20 replies to this topic

[blueknows]

i have heard that at the euros that referees are getting 95% of their decisions correct. the stats are suppose show how great the referees are performing.
surely giving the decisions they see is the easy part and should be nearer 100%. what i dont understand is with these stats is how do they measure the fouls, free kicks they're not giving? an example would be everytime a corner is taken and a number of blocks or shirt pulling is rarely given for the attacking team?

[Since1883]

i have heard that at the euros that referees are getting 95% of their decisions correct. the stats are suppose show how great the referees are performing.
surely giving the decisions they see is the easy part and should be nearer 100%. what i dont understand is with these stats is how do they measure the fouls, free kicks they're not giving? an example would be everytime a corner is taken and a number of blocks or shirt pulling is rarely given for the attacking team?

I'll tell you what, go away, try and referee a game, and then come back and see if you stick by that statement. I bet your percentage of correct decisions will be closer to 9.5 than 95!

Do you really seriously want to see games refereed like that? Six penalties a game, scores of 9-7 most of them penalties? That is what would happen, you simply can't give a pen for every little pull or little touch!

[blueknows]

thanks
what makes you believe any game would finish "9-7 most of them penalties?"

what player would continue to give away penalties if they were to be penalised for fouls they commited? i dont know any.

when you learn to play football and when you constantly go off side, give away foul throws etc your team mates and manager or coach will let you know it cant continue.

so if referees gave penalties for fouls in the area as they do in other areas of the pitch how long would this last? 1 game? 2 maybe?

i remember when players would take yards and yards before taking throw ins. it was enforced by referees and stopped when foul throws were given. how many 2 footed tackles are made in the current game? it just takes enforcing with consistant decision making

my point was regarding decisions made by referees being 95% correct. i believe the statement is carefully worded and doesnt tell the full story

(i have experience of refereeing)

[Since1883]

That was an example

Every corner there are pushes and pulls both ways, you cannot blow up unless there is something blatant there. There just isn't anything to stamp out as you suggest, as I just can't see the problem! There is more to refereeing than blowing up for every infringement, you have to manage a game, and doing this would not be doing so.

[blueknows]

"you have to manage a game"? i thought they were there to oversee the rules or is that what you mean?

the shirt pulling, pushing, blocking is a fairly recent development which has evolved into the game(i think first seen in latin countries). if the ref sees an infringement he should apply the laws of the game.
as you stated every corner there are fouls and the by the letter of the law the ref should be giving the foul for the 1st 1 he sees when the ball is put back in play but how many go in favour of the defending team? its just poor that now it has become almost acceptable that the rules differ inside the box for the defending team.

im not complaining about referees it is a very difficult job. the ruling bodys should and could easily get rid of ugly parts of the game (diving, shirt pulling arguing with official)

[Since1883]

"you have to manage a game"? i thought they were there to oversee the rules or is that what you mean?

the shirt pulling, pushing, blocking is a fairly recent development which has evolved into the game(i think first seen in latin countries). if the ref sees an infringement he should apply the laws of the game.
as you stated every corner there are fouls and the by the letter of the law the ref should be giving the foul for the 1st 1 he sees when the ball is put back in play but how many go in favour of the defending team? its just poor that now it has become almost acceptable that the rules differ inside the box for the defending team.

im not complaining about referees it is a very difficult job. the ruling bodys should and could easily get rid of ugly parts of the game (diving, shirt pulling arguing with official)

It isn't as simple as that though.

Yes there are laws to apply but every referee can apply them differently, to achieve the overall goal of control of a game.

It really isn't as simple as 'see a foul, blow the whistle' repeated over 90 minutes. And yes, I will happily put my hands up and say that I will give outside the box what I will not give inside it as you simply cannot referee games like that. In an ideal world possibly, but we need to deal in reality where this just does not happen!

[blueknows]

what level do you ref at?

