[fueradejuego]

Watching the clasico's over the past 12 or so months has raised quite an interesting issue (well I think so anyway).

There have been plenty of yellow and red cards handed out in these fixtures but equally there have been plenty of cards not given when they clearly should have been given.

The obvious example from last night was the tackle by Diarra around the 45min mark which should have seen him receive a second caution and get binned.

There were also plenty of examples of tackles, players previously crowding around the ref and petty shoving matches between players which probably should have seen cautions but the ref's during this run of games have ignored that.

My point is whether the ref's during these games should be lenient and ignore certain tackles / issues etc which would be a stick on caution in any other game but due to the hype / history etc surrounding the clasico, the ref takes the view that he will try and manage the game. Is this right?

Should a ref try to man mange the game more than normal because of the pressure or should he simply apply the Laws and show no discretion?

The problem with showing discretion is that no game exists in a vacuum.

In the next clasico at the Camp Nou, there have been 9 yellows and 2 reds. With a few minutes to go, Di Maria does a daft tackle on Biscuits who collapses as though he has been shot. Biscuits acting aside, it is a straightforward yellow. The ref, having already dished out a load of cards, chooses to award the free kick and not caution Di Maria. There is some moaning by Barca players but the game is almost over and Di Maria being sent off will not affect the final outcome of the game.

Di Maria plays the following week and scores the winning goal against Santander. Its a game Santander needed to get at least one point to avoid relegation.

Had Di Maria been shown the second yellow the previous week, he would have incurred a suspension and missed the Santander game.

Decisions during a game have repercussions for all other teams in the league.

Where / how do you strike this balance between managing players etc and aplpying the laws?

[GingerSaint]

I think they should be followed 95% of the time. When Billy Sharp scored that goal and lifted up his shirt, he should have been booked but the referee did the right thing by letting it slide.

One thing that does piss me off is when a player makes a challenge worthy of a red card but doesn't get punished because it's only 5 minutes into the game.

[Jambo Stu]

Either way you look at it the referee will get pelters.

If he dishes out too many cards, he's seen as ruining the game. If he's too lenient he's seen as not following the rules of the games.

The behaviour of the the players in the recent fixtures should be the focus of the debate, not the referee who has a thankless task.

I hate to compare it to this, but if you watch the OF game ( in particular, previous seasons) the referees don't punish stonewall yellow card tackles early in the game. I'd imagine its the same in most big games and derbies. Is it correct? Probably not though. Is it the right thing to do in the context of the match? Arguably yes.

[TheLip69]

Of course not, you'd have anarchy in England.
The referees should remain enforcing the laws of the game to the benefit of Manchester United and the detriment of everyone else, at least that way the rest of us know where we stand and Sir Alex's blood pressure stabilises.

[lau03143]

Last night Danny Rose of Tottenham totally shoulder charged the Watford defender out the road, no free kick, them two mins later, the Watford player bumped into a Tottenham player and fell down, this time free kick. There is no consistency even with the same referree

[fueradejuego]

lau03143, on 28 January 2012 - 11:38, said:

Last night Danny Rose of Tottenham totally shoulder charged the Watford defender out the road, no free kick, them two mins later, the Watford player bumped into a Tottenham player and fell down, this time free kick. There is no consistency even with the same referree

The ref would probably argue that one was a clear foul and one was not therefore he was consistent.

I am not that bothered about consistency.

If you ask 10 fans for their views on specific incidents you will get a number of differing views.

You will never get consistency at any level in football. You will always get different interpretations on incidents when it is maybe a 50/50 call.

Two players tussle for the ball. Some will play on and some will award a foul just like some fans will say its a good challenge whilst others will see a clear foul.

Don't get me wrong, with blatant fouls etc then these should be caught by all refs and there should be no problems there.

[cmontheloknow]

The World Cup Final was ruined by Howard Webb making it Howard's Way, completely ignoring the Dutch thuggery throughout the first half, all because he wanted to preserve the spectacle. Balls. The Dutch were ruining it by trying to kick Spain off the park.

[David W]

Mark Halsey today, Liverpool v Manchester United. He should've booked Maxi but otherwise, that's how to referee a game of football.

[JamboMikey]

Probably most referees in Scotland should just try and learn the Laws of the Game first.

[chico]

I think FIFA need to stop tinkering and concentrate on getting the Laws consistently applied the same way across the different FA's. If we can see inconsistency between referees in different European countries, then that suggests refereeing approaches need to be made more evenly balanced throughout UEFA area and not just amongst the Champions League certified Referees.

