That penalty

[lo36789]

Back to the penalty, and interested to get lo's take on this....
Was it made less easy for the ref due to both players (and several others) having white long-sleeved skins beneath their shirts plus both kits having white sleeves?

Nope. It hit Hunt and it went against us - it's not like he mistook who's arm it hit.

I've actually managed to pause it now at point of contact. Where it hits him is lower than I first thought it is nearly his elbow.

The next question is was his arm outside the silhouette of his body. I mean it's a judgement is his arm forward of his body or against his body - the footage is inconclusive given the angle.

By letter of law it may not be incorrect as the clauses around accidental were removed two years ago. It has become fact based "is your arm away from your body" (does it make your body bigger) and "does it hit below the shoulder" (point in line with armpit).

Simply put referee has judged both those clauses to be true. He definitely got one right the other is somewhat an opinion on the position of an arm and whether it should be there or not.

The still actually looks more a handball than it seemed when watching in normal speed. I still think it is harsh mind.

[Darlogramps]

No it isn't, lunging in is out of control. How can it be controlled he's put his entire bodyweight in midair - if that lands on a player it breaks his leg.

But it didn’t land on the player. Your obsession with hypotheticals betrays the fact you know you’re talking mince.

Wheatley was in control of the challenge, directed at the ball and didn’t injure the player. If you’re arguing referees are making bookings based on what MIGHT have happened, you’re wrong. They judge based on the incident that has happened.

My point still stands reciting lines to a camera would give you nothing more than the above coz you would still dispute it. So where is the value in that - who is made accountable by just saying "well that's how I saw it". It won't change any decisions.

At our level players and managers get interviewed by "friendly" media. If you want the same application (as you say it's the same as managers / players) then they could only be interviewed by another official - or the PGMOL would be allowed to edit any statements in the same way our club website does.

The only levels where participants are subject to independent challenge the players and managers are provided with dedicated media training. So the same would have to be provided.

All this just sounds like you’re looking for excuses.

I’m sure a referee can speak in front of a microphone and explain a decision he’s made publicly. I wouldn’t be against referees receiving training and support to handle the media, but that’s not a reason to ditch the idea. And I think you’ll find that, certainly at the top level, media training for referees already exists.

But your insistence that they’d be reciting lines and telling us nothing new is simply nonsense. Actually you’d get a more human side to referees, rather than them being unaccountable, voiceless robots. More importantly you’d get a public justification, with an explanation as to how a vague discretionary law has been applied in a specific instance.

Look at the change in approach for the English Cricket team, or indeed at the 2018 World Cup.
Greater co-operation with the media, rather than seeing them as a threat, actually leads to improved relations and a much better perception. There aren’t many cases where more openness has led to things getting worse.

As Cheerleader-In-Chief for referees, you simply want to avoid any sort of scrutiny in case it upsets the unaccountable chumocracy that currently exists.

The law allows for discretion. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for an explanation as to why a decision happened.
And given referees make decisions which cost clubs points and money, they are absolutely accountable to clubs and fans.

I also dispute that players get interviewed only by “friendly media”. That’s an insult to the likes of Craig Stoddart, or local press which covers clubs. These are independent media organisations which ask objective questions, without seeking favour.

Saying referees should only be interviewed by other officials is a joke, and should be beneath you. Utterly moronic comment.

I really don’t see why you’re so scared of referees coming out and saying: “I made this decision because of this reason.” The law is vague and allows for discretion (by your own admission). What’s wrong with a referee explaining how they’ve applied a particular law to a specific scenario? There’s nothing beyond officials and their cheerleaders seeking to dodge accountability.

Sorry that is absolutely rubbish and you know it. You used it as evidence of a decline in standards.

The reason was because one man got offered £2millon a year to take another job.

You can't use a fact as a validation for a statement which doesn't validate it. That is pathetic.

No different to you saying the 2018/22 World Cup votes weren’t corrupt (which you tried to argue), or that Northern League clubs haven’t dominated the FA Vase (another shocker which you refused to back down on), or the Fylde Coast debacle.

As it happens, a top referee chasing money instead of officiating at the highest level is, in my view, a perfect example of declining standards.

