopping all the "Ashley" and "Frank" nonsense we all saw referees spout in the Premier League.

Then, once we've bought them a bit of breathing space can we start weeding out poor officials.

The captains are the only ones who should be approaching officials to question decisions. Referees are told to use the captains to help keep players in order, and likewise the captains are allowed to ask a referee why he has given a decision. Referees have been instructed to take action against players surrounding them, but not enough do.

One interesting point is that of using first names. Many players call the referee by his first name, as do referees to players. The problem arises when the referee knows the players from one team but not the other. In this case no familiarity should be used. This applies at all levels of the game.

The referee association still maintains that the biggest problem is players cheating, in whichever form this takes place, whether it be a dive in the penalty area, or a defender kicking a ball away from goal when he knows full well it has crossed the line. Cut out the cheating, and it will make officials jobs much easier. And the game would improve as a result.

 

[Kenny]

The referee association still maintains that the biggest problem is players cheating, in whichever form this takes place, whether it be a dive in the penalty area, or a defender kicking a ball away from goal when he knows full well it has crossed the line. Cut out the cheating, and it will make officials jobs much easier. And the game would improve as a result.

So shouldn't the Ref Association put pressure on the FA to bring in a rule where players who are clearly caught on camera cheating are punished, just like those caught punching/spitting/elbowing etc.

It is quite clear that Players will continue to cheat when they know if the ref falls for it or misses it they go unpunished. Never going to expect the ref to pick up on every cheating moment, it would be impossible but there has to be something in place where those doing it are punished. In reality, Watford should be without their player for 3 games after his actions this week.

 

[Del Woppio]

Who's going to cut out cheating if not the game's governing body? The risk(maybe a yellow card, only if you're caught straight away) vs reward (game changing opportunities) is disproportionate, so only the fa can change that. The FA aren't serious about cutting out cheating, otherwise they'd offer proper punishment, and action after the game. And don't tell me that they can't. They 'couldn't' take action over Ben Thatcher (?) for his elbow a few years ago, but they eventually caved to public pressure. Until they force change with commensurate punishment, players will keep diving.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

By rescinding the red card, the FA have confirmed that they believe that the referee's interpretation of events was incorrect. That stands for the actions by both players in question.

The FA do have the power, but they're choosing not to exercise it.

The standard of referees has declined in the last five years, it's impossible to put a coherent argument forward to contradict that.

I accept that the players' actions don't help, but the referees haven't adapted to the modern climate, which in the professional era is unforgivable.

Have referees ever studied body movements or simulation when compared to impact? Who knows, if you studied enough, trends may become apparent in body part movements at impact, flight or landing. Whilst diving is a cancer on our game, the referees are the ones buying the fags as opposed to giving it chemo. There's zero effort going in to seriously stopping it.

By rescinding the red card the FA have said that Sako was not guilty of violent conduct. The reaction of the other player does not come into it. Had Sako pushed him, then the red card would have stood irrespective of the Watford players disgraceful reaction.

Please tell me what powers the FA have to take action against the Watford player. The referee confirmed he saw the incident, which I have my doubts about, but having dealt with the incident, the FA do not have the power to take retrospective action. If they tried to, an appeal would be made to FIFA, which would be won. The FA cannot act contrary to the rules of FIFA, of which the English FA is affiliated to.

Please put forward a coherent argument as to why standards have declined.

What do you mean by the modern climate? If you mean an era of blatant cheating by players, then yes referees have not adapted to that. But how can they? The clubs are the ones who should be stopping their players from cheating, but with the amount of money at stake, this will not happen.

Referee seminars now include a section on simulation, but the simple fact is that in the pressure of the game, referees have to make instant decisions, and do on occasions get it wrong. The game today is very quick, and these incidents can happen in a flash, and the referee cannot stop the game to have a look at a video replay, he must make his decision there and then. You say there is zero effort going into stopping diving, but there is, but it is so difficult, and until the clubs come on board to stop this blatant cheating, then it is difficult to see things changing in the short term.

 

[From Distant Shores]

On first thought, it always amazes me that in both Rugby codes, the players show so much greater respect to the referee than in football. Then on second thought it is so obvious, in Rugby the ruling bodies have been prepared to give the referees the ability to deal with disrespectful players though amending the laws of the game e.g. a penalty being moved 10 metres closer to the opponents try line if a player (other than the captain) questions the referees decision.

The FA gives lip service to supporting the referees but doesn't do anything to engender respect for them from players or (especially big, rich) clubs.