DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94886--------------------------------------------------
What to do?
DIR By: Tonydent
Date: September 1, 2025, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Across all levels of football, there is a general consensus that
the standard of refereeing is poor.
I’m a level 5, refereeing at step 7. Regularly get told by teams
and players that the referees are usually ‘dross’ (quote from
Saturday).
I line at step 5 and 6, hear the same thing.
I see various match reports from other steps that are also often
critical of refereeing, and the same is true for referees in the
national league and football league (the latter of which gets
the most media attention and complaints from fan groups).
Then of course, we have the premier league with all its recent
‘issues’ (though nobody seems to highlight the stellar
performances all that much - compare the number of replies to
threads on here that relate to controversial matches vs those
that are not).
There’s been a question in my head so far this season: If the
referees at every single level of football are apparently not up
to standard, then what is the solution?
Everyone seeks consistency and impeccable accuracy, but these
things aren’t achievable in a game based largely on opinions
(careless vs reckless vs excessive force, for example), and
played at pace.
So is it that the standard is poor, or is that the standard is
as good as it can be given the asks of referees?
You could easily deliver 100% consistency and accuracy by taking
the human out of the equation, just replace the on field referee
with an AI alternative. Yes, it’s not exactly realistic right
now, but is that the only long-term solution? Perhaps people
should be careful what they wish for?!
#Post#: 94888--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: September 1, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> Across all levels of football, there is a general consensus
that the standard of refereeing is poor.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Because there is an ever growing feeling that a defeat or poor
result is nothing to do with manager or player performance. It’s
’who can we openly blame without putting it on ourself? Oh,
let’s put it on the man in black, he was…’
On a more serious note, I feel that the level of scrutiny on
referees has significantly increased in recent years, especially
by the public. Sometimes the scrutiny is justified, sometimes it
isn’t.
The quite simple fact that fans don’t understand is that
referees are human. Yes, there are mistakes and sometimes some
really bad mistakes but more often than not the general standard
of reffing is good. From the fans perspective, it’s all about
what your team gets given and what the other team doesn’t get.
It’s nothing to do with how accurate or consistent they are.
We all want flawless referee performances week in week out.
However, that is not possible. We can try and pick out the best
for the job, continue to teach them, and develop them. But we
won’t ever get 100% accuracy.
That’s unless we go to AI for the job of refereeing. But I don’t
fancy that and I doubt any true football fan would want this
either.
#Post#: 94889--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: bmb
Date: September 1, 2025, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> There’s been a question in my head so far this season: If the
referees at every single level of football are apparently not up
to standard, then what is the solution?
--- End Quote ---
If I actually knew the answer to that one I would be doing
Howard Webb's job, not running a referee forum! It's an
interesting question though and I look forward to reading
responses to it.
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> Everyone seeks consistency and impeccable accuracy, but these
things aren’t achievable in a game based largely on opinions
(careless vs reckless vs excessive force, for example), and
played at pace.
--- End Quote ---
This is something I say to fans all of the time - do you want a
strict application of the LOTG, when you'll moan that all
decisions are too harsh & the referee has no feel for the game
but consistency is likely to be higher, or do you want a less
strict application and the LOTG to be applied more within the
spirit of the Laws when you will moan that the referee picks and
chooses which Laws to apply, when they are going to apply them
particularly when a decision goes against you even if that
decision is correct in Law and get a lower level of consistency?
Fans, managers and players will moan either way. Then I point
out the whole subjectivity thing and point out that subjectivity
and consistency are completely incompatible and all the time the
LOTG contain the words "in the opinion of" there will never be
the level of consistency that they want because everyone's
tolerance levels are different and add in that their opinion
differing from the referees does not make the referees call
wrong, nor does it make them wrong because it's "in the opinion
of" and the fact is it's the referees opinion that counts not
theirs. I also tell them to go and do the referee course if they
think it's so easy!
