• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

***OMT - Tottenham Hotspur v Kings Road WAN KERS - Sat, 5.30pm, Stamford S**thole***

K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Really need to adopt the rugby convention and only allow captain to speak to ref about decisions. We read all this nonsense that the refs are going to implement greater authority on elements of the game and they soon go back to letting things go when they feel like it. The players have no respect for the referee, it's up to them and the authorities in the game to strictly enforce the laws and take back control.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to learn from rugby to be fair. Got tickets to Twickers for Eng vs Aus on Nov 8. Can't wait.

The problem in football is that neither player or referee has any high ground. If the referees earned more respect with way better performances then the game would accept them being a little more draconian in their approach. Because they can't even follow a reasonably simple set of laws and enforce them, then the system is broke. I actually see the officiating as more the root cause than the players and managers who just adapt to the poor reffing.
 
Muttley said:
There is a lot to learn from rugby to be fair. Got tickets to Twickers for Eng vs Aus on Nov 8. Can't wait.

The problem in football is that neither player or referee has any high ground. If the referees earned more respect with way better performances then the game would accept them being a little more draconian in their approach. Because they can't even follow a reasonably simple set of laws and enforce them, then the system is broke. I actually see the officiating as more the root cause than the players and managers who just adapt to the poor reffing.
Click to expand...

I agree. The authorities need to back the refs. Can you imagine the outcry if the ref had booked all the players who surrounded them this weekend? Our mates on TV would all be saying refs need to be a bit more human and understand the players emotions, press wouldn't be a lot different and the first poor sod who did it would be getting games in the Shropshire premier league as a reward. Mr Webb would be wearing his cloak of invisibility.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I agree. The authorities need to back the refs. Can you imagine the outcry if the ref had booked all the players who surrounded them this weekend? Our mates on TV would all be saying refs need to be a bit more human and understand the players emotions, press wouldn't be a lot different and the first poor sod who did it would be getting games in the Shropshire premier league as a reward. Mr Webb would be wearing his cloak of invisibility.
Click to expand...

Yep, the referees also need IFAB to step up massively. I went and looked at the laws of the game after the Palmer incident. They are so terribly written that they leave anomalies all over the place. More importantly, they leave obvious grey space where organizations like PGMOL can hide behind even though every football stakeholder knows what the decision should be.

It's quite funny really. Football hired technologists to build VAR and the football governance bodies had absolutely no clue who impement the tech and the change it brought.

I think IFAB probably hired 7-11 year olds to write the laws. What they needed to do was to find some mad passionate football fans from the legal community and get some proper help.
 
Muttley said:
Yep, the referees also need IFAB to step up massively. I went and looked at the laws of the game after the Palmer incident. They are so terribly written that they leave anomalies all over the place. More importantly, they leave obvious grey space where organizations like PGMOL can hide behind even though every football stakeholder knows what the decision should be.

It's quite funny really. Football hired technologists to build VAR and the football governance bodies had absolutely no clue who impement the tech and the change it brought.

I think IFAB probably hired 7-11 year olds to write the laws. What they needed to do was to find some mad passionate football fans from the legal community and get some proper help.
Click to expand...

Our company lawyer always said he would never "go to law" as there are so many anomalies, interpretations and variables involved.
 
Referees/officials already have an impossible job watching play and understanding the nature of contact and the intent.

Even offside decisions need you to look at two places simultaneously.

Expanding the rulebook just adds detail of how a decision was wrong it will not eliminate the errors. Every week we see decisions analysed for hours and no concensus emerge as to what happened and what should have followed.
 
Muttley said:
There is a lot to learn from rugby to be fair. Got tickets to Twickers for Eng vs Aus on Nov 8. Can't wait.

