How would you decide which club volunteer media persons are able to ask questions and ensure they are legitimate queries in the correct tone and not aggressive attacks on someone's integrity? Do the referees have to answer anything even if it is inappropriate - who decides what is or isn't inappropriate? Is threatening the life of a match officials daughter acceptable or not acceptable for instance (90% of twitter seem to think it is a deserved response).
What are you going on about? You seem to be saying only people with specialist expertise can ask referees questions.
If that were the case, there’s be no such thing as political interviews. Why should Laura Kuenssberg interview Dominic Raab about foreign policy? She’s no expert after all. Let’s just leave it in the hands of the Foreign Office. They’ll be totally neutral and objective....That appears to be the logic you’re using.
I’ll be honest, it’s pretty arrogant for you to think those poor little journalists can’t ask proper questions about a refereeing decision. You sound silly.
And why are you only talking about club media teams? Are you saying Craig Stoddart is incapable of asking independent questions for his media organisation?
As for tone and appropriateness well that’s something every interviewer has to weigh up.
It’s like when the Government refused to put people on Piers Morgan’s show because he was a bit rough with ministers. It all looked very childish and eventually they backed down.
But likewise if an interviewer chooses to be abusive and aggressive, they’re only damaging their own reputation. And a referee would be perfectly within their rights to walk off, as any interviewee is. Believe it or not, the majority of people are pretty reasonable and treat anyone they interview with respect.
But saying interviews might get heated isn’t a reason for not doing it. That’s a responsibility on the individuals involved.
Do they have to perform for both teams media after every game, are they compensated for it given current hourly rate for a NLN match official when training requirements are taken into account is about £4.20 per hour.
Given that the clubs will use the media content to generate revenue is there a return for the officials for that?
They wouldn’t be paid, any more than Alun Armstrong is paid when he goes on BBC Tees to provide content. Or Boris Johnson when he goes on Peston. Not sure what your point is to be honest.
It would be part of their duties. If they want extra money, take it up with their employers.
If your reasoning is referees should be paid to do interviews, you’re going down a very ridiculous rabbithole. I mean, you don’t have to be a genius to work out why Man Utd paying a referee after the game could be seen as problematic.
The comparison used is that managers and players at our level have to come forward after games and speak to the media. Well they don't. The only level that is actually required is in the Premier League when weekly press conferences are mandatory.
I mean Alun Armstrong or Neil Warnock or Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and players could refuse to. But that would make them look aloof and have something to hide. They also lose control of the messaging the club wants to get out. Doing interviews and dealing with the media is a free way of reaching an audience and getting a positive message out there.
Alternatively you get a disconnect with fans, who call for greater transparency. Sort of like the situation with referees now.
Interviews with managers and players isnt really there to make them accountable for their decisions. It is predominately to create content for fans to generate hits which can then be converted into revenue.
It’s multi-faceted and I don’t think there’s one reason that’s stronger than the other.
Making content to get clicks and revenue is one purpose of course, but there is an accountability aspect to it as well. Fans want to hear what’s going on, why a manager made a particular decision, or why a chairman has decided to sack someone, or why a player feels his team did badly etc. Independent media are much better placed to do that than people with vested interests. Again, this feels like you’re looking for excuses.
And also, managers and players are interviewed because fans are genuinely interested in what they have to say. It’s a bit insulting to say otherwise.
Still isn’t a reason for referees to avoid questioning.
Won't change the outcome of decisions, won't change the fortunes of the teams, won't alter a referees promotion or reclassification opportunities, won't change their eligibility for bonus based on merit table position. I really don't see where this "accountability" is derived.
This has been explained multiple times. Players complaining on the pitch won’t change decisions. Pundits analysing decisions afterwards won’t change them. Managers criticising decisions afterwards won’t change them. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
The aim isn’t to overturn a decision. It’s for a referee to explain why they came to a decision. What was the thought-process? How did they use their discretion to apply a general law to a specific incident? And in fairness, you know this but are just being awkward.
My argument is by doing that, you get a greater understanding as to why something has happened. That in turn benefits relations between referees and the rest of the footballing world.
What I would suggest is if people really want it. Ray could ask any match official a question on decisions at the end of game, "what was the reason for this?", they will answer him honestly and politely and what he does with that would be his prerogative.
This is literally what I’m arguing for. Glad you finally agree with me.