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> So is it that the standard is poor, or is that the standard is
as good as it can be given the asks of referees?
--- End Quote ---
I don't think the standard is poor per se. There are some
terrible decisions at times and referees do make errors, that is
a fact of life but I don't personally believe the standard has
gone down over the years. IMO referee errors are similar to goal
keeper errors in that they tend to be costly and game changing
so they do get noticed more. What has however increased is the
level of scrutiny, every single decision is dissected in minute
detail for ever more and played out on sports shows and social
media ad infinitum. People have forgotten that a referee gets a
singular view, often obscured and a split second to make a
decision. There are so many camera angles now, with HD, slo-mo
and zoom in capabilities that are nothing like the view a
referee has of any given incident - it's a lot easier to be an
armchair referee than be a referee.
Then add in player behaviour and all of the shenanigans that go
on, all the gamesmanship - if players spend 90 mins trying to
con a referee into a decision then they shouldn't be surprised
when they or an opponent manage to con them. Funnily enough they
only have an issue with it when it's the opposition that succeed
in conning the ref and not themselves or a team mate - same goes
for managers, coaches and fans. It's no surprise that in games
where players get on and play without the amateur dramatics and
theatrics, referees can just get on and referee and there are
noticeably less errors. I think the current guidelines re making
a player go off for 30 seconds after any potential head injury
will help curb all the going down clutching their face when
someone has sneezed on row Z but they will soon learn to go down
clutching something other than their head/face... I think if the
press and pundits had a campaign against gamesmanship, instead
of referee errors or perceived errors, then in time gamesmanship
could be eradicated - it would have such a great overall effect
on the game, they would be more entertaining for fans, players
would get to showcase their sometimes incredible ball skills
more than their skills in the dark arts and referees would be
able to get on and referee.
There are a lot of things that we do well in Hungary. Sports
coverage - every single commentator has to take a LOTG test in
the pre-season or test in the rules of other sports for every
sport they wish to comment on. If they fail it they do not get
any commentary roles. Footballing wise the MLSZ run a course for
them, they then sit the same test given to referees and are
required to obtain a high pass mark. The difference between
pundits spewing out all manner of misinformation, as we get from
Sky, TNT etc vs pundits who know the LOTG inside out is
astounding. They explain decisions as part of the punditry, and
correctly. They will often comment about good positioning,
praise correct difficult decisions, advantages played, good man
management etc. Error is not ignored, it gets mentioned - ref
called that one wrong and that's it a sentence or 2 and they
move on, it's not a big issue. They also call players out for
bad behaviour, they will criticise a player for a dive, tell
them to get up if they've gone down like they've been hit by a
sniper, laugh at them when they get a YC for waving an imaginary
card with comments of well he asked the referee for a card and
can't complain at getting one etc. The result - significantly
less playacting and dissent, less focus and outcry about
referees and a much more pleasant atmosphere. The discipline
procedure is also vastly superior, every red card is examined by
the disciplinary committee and the tariff decided on an
individual basis and decide the ban on merit, a player who
squared up to a referee after getting a red card was banned for
4 months, same week a player who was given a red for a late
clumsy tackle was given 1 match ban. They review all of the
professional leagues, male and female, on Tuesday & Wednesday if
there's been a lot of them. It's just a shame the standard of
football isn't quite so good!
I'd like to see both elements rolled out everywhere but in
particular the very strict rules regarding pundits. It will
never happen here but I would love to see it included as part of
any TV deal that all pundits need to actually know the LOTG and
pass a test to prove they do before being allowed to commentate.
If one of our pundits does make an error in terms of explaining
the LOTG, they are taken off air and are required to do the LOTG
test again before being allowed back on TV. There are very
strict guidelines regarding not peddling out misinformation and
I love it!
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> You could easily deliver 100% consistency and accuracy by
taking the human out of the equation, just replace the on field
referee with an AI alternative. Yes, it’s not exactly realistic
right now, but is that the only long-term solution? Perhaps
people should be careful what they wish for?!
