DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 60134--------------------------------------------------
Discussion Concerns
DIR By: Seagull
Date: February 18, 2023, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy being a member and contributor of RTR and hope to
continue as such. Having said that, I have become a little
concerned lately regarding the direction in which some
conversations are evolving. My understanding of the "raison
d'etre" of RTR is to discuss and exchange opinions on Referees,
their match appointments and their decisions, both objectively
and subjectively. However, quite a few recent discussions have,
in my opinion, developed into slanging matches with a heavy team
support bias and have almost become a football club supporter
forum rather than fair and balanced opinions of the refereeing
subject supposedly being discussed.
What do other members think?
#Post#: 60135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: February 18, 2023, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to work out why ASM thinks I'm a Chelsea fan
:)
More seriously and picking upon that analology. As a
microscopist, during the first 20 years of working part of my
job was to challenge conventional wisdom, and it came fairly
naturally to me. I learned that it doesn't make you very
popular, I can live with that. It did earn me the nickname
Cassandra from one of my colleagues.
On a more technical side microscopy taught me that using
different filters to examine something generally gave a more
complete understanding.
To me there seem to be plenty of folk on here see football
though amber filters, and that's fine too. But there is, as I
see it not many folk using a blue filter with some who did
giving up commenting, perhaps because of the treatment they have
been given, or perhaps there are other reasons.
This filter analogy was brought to mind again yesterday when my
BLFG persuaded me to attend a talk on beginning astronomy at a
"friendship group" in a small local Church with which Alloway is
about to be united. In talking about looking at the stars and
the sun the host explained that using different filters in front
of the objective lens would show different features.
So not just in the microscopical world but also in the
astronomical world and I would say in the metaphysical world it
is better to take in views through different filters to get a
better grasp of what is going on.
#Post#: 60152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: cwh
Date: February 18, 2023, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Seagull link ---
>
> I enjoy being a member and contributor of RTR and hope to
continue as such. Having said that, I have become a little
concerned lately regarding the direction in which some
conversations are evolving. My understanding of the "raison
d'etre" of RTR is to discuss and exchange opinions on Referees,
their match appointments and their decisions, both objectively
and subjectively. However, quite a few recent discussions have,
in my opinion, developed into slanging matches with a heavy team
support bias and have almost become a football club supporter
forum rather than fair and balanced opinions of the refereeing
subject supposedly being discussed.
>
> What do other members think?
>
--- End Quote ---
I totaly agree with you - there is definately an increase in
comments such as 'my team should have been given a penalty' 'red
card to' 'my team this and that etc
I too think that it seems to be developing into a club
supporter forum - lets get back to what the forum should be
about
#Post#: 60342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: JCFC
Date: February 21, 2023, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected
might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with
your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried
than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty"
(though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such
phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is
required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There
have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they
have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum
and headed off elsewhere.
I should hate to think, though, that this site should become the
preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a
start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful
features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of
incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of
saints in church windows was an interesting and informative
example last year.
What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a slightly
mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may even be
guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in his first
stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a bandwagon
effect, with constant references that were tantamount to
bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote and
Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in my
view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.
I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to
contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the
moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long
may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.
#Post#: 60350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: Seagull
Date: February 21, 2023, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JCFC link ---
>
> Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected
might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with
your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried
than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty"
(though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such
phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is
required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There
have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they
have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum
and headed off elsewhere.
>
> I should hate to think, though, that this site should become
the preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a
start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful
features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of
incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of
saints in church windows was an interesting and informative
example last year.
>
> What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a
slightly mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may
even be guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in
his first stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a
bandwagon effect, with constant references that were tantamount
to bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote
and Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in
my view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.
>
> I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to
contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the
moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long
may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for you kind comment. I thought more responses would
be received too.
I agree with virtually all that you say, JCFC, especially about
RTR not becoming the preserve of refereeing experts. I certainly
don't regard myself as one either. I have no problem with
comments sometimes deviating towards other subjects, a good
example of which you cite (church windows). I find those
interesting and even amusing. However, I just feel that a
growing minority of recent discussions became about the club the
individual contributor supports, how certain decisions affected
their team, etc., as opposed to discussing the refereeing aspect
of the decision concerned.
Hopefully, it's just a blip and future discussions can largely
be confined to refereeing aspects of matters raised, rather than
develop into slanging matches about teams.
#Post#: 60352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: February 21, 2023, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JCFC link ---
>
> Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected
might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with
your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried
than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty"
(though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such
phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is
required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There
have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they
have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum
and headed off elsewhere.
>
> I should hate to think, though, that this site should become
the preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a
start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful
features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of
incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of
saints in church windows was an interesting and informative
example last year.
>
> What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a
slightly mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may
even be guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in
his first stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a
bandwagon effect, with constant references that were tantamount
to bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote
and Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in
my view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.
>
> I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to
contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the
moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long
may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for this very well considered post JCFC with which I
am broadly in sympathy. It's a fine line between trenchant
criticism, which is perfectly acceptable in my view, and being
mean-spirited and lacking in charity. When I offer a critique
of a referee, I endeavour to confine myself to the officiating
and not make an ad hominem attack on the individual's character
or motivation. I have been critical recently of Coote and Mason.
The former because I do not think his performances have merited
a Cup Final appointment ( and thus making other more deserving
referees miss out ) and the latter because I just didn't think
he was up to the job ( a view which the authorities seem to
share )
Where we start getting into more treacherous currents is when
posters start giving opinions about the character of individual
referees and ARs simply from their on field demeanour and
without ever having met them. The word "arrogant" is sometimes
bandied about. I have been privileged to meet a fair number of
senior referees over the years, well over fifty I would guess,
and of that number I would only say that two showed arrogance.
Virtually all of them were dedicated, focussed and with plenty
of self-belief ( I don't know how you would survive without that
) but the majority were personable and agreeable company. " Play
the ball and not the man " is a fair mantra and most of us on
RTR endeavour to do that in our estimation of officiating
performances.
#Post#: 61464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: JCFC
Date: March 15, 2023, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one, but
I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to referees,
individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects badly on
the posters who do so.
All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in which
they will feel they not been at their best, but to term them
dross is out of order in my mind.
#Post#: 61470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: cwh
Date: March 15, 2023, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JCFC link ---
>
> On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one,
but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to
referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects
badly on the posters who do so.
> All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in
which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term
them dross is out of order in my mind.
>
--- End Quote ---
I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is
failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also
think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also
be avoided
#Post#: 61482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: nemesis
Date: March 15, 2023, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cwh link ---
>
> [quote author=JCFC link=topic=4565.msg61464#msg61464
date=1678897260]
> On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one,
but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to
referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects
badly on the posters who do so.
> All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in
which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term
them dross is out of order in my mind.
>
--- End Quote ---
I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is
failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also
think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also
be avoided
[/quote]
A memory as far back as this morning should suffice !
#Post#: 61499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Discussion Concerns
DIR By: cwh
Date: March 15, 2023, 11:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nemesis link ---
>
> [quote author=cwh link=topic=4565.msg61470#msg61470
date=1678901155]
> [quote author=JCFC link=topic=4565.msg61464#msg61464
date=1678897260]
> On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one,
but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to
referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects
badly on the posters who do so.
> All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in
which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term
them dross is out of order in my mind.
>
--- End Quote ---
I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is
failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also
think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also
be avoided
[/quote]
A memory as far back as this morning should suffice !
[/quote]
Memory must be worse than I thought - although I still cannot
see/find any reference to 'dross'
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page