[JamboMikey]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 19:12, said:

Erm, they have to pass gratuitously hard tests to even get a chance at refereeing in the SPL or even SFL.

Honestly, it's like saying qualified surgeons should know about bodies before they operate on them.

We get it man, you're a referee.

[a_n_d_o]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 19:12, said:

Erm, they have to pass gratuitously hard tests to even get a chance at refereeing in the SPL or even SFL.

Honestly, it's like saying qualified surgeons should know about bodies before they operate on them.

If scottish refs were qualified surgeons then they would be using pen knifes and dirty BBQ utensils to perform the ops. Maybe they knew the procedures once but they seem to throw that out the window once qualified. The only positive thing is they are consistently bad so it should even out over the season...

[sydney]

David W, on 28 January 2012 - 16:33, said:

Mark Halsey today, Liverpool v Manchester United. He should've booked Maxi but otherwise, that's how to referee a game of football.

Agree with that. He seems to be a sensible referee who tries to let the game flow and avoid being the centre of attention like some. I did think though that he had an easy game to referee today, despite the prematch build up. No real aggro in the game at all.
He definitely should have booked Maxi. Some would have sent him off for that which would have been ridiculous.

[Akpo Sodje]

The referee should set his standard early on and stick to as long as the game is flowing and he is not breaking the laws of the game. A bit of common sense is required and if a referee feels not booking someone when deserved or vice versa is in the best interests of the game then so be it. He needs to be consistent and fair to both teams though or he will come under pressure to apply the laws of the game exactly as they appear and without much thought, which can ruin a football match. So of course the laws of the game should be consistently enforced, but the referee should make a decision based on how the game is going in some occasions. No two games are exactly the same.

This post has been edited by Akpo Sodje: 28 January 2012 - 23:52

[a_n_d_o]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 22:10, said:

This extended metaphor leads to what exactly? You don't think referees are good? You'd think you'd be better?

Which is it?

Its ok for you to make stupid comparisons but its not ok for me to do likewise? Refereeing standards in Scotland are appauling, FACT. Yeah its not as easy as it looks and i'm sure getting to SPL/SFL level has its obstacles, doesn't change the fact that those that get there either shouldn't be there or let their standards slip. It could be that the 'top' officials are overprotected or that they are not prepared to take the risk promoting others too quickly. Whatever the problem is it has to be sorted from the inside out, I doubt the refs accept any outside criticsim (if multiplying your ego is anything to go by). They know we need them and I think that'll be their excuse to avoid change.

There is no way i'd put myself in the top 50 refs in Scotland, but then I wouldn't put half of the league refs in there either... So we'll say not much worse

[printer]

a_n_d_o, on 29 January 2012 - 04:31, said:

Its ok for you to make stupid comparisons but its not ok for me to do likewise? Refereeing standards in Scotland are appauling, FACT. Yeah its not as easy as it looks and i'm sure getting to SPL/SFL level has its obstacles, doesn't change the fact that those that get there either shouldn't be there or let their standards slip. It could be that the 'top' officials are overprotected or that they are not prepared to take the risk promoting others too quickly. Whatever the problem is it has to be sorted from the inside out, I doubt the refs accept any outside criticsim (if multiplying your ego is anything to go by). They know we need them and I think that'll be their excuse to avoid change.

There is no way i'd put myself in the top 50 refs in Scotland, but then I wouldn't put half of the league refs in there either... So we'll say not much worse

In what way is it a "fact"? What evidence do you have to prove this "fact"? Are you saying they are worse than other countries? If so is that all countries or specific ones? Again, what is your evidence for this - please be specific.

[a_n_d_o]

printer, on 29 January 2012 - 06:12, said:

In what way is it a "fact"? What evidence do you have to prove this "fact"? Are you saying they are worse than other countries? If so is that all countries or specific ones? Again, what is your evidence for this - please be specific.

I was meaning than they were 5-10 years ago but now you mention it i'd say certainly worse than the the major european countries (at the top level), don't see enough of their lower leagues to know what the standard is like there. Obviously there are a few worse than others but the level of officiating (in the interest of fairness i'll accept the flag bearers may influence or more commonly fail to help on occassions) in the SFL is a joke, excluding the marginal calls the number of clear errors is ridiculous. I have all these errors logged in a wee notebook as I only go to the football to screen the officials... i'm not that sad, well maybe, but its not my job to sort it. I probably should just use the immature 'you disprove it' argument but thats probably what you want.