>
--- End Quote ---
Every time I hear someone say get rid of VAR and we can go back
to accepting referee error as part of the game I point out that
it was the very fact that they didn't accept referee error that
is responsible for us now having VAR!
#Post#: 94890--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: Ivanhoe
Date: September 1, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is any different, fundamentally, to how it has
always been.
We always have a post mortem on our game and quite often
friends, who I consider quite intelligent, lambast the referee
for treating us poorly decision wise and being a major factor in
the result. Me and my son, who is an active referee still , are
amazed what they see as poor decisions, quite the opposite in
our minds that the officiating has been good and no impact on
the result.
The fact is, if you haven't gone through the exercise of sitting
through a course in the Laws of the Game at the least, you have
the rest of the footballing world with their own wild and often
biased interpretations of incidents on the pitch. Colour
commentators on TV like Carragher make it markedly worse with
their own views and enflame the masses.
The scrutiny is obviously more intense than it has ever been but
let's bull up our top referees who get the majority of things
correct and I'm sure going down the pyramid it will be the same.
Mind you, incidents like the disallowed Fulham goal don't help
the cause.
#Post#: 94891--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: Tonydent
Date: September 1, 2025, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe VAR needs to become about factual decisions only. That
would be a big change that could actually be made to reduce the
subjectivity and claims of re-refereeing.
Potential quick win?
#Post#: 94892--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: September 1, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think refereeing is much worse than it used to be. Two
things have changed though. First, the absurd quest for
perfection and 100% accuracy. Fair enough as a quest but it is
one which is doomed to failure because opinions will always
vary. The trouble is once 100% becomes the expectation then
anything less is called failure. Secondly the high level of
scrutiny and public exposure. Now every match and every decision
is pored over. Years ago most matches received only a write up
in a local paper and a referee's performance, unless
eye-wateringly awful, was not mentioned.
Another factor is the erosion of trust in and respect for
authority figures. This is found in every activity and is
predicated upon the notion that the authorities are " out to do
us". Such reasoning is infantile but there are enough
politicians and public figures carving out a niche for
themselves based on such a faulty premise.
In the past referees made just as many and heinous mistakes but
they went more unnoticed and were not seized upon for propaganda
reasons.
What can be done ? Hard to know unless there is a fundamental
societal change. Personally I would get rid of VAR which
contributes to this culture of attainable infallibility and
causes even more problems than it solves by taking away the art
of officiating and turning it into a bad science. Of course it
won't happen and people will go on saying that standards are
plummeting when in fact they aren't. However, if that is the
prejudice, mere logic won't mend matters, history shows us that.
#Post#: 94901--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: mac
Date: September 1, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The impossible question!
So many things. So much more scrutiny. There used to be one live
game a week (and for many posters on here, before that even
less), now there’s probably three that aren’t. That’s bound to
give a greater spotlight. Social media is another.
For me it comes down to VAR, I really think it’s a curse. I
think because it was expected to make decisions perfect, or
that’s pretty much how it was sold, and quite simply it hasn’t,
it’s made the perception of referees lower than it’s ever been.
I genuinely think this negative perception then spills out on a
Sunday too. I’d love to know the stats between a disastrous VAR
Saturday and the number of misconduct cases the following Sunday
further down the system.
When Whistleblower says they haven’t got any worse, I agree. In
fact top level ARs are miles better than 25 years ago when I
started reffing. The refs themselves are probably better, but
I’d argue probably not better enough. Those 25 years ago had no
comms, no GLT, no VAR, a full time job…the most they might have
had was a set of buzzer flags. So for all the assistance, yes,
maybe not better enough may be fair. However, I’d also argue
that’s because the elite back then were performing at the best
it’s actually possible to be. There is a finite element to how
good any ref can be at getting decisions right, especially with
so many subjective ones.
