Davies In Trouble

[Dodgywheel]

For me after every game get the Ref out in front of the camera, and ask his rational on a couple of key decisions, show him the replay of said incidents and ask him if he would still make the wrong decision or point out to the world why he thinks he made the right one. We all know what a difficult job reffing can be with the pace of games, speed at which incidents happen, so just a sorry i fooked up but this is what i saw or the view i had i wasn't 100% so never gave it,would ease some tensions with fans on most occasions.

[cbwfcd]

For me after every game get the Ref out in front of the camera, and ask his rational on a couple of key decisions, show him the replay of said incidents and ask him if he would still make the wrong decision or point out to the world why he thinks he made the right one. We all know what a difficult job reffing can be with the pace of games, speed at which incidents happen, so just a sorry i fooked up but this is what i saw or the view i had i wasn't 100% so never gave it,would ease some tensions with fans on most occasions.

That has been mentioned a few times and I think its a really bad idea. Firstly they will be asked questions like 'how does it feel knowing your decision might have cost chelsea the title' and 'did wayne bridge say anything about JT', the kind of questions a referee shouldn't be asked. Secondly, and more importantly, the ref will go into the game, knowing they will get a grilling afterwards, this makes it more likely that the decisions will go for the big clubs and we will get nothing, because mistakes against the big sides are more likely to be questioned rather than a "Davies was rugby tackled to the ground and not given a penalty" mistake.

 

Whilst I understand that they have a difficult job blah blah blah. They also have it very easy, they don't seem accountable for their mistakes. I know they have accessors at the game, but what good comes from that? Maybe it is time for a three referee system? Or maybe we should just get on with it and make sure we make enough chances to win the game without having to rely on the referee making the correct call on our lone goal scoring opportunity.

Edited February 12, 2010 by cbwfcd

[passmosster]

They also have it very easy, they don't seem accountable for their mistakes. I know they have accessors at the game, but what good comes from that?

 

The FA is completely incompetent in this and several other regards. As it has been for a long time. If there was an independent assessor at the Barry Knight Ipswich game, how the hell did he keep on refereeing for so long?

 

The standard of refereeing is poor compared to other games like Rugby, Ice Hockey, and perhaps cricket. BWFC seem to have got the rough end of the stick for a long time.

 

It is one of the few games where ex players are not top officials and you can tell. Video replaying works well in other sports. And they have tolerated rounding on the referee on the pitch as perfected by Roy Keane and United for far too long.

 

The people overseeing it like Hackett and Riley have been part of the same process, so do we expect them to reform a system of which they were a part?

 

They have a Stalinist attitude to any criticism. Let's face SKD's mild comments were totally justified.

[tarian1979]

I hope that whinging scouse prick Gerard is getting done for slagging Howard Webb off for not giving them a penalty t'other neet, sorry Stevie - a ref missing a clear handball, never, welcome to the club, wanker

 

 

Theres not many people on the planet i cant stand more than Gerrard.

 

Please let them miss top 4

[MickyD]

so just a sorry i fooked up but this is what i saw or the view i had i wasn't 100% so never gave it,would ease some tensions with fans on most occasions.

 

I don't have a problem, as I've already stated, when refs don't see something and therefore don't give a decision you'd expect. That's part and parcel of the game. In this particular instance, however, Clatenberg claims to have seen something which didn't happen. He has viewed the incident and has hoped for there to be something wrong. That's cheating in anyone's book. Not a single pundit across the TV world has agreed with the decision! That speaks volumes.

[Rembrandt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/bolton_wanderers/8511395.stm

 

Coyle's words pretty much sum up my feelings with the issue, however I wouldn''t be suprised if he got a fine and a one match ban because after all we are "little bolton". The FA's justification will be that Davies is top of the most fouls committed by any player in the league. To many Referee's seem to go into matches with the intent to penalise Davies because of his track record, it has happened for years now so we may aswell get used to it.

 

It might be worth someone checking how many bookings Davies got in how many UEFA Cup games ...... you know, the games with continental refs who (allegedly) hate all body contact.

Personally I'd swap the Prem refs for decent continental refs any day.

[mickbrown]

I'm sure since they became full time they've got worse.

[Guest Biff]

I'm sure since they became full time they've got worse.

 

Referees are the same as they have always been competencywise. The difference is that there are now television cameras in every ground and every decision is minutely analysed. The vast majority of refereeing decisions are proved to be correct on shows such as MOTD. There is no point in hauling referees before the camera to explain their decisions. We don't expect players to have to explain their mistakes like why did you not mark so and so which led to the winning goal.

[cbwfcd]

Referees are the same as they have always been competencywise. The difference is that there are now television cameras in every ground and every decision is minutely analysed. The vast majority of refereeing decisions are proved to be correct on shows such as MOTD. There is no point in hauling referees before the camera to explain their decisions. We don't expect players to have to explain their mistakes like why did you not mark so and so which led to the winning goal.

I agree, but there is a difference between a player not doing something correctly and a referee not seeing something correctly. Different kind of mistake.

[Happy Wanderer]

The words here are 'pre-meditated' and pre-judged' as the thoughts and actions of certain referee's.