[lo36789]

I really don’t see why you’re so scared of referees coming out and saying: “I made this decision because of this reason.” The law is vague and allows for discretion (by your own admission). What’s wrong with a referee explaining how they’ve applied a particular law to a specific scenario? There’s nothing beyond officials and their cheerleaders seeking to dodge accountability

I don't I've told you this. I just don't think it will change anything. See above - justification on what law says and the response is "that's wrong". So what does that achieve? People funny enough still disagree.

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).

For perspective club comment from one club secretary last season was outrage that I had issued 5 cautions to his team. He acknowledged that all were actually correct but I should have taken into account that the game was the biggest in the clubs history and it made it harder for them to win it with players on yellow cards. Imagine that as a post match interview. Funny enough that wasn't one that was forwarded onto me for my response / observations.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[lo36789]

Ultimately what it will never change is there are only three reasons a match official gets a decision "wrong".

1. A difference of opinion on what is right and wrong. I thought it was reckless you thought careless.

2. That the angle / position that they had meant what they saw, and the speed they saw it appeared differently. Basically error of judgement.

3. Incorrect in law. So saw what happened but applied law wrong. Example a few years ago was a referee cautioned a keeper for picking up a back pass when under pressure from an attacker - in law that can never happen.

Not sure it would be particularly exhilarating watching.

1. I saw it as this, and that is still my interpretation. You might disagree but that's how I saw it. Can't change it now
2. What I saw was this, it was wrong, but that's how I saw it. Can't change it now.
3. I believed this. It was wrong, but that's how I saw it. Won't make that mistake again. Can't change it now.

[Darlogramps]

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.

[lo36789]

This is literally what I’m arguing for. Glad you finally agree with me.

Well he could already - there is no ban on it at all.

If he was in the bar after the game asked the question he could report it as "speaking after the game the referee said that from their position it looked like a penalty / red / yellow card". Would be a wonderful addition to the march reports and would truly make the referee accountable.

Again when we had fans many of them used to approach in the right way and ask questions. That said I reckon probably 50% of them don't and it basically ends with "Yep ok. Right we have to go now" because all you get back is aggression over a throw-in in the 3rd minute which came to nothing was incorrect.

This already happens it just doesn't get reported, that said on many occasions managers confirm that they spoke in the changing room afterwards and confirm what they have been told. They confirm that they don't understand how they saw that and they still disagree.

[lo36789]

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.

You do know the clubs pay the fees until the FL don't you? It is the clubs who determine what those fees are also. So yes it would be a case of asking the individual club for a media appearance fee - because that is who pays them.

There is no 'employer', it is a one off transaction fee to officiate the match. The FA are an agent who appoint officials on behalf of the competition's but beyond that they are under the terms of the leagues and paid by the clubs.

[lo36789]

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

I havn't said otherwise.

There is demand for it, the club/media can monetise that demand so they produce the product.

[Darlogramps]

This is literally what I’m arguing for. Glad you finally agree with me.

Well he could already - there is no ban on it at all.

If he was in the bar after the game asked the question he could report it as "speaking after the game the referee said that from their position it looked like a penalty / red / yellow card". Would be a wonderful addition to the march reports and would truly make the referee accountable.

Again when we had fans many of them used to approach in the right way and ask questions. That said I reckon probably 50% of them don't and it basically ends with "Yep ok. Right we have to go now" because all you get back is aggression over a throw-in in the 3rd minute which came to nothing was incorrect.

This already happens it just doesn't get reported, that said on many occasions managers confirm that they spoke in the changing room afterwards and confirm what they have been told. They confirm that they don't understand how they saw that and they still disagree.

Are you talking about off-the-record? Because I’m saying on-the-record or on camera.

And again, your persistent misrepresentation of what is being asked for is making you look ridiculous. The referees would not say “From where I was, it looked like a red card.” If it’s done in good faith from both sides, there’d be a genuine explanation as to how the referee applied a general law to a specific situation, and why they came to that judgement.

Take Wheatley as an example. They’d explain why they gave a yellow card: “My judgement is it was out of control, off the ground and potentially dangerous.”
If people don’t like it, then that’s up to them. But at least the referee’s explanation is out there.

You also can’t judge how professional media organisations would do this based on fans speaking in the bar afterwards. That’s just blatant false equivalence.

[lo36789]

You also can’t judge how professional media organisations would do this based on fans speaking in the bar afterwards. That’s just blatant false equivalence.

Not every team has a professional media organisation involved. So do some clubs get the content for their website and others don't?