The problem in football is that neither player or referee has any high ground. If the referees earned more respect with way better performances then the game would accept them being a little more draconian in their approach. Because they can't even follow a reasonably simple set of laws and enforce them, then the system is broke. I actually see the officiating as more the root cause than the players and managers who just adapt to the poor reffing.
Click to expand...
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I agree. The authorities need to back the refs. Can you imagine the outcry if the ref had booked all the players who surrounded them this weekend? Our mates on TV would all be saying refs need to be a bit more human and understand the players emotions, press wouldn't be a lot different and the first poor sod who did it would be getting games in the Shropshire premier league as a reward. Mr Webb would be wearing his cloak of invisibility.
Click to expand...
The players would have high ground if they themselves never made mistakes, yet we all see them make basic errors every game; the man of the match in the Chelsea-Spurs game made a couple of real howlers, for instance.

Rugby players seem to accept the premise that the ref is right, even when he is wrong. As K.D.D.D.D.Soc says, the authorities would do the refs (and the game) a favour by backing them to the hilt when they apply laws that are, to quote Billy Shakespeare, "more honour’d in the breach than the observance".

Mind you, I've never seen what all the fuss is about with Shakespeare; it's just a load of well-known phrases cobbled together.
 
Roland Beurre said:
The players would have high ground if they themselves never made mistakes, yet we all see them make basic errors every game; the man of the match in the Chelsea-Spurs game made a couple of real howlers, for instance.

Rugby players seem to accept the premise that the ref is right, even when he is wrong. As K.D.D.D.D.Soc says, the authorities would do the refs (and the game) a favour by backing them to the hilt when they apply laws that are, to quote Billy Shakespeare, "more honour’d in the breach than the observance".

Mind you, I've never seen what all the fuss is about with Shakespeare; it's just a load of well-known phrases cobbled together.
Click to expand...

One clear flaw in your argument though and that is technology. At least in this part of the football pyramid it is clear that we've given the officials some absolutely fantastic technology so even if they do make a mistake then their team mates in front of the video screens can help them. In Kavanagh's case there was a huge pause between when the incident happened and when he gave the yellow to Palmer. He hadn't even made a mistake in real time. There was more than enough time for the on-pitch and video-refs to have a quick chat and Kavanagh to avoid all this nonsense and just hold up the red card. He shouldn't have even needed that advice to be fair as it was an obvious act of violence on our player and he had plenty of thinking time. Last night, Salisbury didn't even have VAR at Fleetwood and knew exactly what to do with his very simliar one.

I do fully understand your argument on human error in real time. I think we can all be forgiving for player and referee with that. It just doesn't apply in this situation.
 
There is a lot to learn from Rugby in terms of officiating. The rule that only the captain can talk to them is a very small part of it. But would be a good starting point.

Lets take TMO/VAR the referee on the field, all he cares about is getting the correct interpretation down. he might rule one way, then openly speak to the TMO official, they discuss it and then decide. Football Referees have a fierce Ego, And this rheoteric of not over-rulling the decision on the field does not help. We want less VAR but we want it used when its appropriate. Not intervening for one thing, but then getting involved for another makes Zero sense. Then you get Ex-referees like Dermot gallagher who just side with Refs no matter what they do and it makes them look blind to how the game is run.

Rugby does not follow this term of "intent" or malicious. That to be honest nobody can know 100%. you do something that is worthy of a yellow or Red and you get it. More black and White.

Its the mindset of Refs that needs to change. They need to be a team with the assitants and VAR aiming to get it right to the letter of the law. And that is it. Too many of them run things affected by the crowd or the heat or importance of the game. I never ever see that from Rugby Refs.

Put your head to another Head. Off. No matter intent or Force. Move our body into another player after a whistle. Off.

So many problems in English refereeing.
 
Sandman said:
There is a lot to learn from Rugby in terms of officiating. The rule that only the captain can talk to them is a very small part of it. But would be a good starting point.

Lets take TMO/VAR the referee on the field, all he cares about is getting the correct interpretation down. he might rule one way, then openly speak to the TMO official, they discuss it and then decide. Football Referees have a fierce Ego, And this rheoteric of not over-rulling the decision on the field does not help. We want less VAR but we want it used when its appropriate. Not intervening for one thing, but then getting involved for another makes Zero sense. Then you get Ex-referees like Dermot gallagher who just side with Refs no matter what they do and it makes them look blind to how the game is run.