 

Referee?s should be impartial to the game but are looking more and more to be siding to certain teams than others and in this instance, players.

[Guest Biff]

I agree, but there is a difference between a player not doing something correctly and a referee not seeing something correctly. Different kind of mistake.

 

Not at all. They are all human.

[passmosster]

Referees are the same as they have always been competencywise.

 

For control of the players, I think the standard has gone down.

 

A Ken Dagnall or a Bob Matthewson (incidentally an ex pro) were miles better at it.

 

And how many yards would Mr. Fussey beat Alan Wiley by in a 50 yards sprint?

[RayVon]

It might be worth someone checking how many bookings Davies got in how many UEFA Cup games ...... you know, the games with continental refs who (allegedly) hate all body contact.

Personally I'd swap the Prem refs for decent continental refs any day.

 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/stats?id=7838&cc=5739

 

2 Yellows in 10 games!!

[bolton va va]

They also have it very easy, they don't seem accountable for their mistakes. I know they have accessors at the game, but what good comes from that?

 

The FA is completely incompetent in this and several other regards. As it has been for a long time. If there was an independent assessor at the Barry Knight Ipswich game, how the hell did he keep on refereeing for so long?

 

The standard of refereeing is poor compared to other games like Rugby, Ice Hockey, and perhaps cricket. BWFC seem to have got the rough end of the stick for a long time.

 

It is one of the few games where ex players are not top officials and you can tell. Video replaying works well in other sports. And they have tolerated rounding on the referee on the pitch as perfected by Roy Keane and United for far too long.

 

The people overseeing it like Hackett and Riley have been part of the same process, so do we expect them to reform a system of which they were a part?

 

They have a Stalinist attitude to any criticism. Let's face SKD's mild comments were totally justified.

In other sports ,referees/umpires are not subjected to anything like the same ammount of cheating. Footballers dive,feign injury,constantly appeal for nothing,try to intimidate referees by crowding them ,etc etc etc ,all with the unspoken support of managers who will then abuse the referee for a mistake.

 

Until managers condemn their own cheating players,they can't comment on referees' mistakes.

 

(none of this applies to the Barry Knight match- i'm convinced that game was fixed)

[DeaneWhite]

In other sports ,referees/umpires are not subjected to anything like the same ammount of cheating. Footballers dive,feign injury,constantly appeal for nothing,try to intimidate referees by crowding them ,etc etc etc ,all with the unspoken support of managers who will then abuse the referee for a mistake.

 

Until managers condemn their own cheating players,they can't comment on referees' mistakes.

 

(none of this applies to the Barry Knight match- i'm convinced that game was fixed)

 

The referee can show a yellow card to any player that (in his opinion) shows dissent by word or action. It's about time that they clamped down on all these players that wave imaginary cards to try and get players booked or sent off. They are as much cheats as anyone else in the game. If it were up to me, the referee would be obliged to send such players off. I remember a game years ago when the referee dropped his yellow card, Gazza picked it up and showed it to the ref and (IIRC) he was booked for doing so!

 

As for that Ipswich horror show- I still haven't fully recovered from that!

[tyldesley_white]

In other sports ,referees/umpires are not subjected to anything like the same ammount of cheating. Footballers dive,feign injury,constantly appeal for nothing,try to intimidate referees by crowding them ,etc etc etc ,all with the unspoken support of managers who will then abuse the referee for a mistake.

 

Until managers condemn their own cheating players,they can't comment on referees' mistakes.

 

(none of this applies to the Barry Knight match- i'm convinced that game was fixed)

 

In Ice hockey only the Captain and is assist Capt can speak to the ref, anyone else opening his mouth and its a 10 min misconduct and even if the Captain or is assistance go on about it to long then he also will get a misconduct call, the players know this and therefore keep there gobs shut, also you will note that in front of the timekeepers (that?s the opposite side from the benches) is a semi-circle on the ice, the officials will retreat into that area when anything has to talked over (usually who has been involve in a punch up), no player is allowed into that area or they will be tossed from the game and in all the years I?ve watched the game I?ve never seen that happen.

[passmosster]

In Ice hockey only the Captain and is assist Capt can speak to the ref, anyone else opening his mouth and its a 10 min misconduct and even if the Captain or is assistance go on about it to long then he also will get a misconduct call, the players know this and therefore keep there gobs shut, also you will note that in front of the timekeepers (that?s the opposite side from the benches) is a semi-circle on the ice, the officials will retreat into that area when anything has to talked over (usually who has been involve in a punch up), no player is allowed into that area or they will be tossed from the game and in all the years I?ve watched the game I?ve never seen that happen.

 

In my Rugby playing days (getting to sound like Geoff Boycott), they used to give the penalty 10 yards further on if you questioned the referee's decision.

 

Imagine that on free kicks just outside the area where it takes an age to get the wall 10 yards back, {it usually is about 6 yards). If they are not back, you give a pen.

 

Another thing, this card showing gesture from players should be an automatic booking.

 

The authorities should also take action on these silly substitutions a minute before the close. It ruins the game. No subs in the last 10 mins.