Based on the staffing of their media team?

[lo36789]

Take Wheatley as an example. They’d explain why they gave a yellow card: “My judgement is it was out of control, off the ground and potentially dangerous.”
If people don’t like it, then that’s up to them. But at least the referee’s explanation is out there.

The thing is. That is the default reason for everything.

Read the laws of the game. Whatever it says and add "my view was..." at the start.

Their reason is already out there because of the decision was given. They obviously thought that or they wouldn't have given it!

To compare Boris Johnson, a public official, appointed by the public and accountable to the public appearance on public broadcast is the same is as a private individual, appointed by an agent (FA), under the terms of another agent (the league and its members) to appear on private media (the clubs) because of a perceived accountability to the public, apparently.

[lo36789]

Simply put money talks. If Sky and BT thought that referees interviews would get then money (like managers interviews do) they would lobby the Premier League for them.

The Premier League would, since they pay PGMOL, put it into their terms. This only really works at EFL and above though because of employment status (and even that is still being disputed as the tax man preferred status would basically create some minimum wage / and employment rights issues which aren't factored into the amount that PL are prepared to pay.)

It doesn't happen now which tells you the market doesn't demand it. What the media companies really want, is dramatic controversial decisions because they get them the most engagement, the most advertising revenue. The winner is the sound bite of pundits and managers saying "referee should have to explain this" because that just invites opinion / engagement.

Given the clubs by Sunday night will have a written response to any decisions they have queried they also clearly don't see that it is some good will public service to share them. Nothing would stop them there are no rules against it they choose not to.

[Darlogramps]

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.

You do know the clubs pay the fees until the FL don't you? It is the clubs who determine what those fees are also. So yes it would be a case of asking the individual club for a media appearance fee - because that is who pays them.

There is no 'employer', it is a one off transaction fee to officiate the match. The FA are an agent who appoint officials on behalf of the competition's but beyond that they are under the terms of the leagues and paid by the clubs.

But the clubs don’t directly pay the money into the referees’ bank accounts.

They pay it to the organisation which looks after the referees, who then pay the officials.

As such, the referee is being employed by the FA, PGMOL, National League or whoever to do the job. You’ve prattled on repeatedly about performance bonuses and promotion. How can they get a bonus or a performance assessment if they’re not employed or overseen by someone? Are you also suggesting a referee has no rights, since they’re not employed? You’re trying to mislead people here and it’s not on.

The point is speaking to the media after games would be regarded as another duty. If the referee wants paying for that additional duty, they’d take it up with the “agent” as you put it, who is responsible for them.

[Darlogramps]

Take Wheatley as an example. They’d explain why they gave a yellow card: “My judgement is it was out of control, off the ground and potentially dangerous.”
If people don’t like it, then that’s up to them. But at least the referee’s explanation is out there.

The thing is. That is the default reason for everything.

Read the laws of the game. Whatever it says and add "my view was..." at the start.

Their reason is already out there because of the decision was given. They obviously thought that or they wouldn't have given it!

To compare Boris Johnson, a public official, appointed by the public and accountable to the public appearance on public broadcast is the same is as a private individual, appointed by an agent (FA), under the terms of another agent (the league and its members) to appear on private media (the clubs) because of a perceived accountability to the public, apparently.

I haven’t compared them to Boris Johnson.

I’ve used that as an example as to why someone wouldn’t be paid to do an interview.

You were trying to mislead people into suggesting everyone gets paid to do interviews. I used that as an example that wasn’t the case.

And once again, you’re contradicting yourself. You spent ages in this very thread arguing the referees applied individual discretion to vague, general laws.

Now you’re arguing they would only quote general laws. No, you can ask about their discretion - what was it about that specific incident which made you apply this law in this way? I fail to see the issue with that.

[Darlogramps]

Simply put money talks. If Sky and BT thought that referees interviews would get then money (like managers interviews do) they would lobby the Premier League for them.

The Premier League would, since they pay PGMOL, put it into their terms. This only really works at EFL and above though because of employment status (and even that is still being disputed as the tax man preferred status would basically create some minimum wage / and employment rights issues which aren't factored into the amount that PL are prepared to pay.)

It doesn't happen now which tells you the market doesn't demand it. What the media companies really want, is dramatic controversial decisions because they get them the most engagement, the most advertising revenue. The winner is the sound bite of pundits and managers saying "referee should have to explain this" because that just invites opinion / engagement.