"It really isn't as simple as 'see a foul, blow the whistle' repeated over 90 minutes. And yes, I will happily put my hands up and say that I will give outside the box what I will not give inside it as you simply cannot referee games like that. In an ideal world possibly, but we need to deal in reality where this just does not happen!"

i think we agree but i believe there are too many 'unwritten rules' and referees are there to just give decisions they see and not over complicate it. the football players, coaches and tactics will look after themselves and the referees will get less headlines because of inevitable inconstencies.

there is far too much presure put on the officials because they can and do decide results with their interpretations of the rules. it was easier in the past when a tackle was a tackle if the ball was touched and as for offside there was no interpretation needed. why do the powers believe this to be better. i dont know if other sports give such power to the umpire/referee

[Since1883]

I'm Level 6 and am an Assistant Referee at Supply League Level.

The problem you have is your interpretation of Law. Please look here - http://www.fifa.com/...game/index.html - and tell me where it says that a free kick should not be awarded if the ball is won. This has never been the case, it was simply that until recently the laws were not applied as accurately as they are now, i.e the referees are better now than ever before.

There is pressure put on the officials because these are the best ones we have and are capable of controlling games at the highest level. Anyone can sit and decide whether something is a foul or not. What separates the top level officials from the rest is their knowledge but most importantly application of Law, which is their ability to control a game.

[blueknows]

So going through all of what you have said, I have now concluded that a referee is allowed to apply the law differently on different parts of the pitch and under different circumstances in order to control the game. In other words the referees have ultimate control of the game and can therefore control the result, something which should not be allowed.
going back to my original post 95% of decisions given by referees are correct- because different applications/interpretations are allowed. this I believe to be wrong

you state referees are better than ever. based on what? i hope your not going to refer me back to the performance states?

[Freekicktaker2012]

I have read that a number of referees globally have been found guilty of corruption. is this because they have too much control of the game?

[Since1883]

I have read that a number of referees globally have been found guilty of corruption. is this because they have too much control of the game?

Source?

So going through all of what you have said, I have now concluded that a referee is allowed to apply the law differently on different parts of the pitch and under different circumstances in order to control the game. In other words the referees have ultimate control of the game and can therefore control the result, something which should not be allowed.
going back to my original post 95% of decisions given by referees are correct- because different applications/interpretations are allowed. this I believe to be wrong

you state referees are better than ever. based on what? i hope your not going to refer me back to the performance states?

Because they apply the same laws more accurately than they did in previous eras which means we now have a safer game.

[Freekicktaker2012]

2006 Italian football scandal Was uncovered when showed a thick network of relations between team managers and referee organisations. Teams where found guilty of selecting favourable referees.
My source, Wikipedia

[blueknows]

"Because they apply the same laws more accurately than they did in previous eras which means we now have a safer game."

Whats your source? How do they apply the laws more accurately? As for safer game why are you giving referees the credit? Fifa led the change in the rules due to players lke Van Basten forced to retire early due to the constant tackles when it was full contact or the is it safer because of advancement in training techniques or better physio's and drs at each club another consideration for an increase in some injuries is due to harder playing surfaces. Just dont think referees should be considered at all

[Since1883]

"Because they apply the same laws more accurately than they did in previous eras which means we now have a safer game."

Whats your source? How do they apply the laws more accurately? As for safer game why are you giving referees the credit? Fifa led the change in the rules due to players lke Van Basten forced to retire early due to the constant tackles when it was full contact or the is it safer because of advancement in training techniques or better physio's and drs at each club another consideration for an increase in some injuries is due to harder playing surfaces. Just dont think referees should be considered at all

I'm not sure which part you're not getting?

Other than minor changes, the Laws are the same now as they were then. Yet now, we have a safer game due to better and more accurate application of them. Who else could possibly take the credit?

[blueknows]

we can keep going round in circles but im sure you would prefer to give me a yellow
and i really dont know what part your not getting or where your source is? anyone can make big statements but you have failed to back up anything or take up on any point ive made.
example of new interpretation
tackle in the 80's could be made with studs showing, never a free kick if the ball was won 1st. now due to instructions a ref can impact a game by giving a free kick but some give a sending off, some a yellow, and some will let it go, basically a modern ref can do anything.
the referees had this instructed upon them to stop this type of tackle. why on earth should we congratulate them?