[a_n_d_o]

Supras, on 29 January 2012 - 11:17, said:

What stupid comparisons have I made? Be specific.

And that is not a fact, and you spent appalling wrong. Scotland punches well above its weight in terms of refereeing standards, one of our referees is deemed to be the top 12 officials in Europe as displayed by his appointment at Euro 2012. There is only one smaller nation also represented and that is Slovenia whilst there are many larger nations not represented. These are facts, and they show Scottish referees are currently considered amongst the best in Europe. Craig Thomson isn't alone either, Willie Collum is in the second tier of referees worldwide - another fantastic achievement.

Not to mention 14 years ago we had a Scottish official at the world cup final - an incredible and unrivaled honour for a nation our size.

Scottish referees are renowned around the world for their integrity and ability.

The refs don't listen to any "outside criticism" because it is always total bullshit. They go through pretty brutal assessments every game instead - which they do listen to.

So where do these top 50 refs come from? Be specific.

HJ summed it up perfectly, before criticisng the referees consider:

1) Do the SFA deliberately promote poorer referees?
2) Are the referees corrupt?

No to both? In which case the referees, whatever you think of them, are the best people for the job doing the best job they can.



Well, the major European countries happen to have 10 times the population and a helluva lot more refs to choose from, duh

The fact we can still get a ref into the FIFA elite group means we are already punching well above our weight.

Well, do you have these errors or not? The only way you specifically can do anything about it would be to become a referee and, uh, quickly rise to the top and become the best referee ever.

Until then you are just a man on an internet forum spouting lies and complaining about the standard without any sort of context. Fans have always thought referees are terrible, in every year and in every league. The best means of comparison is looking at who FIFA deem to be the best - a comparison we are doing very well in at the moment.

That explains it, 1 good ref and 21 games a week, no wonder the odds are bad. That is probably unfair, there are 4 or 5 half decent ones. Our standard of referees WAS very high, I just think the standard has gone seriously downhill. Be specific, why? You aren't going to change your mind and nothing said on here will actually change anything. If I had statistics on hand saying average errors went up up from 1.8 to 4.8 a game you would still have quoted we have a FIFA elite ref. Its a pointless discussion, you can't change what i've seen over the years and you are not open to the possibility our refs have got worse. I consider myself a fairly balanced fan and despite giving the refs the benefit of the doubt in marginal calls they are making more and more blatant errors. I'm sure others will feel this way as well.

[highlandcowden]

yes,they should be equally applied,why should "lesser" teams be disadvantaged later on in games by having players suspended due to card accumulation when other teams dont because refs have turned a blind eye due to the occasion.its not just specific big games either,so called big teams get the benefit of the doubt time and time again,what this means to teams like scotland in qualifying games is having key players suspended in the crucial last fewe games where teams like france and italy etc dont

[The Phoenix]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 19:12, said:

Erm, they have to pass gratuitously hard tests to even get a chance at refereeing in the SPL or even SFL.

No they don't. They have to pass the same tests as I did.

The opportunity to perform at a higher level comes through ongoing assessment and meeting the required fitness standard.

[stemjsim]

JamboMikey, on 28 January 2012 - 17:29, said:

Probably most referees in Scotland should just try and learn the Laws of the Game first.

Tbh fans, players and managers should probably learn the rules as well.

[TheLip69]

a_n_d_o, on 29 January 2012 - 04:31, said:

Its ok for you to make stupid comparisons but its not ok for me to do likewise? Refereeing standards in Scotland are appauling, FACT. Yeah its not as easy as it looks and i'm sure getting to SPL/SFL level has its obstacles, doesn't change the fact that those that get there either shouldn't be there or let their standards slip. It could be that the 'top' officials are overprotected or that they are not prepared to take the risk promoting others too quickly. Whatever the problem is it has to be sorted from the inside out, I doubt the refs accept any outside criticsim (if multiplying your ego is anything to go by). They know we need them and I think that'll be their excuse to avoid change.