 

The FA and from them our referees have got too bloody soft. Calling players to account for saying something minor after the game like SKD demonstrates it more than anything else.

 

They also need to embrace modern technology like video replays. It need not disrupt the game on things like awarding goals.

[HomerJay]

In my Rugby playing days (getting to sound like Geoff Boycott), they used to give the penalty 10 yards further on if you questioned the referee's decision.

 

Imagine that on free kicks just outside the area where it takes an age to get the wall 10 yards back, {it usually is about 6 yards). If they are not back, you give a pen.

 

Another thing, this card showing gesture from players should be an automatic booking.

 

The authorities should also take action on these silly substitutions a minute before the close. It ruins the game. No subs in the last 10 mins.

 

The FA and from them our referees have got too bloody soft. Calling players to account for saying something minor after the game like SKD demonstrates it more than anything else.

 

They also need to embrace modern technology like video replays. It need not disrupt the game on things like awarding goals.

 

i dont rugby so tell me, are the refs in rugby complete egotistical twats like in football?

[frank_spencer]

i dont rugby so tell me, are the refs in rugby complete egotistical twats like in football?

 

Them on the telly are all mic'd up so what they say is heard by all.

 

Even with this and video replays there's still wrong/contentious desisions though

[DeaneWhite]

Rugby League seems to have got the balance just about right when it comes to technology. Even Rugby Union has caught up. Decisions that require a referral to the video ref usually occur in a natural break in play. If it is after a try is scored- or for a goal in football- which is when the technology would usually come into play, it usually takes time to restart anyway. What on earth is wrong with utikising that time to assess the situation? In the Europa League this season, UEFA have been trialling extra officials on the goal-line to judge goal-line decisions. In one of the youth tournaments they previously trialled the system in, it all but stopped the pushing and shoving in the box at free kicks and corners. I wouldn't care, but having umpires on the goal-line has been standard practice in Gaelic Football and Hurling for decades. In the Irish sports, it is the umpires (in addition to the standard referee and two linesmen) who indicate whether a goal (in the net) or a point (over the bar and between the posts, as a rugby goal) has been scored or the ball has gone wide. I believe Aussie Rules- a direct descendant of the Irish version- operates a similar system.

 

Watch the Six Nations with these great big brutish rugby players- men you would certainly think twice about challenging for spilling your pint- and referees of much more diminutive proportions. Then see if you find anything other than the utmost respect for the referee. I have never seen any instance of dissent in any televised rugby match. Referees have earned respect in the game by being fair and explaining their decisions to the players. Yes they still get them wrong sometimes, but that is human error and everyone accepts that. Also, as in ice hockey, the captains have a responsibility to convey the referee's instructions to the rest of the team and risk the sin-bin if they fail to control their players. This is something that football can easily adopt. Anyone speaking out of turn will receive a booking. This, tempered by the referees taking a moment to explain their decisions to the captains would see a change in the way players behave towards match officials. I find it much easier to respect a decision-maker's position if the decision-maker explains the reasons for their decision. I can't respect anyone who just blows a whistl and makes a pushing jesture. This says what he saw (or thought he saw) but doesn't say who did the pushing. If he pulled Kevin Davies to one side and says, "Your hand was on the back of a defender who went down- I had no option but to give the free." I would have more respect. As it stands, his "I'm the ref and I don't have to explain anything to anyone, so get lost" attitude commands no respect whatsoever.

[jolly-olly]

In my Rugby playing days (getting to sound like Geoff Boycott), they used to give the penalty 10 yards further on if you questioned the referee's decision.

 

Imagine that on free kicks just outside the area where it takes an age to get the wall 10 yards back, {it usually is about 6 yards). If they are not back, you give a pen.

 

Another thing, this card showing gesture from players should be an automatic booking.

 

The authorities should also take action on these silly substitutions a minute before the close. It ruins the game. No subs in the last 10 mins.

 

The FA and from them our referees have got too bloody soft. Calling players to account for saying something minor after the game like SKD demonstrates it more than anything else.

 

They also need to embrace modern technology like video replays. It need not disrupt the game on things like awarding goals.

 

The ref is supposed to add on extra time for the subs. Also what if a player goes down injured with ten minutes left, are you suggesting he cannot be replaced?

[White on Tyne]

Maybe have something like tennis where each teamn is allowed 3 appeals during a game. After that they've got to lump it.

 

It will also stop the hindsight opinions of some managers who reckon they saw what happened at the time rather than with the benefit of the monitor.

 

And to complement the rule they could also introduce ball girls.

[MickyD]

Maybe have something like tennis where each teamn is allowed 3 appeals during a game. After that they've got to lump it.

I presume they must have immediate appeal rather than looking at a monitor to see first and then appeal.

It will also stop the hindsight opinions of some managers who reckon they saw what happened at the time rather than with the benefit of the monitor.

As above. The appeal would need to be immediate rather than wait until the next time the ball goes out. It may be too late by then.

And to complement the rule they could also introduce ball girls.

To provide instant relief should a player get hit with a ball in the balls?