You said yourself you give different decisions inside and outside the penalty box, the 80's tackle is alowed in the box. So its not safer its just less consistent and allows referees alot of leeway to decide the outcome of a game

they can now do what they like and always be right and influence games
we'll have to agree to differ

[Since1883]

Right, lets stop there as you're throwing plenty of rubbish around here

we can keep going round in circles but im sure you would prefer to give me a yellow
and i really dont know what part your not getting or where your source is? anyone can make big statements but you have failed to back up anything or take up on any point ive made.

My source would be a copy of the LOTG from whatever year you fancy, something I don't have and isn't readily available so I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for it.

example of new interpretation
tackle in the 80's could be made with studs showing, never a free kick if the ball was won 1st. now due to instructions a ref can impact a game by giving a free kick but some give a sending off, some a yellow, and some will let it go, basically a modern ref can do anything.

Yes, by incorrect interpretation of the Laws. This has improved with the quality of referees and modern day understanding of safety leading to different instructions. Let me say this though - at no point has the LOTG ever said that if the ball is won a free kick should not be awarded. This is rubbish, plain and simple.
the referees had this instructed upon them to stop this type of tackle. why on earth should we congratulate them?

You said yourself you give different decisions inside and outside the penalty box, the 80's tackle is alowed in the box. So its not safer its just less consistent and allows referees alot of leeway to decide the outcome of a game

Woah! I didn't say that! A reckless tackle is a reckless tackle wherever it is on the pitch! When I say that I am referring to little pulls/pushes etc, not leg breaking tackles.

I'm not sure how anyone can deny this has changed for the better? Unless you would prefer to go back to old interpretation of law and have many times more injuries every season?

Edited by Since1883, 29 June 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[blueknows]

more big statements not backed up are you just not understanding anything. im getting bored now

i think maybe a better way you could understand changes in the modern game is when playing in the 80's players knew what was going to be given as a foul, a yellow, a red and now its anybodys guess. referees with all their modern day scope can give what they want and the important people the actual players dont know what to expect. its all inconsistant

[Lord Football]

Ok, try a Level 5 referee with some serious semi pro experience.

Firstly blueknows, if you were a ref you'd know they were Laws and not rules. But lets not dwell on my excessive pendanticness.

The game has evolved a lot since the 70s and early 80s. This was partly due to the demands of television that wanted to see more exciting games, more goals; and partly to protect players like Van Basten from getting the shit kicked out of them. As it happens, you could (and did) get sent off in the 80s for studs up tackles; but that element of the Law has been tightened up considerably over the years. Probably too tightly. Go back to the 70s and watch any game, and you'll see some horror stuff going on. If you can, get a copy of the 1970 FA Cup Final where Chelsea and Leeds basically spent two games kicking the shit out of each other.

Referees today, unlike back then, are full time professional. They don't have to worry about their day job and fit reffing in when they can. That's lead to a big improvement on consistency and fitness. Referees today are far, far better than those in the 80s. That's not a glib statement, that comes from a top level referee from the 80s (Dave Axcell, if you are wondering).

The referees job is not just to apply the Laws like a robot. It is to manage the game. In fact man management is the most important part of the game as far as a ref goes (if you are a TFF Subscriber take a look at my Refs Diary, it will give loads of examples). Better man management, better communication between the refs and the players and the skill of knowing what to do and when to do it are essential.

If any ref applied the Laws as written, you'd never finish a game. Thats why the words "in the referee's opinion" are oft quoted in the Laws.

The refs have been better this time around, there were no real major talking points aside from the Ukraine goal that never was and the sending off the Greek lad in the first game. But fair to say, the players have also been better behaved as well.

The real change however since the 80s is the speed of the game. It is much quicker than it was, and television picks up everything. In essence a top level referee wont get every decision right (and on occasions will make a real pearler), but unlike us with the advantage of the television slow motion replay, he can only see it once, from his angle and at full speed. Try reffing a game on the telly, call the decision as they happen and then stick with them. See how many you actually get right. I bet its not 95%.

And finally, don't forget, the majority of tv pundits haven't a scooby about the Law or how its applied. I've lost count of the amount of times they say something that is completely wrong or simply don't know what the referee is trying to achieve.

[Mighty Yellows]

Ok, try a Level 5 referee with some serious semi pro experience.