Given the clubs by Sunday night will have a written response to any decisions they have queried they also clearly don't see that it is some good will public service to share them. Nothing would stop them there are no rules against it they choose not to.

Does it? Does it really show there’s no demand? How do we know if it’s never happened? Chicken and egg scenario.

PMQs isn’t watched live by millions. You don’t see millions tuning into Darlington Borough Council’s monthly cabinet meeting. BBC Parliament isn’t exactly a box office smash.

Yet they’re all crucial to transparency and accountability.

This is the same principle. If there’s a contentious decision, why not ask the referee on camera to explain how he or she came to that decision? 90% of the time, games pass without incident so there’s no issue. But if there’s incidents where a referee’s explanation would make it clearer why a decision was reached, I’m struggling to see how that would be detrimental.

Indeed you haven’t found a reason why they’d be at the detriment of the game. The reasons you’ve provided so far are that it’s just not worth it. I’m arguing it is.
It just strikes me that you’re looking for excuses to preserve the status quo and dodge further accountability for your referee mates.

[loan_star]

I think this thread just proves how out of touch some referees actually are with the game. You start yellow carding people for what might happen than what actually did happen then the game will be turned into a non contact sport. Wheatley won the ball cleanly, the lad wasn't injured, carry on and stop being a wet wipe.

[lo36789]

How many times have I to tell you. I don't really care, most of us would happily speak about incidents if asked in the right way. To be honest all any refereeing pundit gets back is "oh Peter Walton, all he does is explain why the referee would have made that decision it's so pointless".

I disagree it brings accountability, the reason I would be so relaxed about explaining an incident is it would have no bearing / no impact upon me whatsoever.

I just think the implementation of it is flawed, as you say it's not every game it's just some game. Is it every caution or just some cautions. Do throw-ins and fouls get included? What is the threshold for a decision to be discussed? Who gets to ask home team media and away team media?

Equally I think the motivation behind it is somewhat evident from the tone of the demand. There is a big difference for me between;
- they should be made to explain. Make them accountable
- they should be provided a platform to explain. Give them an opportunity to educate.

And as has proven above. You don't want to be explained to, you won't accept the explanation anyway. For me you just want to find a public arena to attempt to trip people up, that's really what you are after. A slight wrong use of terminology, or a badly worded sentence to hang someone by that is what you really want with it.

That is why I will always speak to someone who approaches and asks in the right way. In fact it's why after every game we ask managers and secretaries "anything for me to look at, anything you need clarifying?".

If they are going to start with "how did you not see..." "well you got that one wrong didn't you" then they can get in the sea frankly, people like that don't deserve time of day.

[lo36789]

I think this thread just proves how out of touch some referees actually are with the game. You start yellow carding people for what might happen than what actually did happen then the game will be turned into a non contact sport. Wheatley won the ball cleanly, the lad wasn't injured, carry on and stop being a wet wipe.

It's more about what the law says than anything else it is the action which is the offence not the outcome.

If we go down the outcome being the offence that gets very mirky.

Referees out of touch with what exactly? I still play, have previously been a coach and manager and I am secretary of a step 5 club.

None of those things make me incapable of seeing why a referee has applied the laws of the game. If your concern is that whether you win the ball or not matters I'd pick that one up the PL clubs who lobby for it to be an offence.

[H1987]

If we have enough other clubs on our side, we hold the cards on this one. What are they going to do, kick 20 clubs out? More? There’s no one to promote, the leagues below aren’t finishing their seasons.

I wonder how much of this situation can be levelled squarely at Kings Lynn and York last year and their pathetic demands to be classified as ‘elite’. I’d argue that decision has largely shaped current affairs, although the national league and government have respectively let us down dreadfully.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Wrong thread H19.

[lo36789]

You ask a question you get.

https://www.barrowafc.com/news/2021/feb ... postponed/

[H1987]

Wrong thread H19.

Apologies. Absolutely no idea how I’ve done that.

[don'tbuythesun]

Probably the shock of realising a meaningless penalty decision discussion has run to 83 posts! Life in lockdown.....

[Darlogramps]

Equally I think the motivation behind it is somewhat evident from the tone of the demand. There is a big difference for me between;
- they should be made to explain. Make them accountable
- they should be provided a platform to explain. Give them an opportunity to educate.