There is no way i'd put myself in the top 50 refs in Scotland, but then I wouldn't put half of the league refs in there either... So we'll say not much worse

It's nothing to do with the laws of the game, they're available for everyone to read and learn.
It's the application of those laws, if Kompany against Man U is a red card why isnt Glen Johnson against Man City? If even referees cant agree with one another what chance is there? I read three reports today in the media regarding Balotelli's "stamp" on Scott Parker, two concentrated on Balotelli's character and efectively branded him guilty, one looked at the stamp from all angles and agreed Balotelli could have just been trying to get his foot planted as he was off balance and facing away from Parker so could niot have known his head was there. This lends credence to a widely held belief that Balotelli got a 4 match ban because he's Balotelli rather than what he's alleged to have done.
The laws have to be applied across the board, not just to the perceived bad guys.
England players in particul;ar appear top be exempt from red cards, Frank Lampard gets away with awful rtackles week in and week out, it's been almost 5 years since Rio Ferdinand last had ared card in the league, 5 years for a central defender in what they like to call the toughest league in the world! That's an absolute scandal, especially when placed alongside the record of his defensive partner Nemanja Vidic.
The bouffant haired twat who refereed the 1991 FA Cup final failed to send off Paul Gascoigne because he could see he was in a bad way and didn't want to make his day any worse (I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of his quote) meaning Spurs could replace the clown and go on with a full compliment to win the Cup. That, to my mind, is cheating. He knew what he had to do and decided against it for non footballing reasons.

[craigkillie]

TheLip69, on 29 January 2012 - 19:24, said:

It's nothing to do with the laws of the game, they're available for everyone to read and learn.
It's the application of those laws, if Kompany against Man U is a red card why isnt Glen Johnson against Man City? If even referees cant agree with one another what chance is there?

Those laws which everyone can read and learn quite often use the phrase "in the opinion of the referee". Different referees will see things differently. It is impossible to guarantee consistency between referees. I think all you can hope for is that individual referees are consistent in their own decision making.

Quote

I read three reports today in the media regarding Balotelli's "stamp" on Scott Parker, two concentrated on Balotelli's character and efectively branded him guilty, one looked at the stamp from all angles and agreed Balotelli could have just been trying to get his foot planted as he was off balance and facing away from Parker so could niot have known his head was there. This lends credence to a widely held belief that Balotelli got a 4 match ban because he's Balotelli rather than what he's alleged to have done.
The laws have to be applied across the board, not just to the perceived bad guys.

What does this have to do with referees?

Quote

England players in particul;ar appear top be exempt from red cards, Frank Lampard gets away with awful rtackles week in and week out, it's been almost 5 years since Rio Ferdinand last had ared card in the league, 5 years for a central defender in what they like to call the toughest league in the world! That's an absolute scandal, especially when placed alongside the record of his defensive partner Nemanja Vidic.

That's a daft comparison. Ferdinand and Vidic are your defensive partnership consisting of a classy footballing defender (Ferdinand) and a stopper (Vidic). Of course the stopper is going to get more cards. You rarely see Ferdinand even making a tackle - he gets by on reading the game (or at least he did). Ricardo Carvalho only got 2 red cards in his Chelsea career - compare that to his partner John Terry's 4 in the same period.

Lampard got away with one bad tackle a couple of weeks ago. I think you'd struggle to find many more examples of his "awful tackles".

Quote

The bouffant haired twat who refereed the 1991 FA Cup final failed to send off Paul Gascoigne because he could see he was in a bad way and didn't want to make his day any worse (I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of his quote) meaning Spurs could replace the clown and go on with a full compliment to win the Cup. That, to my mind, is cheating. He knew what he had to do and decided against it for non footballing reasons.

20 years ago. Wow.

[djw1992]

Supras, on 29 January 2012 - 19:12, said:

I'm a gippo.

What?

[TheLip69]

craigkillie, on 29 January 2012 - 19:38, said:

Those laws which everyone can read and learn quite often use the phrase "in the opinion of the referee". Different referees will see things differently. It is impossible to guarantee consistency between referees. I think all you can hope for is that individual referees are consistent in their own decision making.

Even then a referees opinion isn't the end of the matter though, how many times have referees been asked to look at something again only to change their mind. Some players get red cards or yellow cards rescinded, others get four match bans after the fact.
Are referees using a players previous when they form their opinion though.
Fergie made the point a few years back that whenever Paul Scholes went into a tackle he could almost sense the officials thinking "Christ, Scholesy again he cant tackle" and automatically reaching for their red card. He claimed the Scholesy cant tackle nonsense came from TV pundits and said, rightly, that you dont get to be one of the best midfielders in the world without being able to tackle.
The anomalies in the law and the different way referees interpret things lead to players and managers preferring some refereees over others.
refereeing in this country, i.e. the UK, is probably better than most it's still shit though.