Rugby does not follow this term of "intent" or malicious. That to be honest nobody can know 100%. you do something that is worthy of a yellow or Red and you get it. More black and White.

Its the mindset of Refs that needs to change. They need to be a team with the assitants and VAR aiming to get it right to the letter of the law. And that is it. Too many of them run things affected by the crowd or the heat or importance of the game. I never ever see that from Rugby Refs.

Put your head to another Head. Off. No matter intent or Force. Move our body into another player after a whistle. Off.

So many problems in English refereeing.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said.

I still want the entire refereeing team to be accoutable to and measured on the laws of the game. As you say, the referee and TMO only concern themselves with the laws being applied in rugby. Football referees will know exactly what they should be doing, especially with yellows, and still not do it. They have nowhere to hide in my mind.

What I've also said many times is that the process of assessing hundreds of officials up and down the UK pyramid is failsing badly as they're not discovering the "elite" referees. Their process is biased to what you say and the egos get to the top over ability.
 
Muttley said:
One clear flaw in your argument though and that is technology. At least in this part of the football pyramid it is clear that we've given the officials some absolutely fantastic technology so even if they do make a mistake then their team mates in front of the video screens can help them. In Kavanagh's case there was a huge pause between when the incident happened and when he gave the yellow to Palmer. He hadn't even made a mistake in real time. There was more than enough time for the on-pitch and video-refs to have a quick chat and Kavanagh to avoid all this nonsense and just hold up the red card. He shouldn't have even needed that advice to be fair as it was an obvious act of violence on our player and he had plenty of thinking time. Last night, Salisbury didn't even have VAR at Fleetwood and knew exactly what to do with his very simliar one.

I do fully understand your argument on human error in real time. I think we can all be forgiving for player and referee with that. It just doesn't apply in this situation.
Click to expand...
Yup, good point, and I did think about the role of technology, but not very deeply. I got as far as concluding that, even with technology, we still end up with mistakes or disputed decisions, so what's the diff? Feel free to pick flaws in that line of reasoning as well :). I'm not a deep thinker ...

One thing we can all agree on viz technology is the goal-line tech. It's quick and it's never wrong. A bit like my wife, except for the quick bit.
 
Roland Beurre said:
Yup, good point, and I did think about the role of technology, but not very deeply. I got as far as concluding that, even with technology, we still end up with mistakes or disputed decisions, so what's the diff? Feel free to pick flaws in that line of reasoning as well :). I'm not a deep thinker ...

One thing we can all agree on viz technology is the goal-line tech. It's quick and it's never wrong. A bit like my wife, except for the quick bit.
Click to expand...

Great convo. Yeah, the mistakes come from the humans, not the tech. Such a shame really that the tech is in the hands of imbeciles
 
Roland Beurre said:
The players would have high ground if they themselves never made mistakes, yet we all see them make basic errors every game; the man of the match in the Chelsea-Spurs game made a couple of real howlers, for instance.

Rugby players seem to accept the premise that the ref is right, even when he is wrong. As K.D.D.D.D.Soc says, the authorities would do the refs (and the game) a favour by backing them to the hilt when they apply laws that are, to quote Billy Shakespeare, "more honour’d in the breach than the observance".

Mind you, I've never seen what all the fuss is about with Shakespeare; it's just a load of well-known phrases cobbled together.
Click to expand...

Shakespeareans would probably suggest the "well known phrases" were first heard in his plays and subsequently become part of the English language.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Shakespeareans would probably suggest the "well known phrases" were first heard in his plays and subsequently become part of the English language.
Click to expand...

Indeed, although there is a school of thought* that old Shakey was very good at picking up on good phrases that were in common parlance and slotting them into his plays. Personally, I can imagine he borrowed the odd phrase in this way - terms such as "wild goose chase", perhaps - but he came up with far too many belters for it not to be all his own work. Or maybe he used AI.

* Based on the same or similar phrases appearing in the work of his contemporaries. A bit like everyone using "do the maths", or, if you have a lisp, "do the math".


Who knew football fans could be erudite? Bloody gentrification of a working class sport**!

** Albeit a sport whose rules were codified by a bunch of privately-educated toffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back