In the past, there was a general acceptance that decisions even
themselves out. I still think they do, but not with VAR. And
this has led to all sorts of conspiracy theories. When did you
ever hear of people saying the ref was corrupt? Barely
ever..rubbish yes, but not corrupt. Now it’s a weekly
accusation!
But I do think VAR has led to an unnecessary complexity. Laws
have changed to suit VAR, rather than the other way round. I
genuinely don’t know what a handball is. Laws have got more
complex, I used to smash 100% on every law test but now, a sub
or a TA occupant can commit a DFK offence, confusing restarts
for the sake of it. Potentially three times as many subs in a
game. What feels like a fortnight of added on time just to
account for all these changes.
In lower levels I don’t think sin bins have helped. Dissent
could be one of the most subjective things going, yet the in
game punishment is much greater, and so when a team sees an
inconsistency they understandably feel injustice. What they were
penalised for last week someone else got away with today.
Oh and I think the football is worse too. Sterile beyond belief.
A greater disconnect between fan and club. Greater disconnect
between elite and grassroots.
Where it goes from here I don’t know but it can’t get much lower
for me.
#Post#: 94902--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: Leggy
Date: September 1, 2025, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To summarise one on BMBs points: You can have consistency or
you can have common sense, but you cannot have both. They are a
Venn diagram with little or no overlap. Philip Don sought
consistency and it resulted in more red and yellow cards and his
masters at the PGMOL did not want that and moved him on. This
is one of the reasons why we now have the "match manager"
approach to refereeing - an approach that selectively applies
the Laws of the game and turns a blind eye to:
~ 95% of all dissent
~ 100% of all OFFINABUS
~ 100% of monitoring whether or not a goal-keeper carries the
ball outside the penalty area.
~ Yards stolen at throw-ins
~ Tactical goal-keeper injuries to facilitate a "time out" to
enable a coaching session.
~ et al.
VAR has not helped. It promised 100% accuracy, something it
cannot provide. Football fans should remember that:
~ In cricket - Ball Tracking is technology predicting what will
happen to the ball after it has been intercepted by the batters'
body. It is not providing facts, it is providing an opinion and
it is universally accepted without demur.
~ In Tennis the ball in / out technology is accepted without
challenge - it may or may not be accurate, but it is likely to
be less than 100% accurate.
Football needs to stop tying itself in knots trying to locate
the Holy Grail of 100% accuracy. It has made things less good,
less enjoyable and less of a game.
#Post#: 94905--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: olliebcafc
Date: September 1, 2025, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Appreciate I’m a lot younger than most regulars on here, but my
view is that at PL level, the standard has got worse since I
started watching, but I still trust that Webb is the right man
to sort it out. I think in the EFL it has improved especially
since development group was created. As for the select group
ARs, they are absolutely fantastic but lower down there seems to
be an obvious lack of clarity in their role, perhaps due to
working with different referees most weeks.
Completely agree with the sin bin nonsense, terrible idea. It’s
also inconsistent to the approach to dissent at professional
level where it’s taken less seriously than other yellow card
offences.
I do have some sympathy due to the increase in scrutiny, but
there is much less excuse with VAR and should these guys, the
best 20 refs out of 65 million people in the country, even be
making any mistakes at all with the added safety net of being
able to correct decisions at the time?
I like the ideas (mic’d up, ref cam etc.) to make the referees
less robotic but I think there’s better ways to go about it. For
example, I think UEFA’s man in the middle was a lot more
interesting as it actually presented them as people away from
football. Unfortunately it didn’t get much attention but I think
that’s important and what people want to see.
#Post#: 94906--------------------------------------------------
Re: What to do?
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: September 1, 2025, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: olliebcafc link ---
>
>
> I do have some sympathy due to the increase in scrutiny, but
there is much less excuse with VAR and should these guys, the
best 20 refs out of 65 million people in the country, even be
making any mistakes at all?
--- End Quote ---
The only person who never made a mistake never did anything at
all ----least of all ---officiate at a football match.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page