And as has proven above. You don't want to be explained to, you won't accept the explanation anyway. For me you just want to find a public arena to attempt to trip people up, that's really what you are after. A slight wrong use of terminology, or a badly worded sentence to hang someone by that is what you really want with it.

OK, so you’re going down the conspiracy theory route. Trumpian levels of cognitive dissonance.

This is part of the problem - referees and their cheerleaders who think they are above everyone else. If you dare question them you’re simply a troublemaker, in their view. This is demonstrated by the fact you think fans need to be educated by referees, as you quote above.

The reason you’re scared of any form of scrutiny is it might upset the cosy little self-important cabal referees have formed, where they’re always right and just ignore those oiks in the stands who watch the game.

The fact you’ve gone down the route of crackpot conspiracy theories shows how hopelessly out of touch you are.

It’s not about trying to trip them up. It’s about better communication and explanation, and removing the veil of secrecy. Greater communication and transparency will lead to better decisions and performances.

You’re like a press officer who won’t allow players to speak to the media in case they make a mistake. It’s not about tripping people up, it’s about giving a platform to better communicate and explain.

But you don’t want that because that brings greater accountability. And the last thing referees want is to dare to admit they’ve got something wrong.

[Darlopj]

For referees, read control freaks.

[lo36789]

But you don’t want that because that brings greater accountability. And the last thing referees want is to dare to admit they’ve got something wrong

You really don't have a clue. Referees openly tell players "I will get stuff wrong" and they openly say "if I got it wrong I apologise" or "judging by the reaction I got that one wrong". It happens in every game, it happens in dressing rooms after the game.

It is actually quite funny. Whenever a contentious decision happens a referee will offer to the clubs "I'll watch it and I will come back to you" which they do. Phone calls with managers and clubs in the week after. At levels below where footage isnt shared automatically then the offer is always made "send me the footage and we can chat it through".

I remember watching a penalty incident in a manager's office which was through the back of the home changing room. Manager thought it was outside, I had awarded it in, they lost 1-0. Footage showed me to be correct at which point manager decided he now thought it wasn't enough for a foul.

At another game I missed a blatant handball on the line having already sent off two of the players who the decision went against. I had already said that I thought it came off his knee from my angle we watched the footage with the players in the bar afterwards, it was a clearly an error - I had moved around to monitor a tackle and as a result my view was blocked. I said sorry it's clearly wrong but the way it played out explains why I saw what I thought I did, and the players just said fair enough you owe us next time. Had them two weeks later and Ciaran the skipper did laugh in pre-match when I said "Ciaran and Dave (manager) know as well as anyone I'll get plenty of stuff wrong, hopefully most won't be important, but I will explain honestly what I saw".

The other way though, of the times when the clubs have actually sent me footage. I think it happened three times in 4 years at that level. I reckon there were over 50 occasions where I offered to watch it with them, gave them my email address and phone number, and nothing ever came through. I still don't know if it was right or wrong and unable to assess if it was wrong to diagnose why (movement / positioning / just simple bad judgement).

You keep saying "but you don't want that". Which is true, to the extent I don't clamour for it - I would like to think there are shades of grey between not wanting something and wanting something mind. I don't look at football and think "wow, referees interviews that would be a game changer". At the same time I don't see it as a problem were it to become common. I just dispute heavily the value it would add, and the actually delivery of the objective you think it will achieve.

It is about tone, I guess I am not sure why a referee needs to explain a decision. The explanation is already in front of you he obviously thought it was the right decision. If you know law and apply a judgement that equals the decision it's the same formula over and over. If its not to provide knowledge they didn't previously have (is that not education) then what is it there for?

You show your true colours you want people on screens saying "I got it wrong" that really what you are after because you are convinced that translates as "accountability".

[bga]

For referees, read control freaks.

Very much a generalisation. You can play a game of football without a manager without a full back, without a goalkeeper if someone stands in etc. but you can't play a match without a referee! About time we cut them some slack to be honest.

[lo36789]

Most are just people who love football. They are all fans of their own teams and have gone one step further.

I got into it when I was coaching and still playing. Saturday mornings coaching, Saturday afternoons playing, Sunday mornings managing, Sunday afternoons refereeing, with some variations between age of 14 and 18.