Firstly blueknows, if you were a ref you'd know they were Laws and not rules. But lets not dwell on my excessive pendanticness.

The game has evolved a lot since the 70s and early 80s. This was partly due to the demands of television that wanted to see more exciting games, more goals; and partly to protect players like Van Basten from getting the shit kicked out of them. As it happens, you could (and did) get sent off in the 80s for studs up tackles; but that element of the Law has been tightened up considerably over the years. Probably too tightly. Go back to the 70s and watch any game, and you'll see some horror stuff going on. If you can, get a copy of the 1970 FA Cup Final where Chelsea and Leeds basically spent two games kicking the shit out of each other.

Referees today, unlike back then, are full time professional. They don't have to worry about their day job and fit reffing in when they can. That's lead to a big improvement on consistency and fitness. Referees today are far, far better than those in the 80s. That's not a glib statement, that comes from a top level referee from the 80s (Dave Axcell, if you are wondering).

The referees job is not just to apply the Laws like a robot. It is to manage the game. In fact man management is the most important part of the game as far as a ref goes (if you are a TFF Subscriber take a look at my Refs Diary, it will give loads of examples). Better man management, better communication between the refs and the players and the skill of knowing what to do and when to do it are essential.

If any ref applied the Laws as written, you'd never finish a game. Thats why the words "in the referee's opinion" are oft quoted in the Laws.

The refs have been better this time around, there were no real major talking points aside from the Ukraine goal that never was and the sending off the Greek lad in the first game. But fair to say, the players have also been better behaved as well.

The real change however since the 80s is the speed of the game. It is much quicker than it was, and television picks up everything. In essence a top level referee wont get every decision right (and on occasions will make a real pearler), but unlike us with the advantage of the television slow motion replay, he can only see it once, from his angle and at full speed. Try reffing a game on the telly, call the decision as they happen and then stick with them. See how many you actually get right. I bet its not 95%.

And finally, don't forget, the majority of tv pundits haven't a scooby about the Law or how its applied. I've lost count of the amount of times they say something that is completely wrong or simply don't know what the referee is trying to achieve.

This is so true, very annoying when these armchair fans take what they say on shows such as Match of the day as fact, there is a certain irony that many TV pundits are only their because they have failed in management.

[blueknows]

i enjoyed reading your post

few quick points you may be able to help me on and the question appears that im complaining about referees but its not. how do they measure 95% of the their
decisions correct when obviously as stated their is so much more to consider? for me its a nothing statement, you could say 95% the decisions they didnt give were wrong. but still i would like further info

maybe im missing something but definitinion of laws and rules. just checked on dictionary.com and it appears not.

"As it happens, you could (and did) get sent off in the 80s for studs up tackles; but that element of the Law has been tightened up considerably over the years. Probably too tightly"
this suggests referees opinion is dictated to them and therefore 'since 1883' should take note

"And finally, don't forget, the majority of tv pundits haven't a scooby about the Law or how its applied. I've lost count of the amount of times they say something that is completely wrong or simply don't know what the referee is trying to achieve"
you also hear all the time by pundits that the referee has never played the game and doesnt understand it. also commonly heard is "they should fastrack ex players to referee"
just stating again that i believe the way refereeing has evolved and the openess of interpretation etc that it has become an impossible task. everyone wants consistancy more than anything else and referees shouldnt have to manage players or continually communicate with them, this just complicates everything further. look at other sports and how much communication goes on between players and umpires etc.

why do you not like tories?

[Lord Football]

How do they measure. I suppose its in the definition for the word measure. All Select Group Referees are now professional. I know, coz I know a few, that they spend parts of their time going through their games and analaysing things. What they did well, what they could have done better or what they did wrong. I suspect the same system is applied by UEFA and FIFA (I can find out if you really want).

All Refs are instructed, at all levels. Its in the LOAF. If it says you MUST do something, then you MUST. its not optional. Example is handball on the line, thats a red card, nothing else suffices. Obviously a tackle is how a ref sees it, from his angle. Sometimes he is right, occassionally he will be wrong. Thats nowt do with not applying the Law, thats the human element. Does that help?

Why do I not like Tories? Head off to the politics section.