There were benefits. 14 year old and responsible for controlling adult football matches it's a skillset which is transferable in future life. It was the same with my managing / coaching at 15 I had admin responsibility for an u10s team and dealing with those parents.

50% of referees quit in the first year due to physical threats, verbal abuse or actual bodily harm. It's about 7,000 per year in England. This means 20% of games in the country are played without any officials so are effectively unsanctioned, uninsured football.

The thing I still can't quite get my head round is this.

• Referees, like managers and players must be made to do interviews after games. Managers and players aren't made to, they are asked to.

• But anyway, I guess that means it will be every game. As you say it's like the managers. No, only when we think they got something wrong

• That seems a bit different. And who would interview them / manage the content. Obviously for managers and players its their own media teams and their clubs control the content. It would be the clubs media teams who would do it and they would edit and publish the content.

So actually the whole premise of any interview is interviewer disagrees with a decision that official has made, and is challenging them over that decision.

Depending on what the match footage shows that interview either will or won't be published and will be edited by the clubs media teams. So actually, it is not the same as manager / player interview at all.

I can see you don't agree, and you can't see the difference between the two. That you think it's some weird conspiracy that exists and wall of silence orchestrated by people who don't take responsibility for their own decisions.

And despite that. I don't know a single referee who if asked by a clubs media team would give an answer to a quote on or off record. You will see examples where they have been asked and they have answered. On the most part though they are never asked. What you are actually asking for us a change in rules that club media teams should be made to allocate content time to interview match officials - see if the clubs vote for that one.

Wrong decisions tear referees up, absolutely destroy them. Ultimately they are the ones directly affected by them. You give an incorrect penalty and it is missed it has no impact on the clubs - your season is as good as over.

I would be FL this season for one exception. In all of last season I got one offside decision wrong in November in a Premier League Reserves game. It was put down as the top level of difficulty as the attacker was my side so I couldn't actually see the defender who crossed over with another defender after the ball was headed back in from a corner. The striker was in the line of sight of the goalkeeper and was effectively offside by about half of his foot. No-one appealed for offside, and when I shared the footage I had to point out the offence. All goals are checked for offsides anyway, but the reason I knew it would be focussed on was because the matchday observer noted in the debrief that my body language showed momentary pause after it went in. Basically I couldn't hide that I knew there was a potential that he was offside, but because I couldn't see through the attacker I didn't know the exact position of the defenders and didn't guess at offside.

And that, that is the margin as an assistant. Financially it is the difference between c £3k of income per year from refereeing and c. £15k per season (double it for refs).

The two busiest departments in the PGMOL are the fitness area (because they interrogate the training data submitted by officials each week and provide expected training plans, measure body fat and weight periodically etc.) and the psychology department, and the biggest topic is how to park decisions and how to not let incorrect decisions consume your thoughts, and to affect your health.

[Darlogramps]

You really don't have a clue. Referees openly tell players "I will get stuff wrong" and they openly say "if I got it wrong I apologise" or "judging by the reaction I got that one wrong". It happens in every game, it happens in dressing rooms after the game.

Then why not say the same things to everyone else in public? Or if referees believe they’re correct, again, why not explain it to everyone?

The reason why is having a platform by its very nature brings more accountability.

You show your true colours you want people on screens saying "I got it wrong" that really what you are after because you are convinced that translates as "accountability".

You’re arguing in bad faith by trying to make out I’m out to undermine referees, when actually I believe this would help them out, as it provides better communication as to how decisions have been made.

You’ve convinced yourself this is about trying to undermine and humiliate referees. It’s not. It’s about getting them to explain decisions to give fans and players a better understanding. Rules are constantly changing, particularly with the advent of VAR. I’d be surprised if every fan knows every rule inside out so from the understanding point there’s clear value.

To say it’s all a grand conspiracy to undermine referees is borderline hysterical.

Also, is there anything wrong with a referee admitting they made a mistake, if that’s what’s happened? Most people are pretty reasonable and will accept mistakes being owned up to (as you’ve admitted from your own experience).

And if referees are supposedly willing to answer questions post-match to clubs, then why not fans or the wider public? I fail to see how more communication is a bad thing.

Also, please can you read over your sentences before posting. That last paragraph makes no sense at all.

[theoriginalfatcat]

lo, throughout this rather long thread you've made some interesting observations.