Watch This - A Refereeing Lesson For Football

[Ira Gaines]

29 minutes ago, forameus said:

I would agree, but I think they fear what I would fear if they brought it in - footballers not stopping it (because they're almost to a man inherently thick) and games being reduced to a complete farce because of it.

They would be reduced to a farce. And the referees should be told it's not their job to worry about that and carry on regardless, and be given the backing of the authorities. It'd need to be made clear that it isn't changing and it's up to the players and managers to be more responsible.

Not that I trust this would happen, as governing bodies don't really care about these things. But it'd be the best way to tackle it. 

[forameus]

Just now, Randy Giles said:

They would be reduced to a farce. And the referees should be told it's not their job to worry about that and carry on regardless, and be given the backing of the authorities. It'd need to be made clear that it isn't changing and it's up to the players and managers to be more responsible.

Not that I trust this would happen, as governing bodies don't really care about these things. But it'd be the best way to tackle it. 

Yeah, you're absolutely right it's the best way to tackle it, but I'd imagine the bolded bits would be where it fell down.  

Think the horse was bolted on this stuff.  Every 11s game I play through work has one instance of someone verbally abusing the ref, and a few times while I've been waiting for those games to start, I've seen kids do the same and get sent off.  Kids.  Sent off.  For dissent.  

[Salvo Montalbano]

Amazing that folk are mentioning the one or two times the video refereeing failed.  Never mind the thousands of times it worked, eh? 
 

Well maybe if you hadn't claimed

the end result is always the correct result

You'd have a case. The fact is that they don't always get the correct result and even if they did, it is still up to the on-field referee to ask for the TMO and to ask specific questions - had Nigel Owens simply asked if Farrell had grounded the ball correctly for his disallowed try, then if that's all that was checked the knock-on wouldn't have been spotted and England would have scored.

I played rugby and follow it.  I remember the argument about video slowing down games.  Waiting on video outcomes is now part of the entertainment. Give it a few years and we'll follow rugby and our game will be better for it. 

I'm afraid this doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Rugby was always a stop start game and lining up the conversions etc. always took a bit of time anyway so adding a minute or so to double check something doesn't have a huge impact on the game. There is also a much longer advantage in rugby so a TMO can check an incident and the on-field referee can then go back to the original foul without the flow of the game being broken too badly. Fouls, particularly those involving yellow and red cards, are rarer in rugby so it's unlikely that there will be any need to "take away" bookings and the like, and if anything rugby doesn't use video enough if you want to claim it makes foul play less likely - it is virtually never used for offside unless it's to check a runner is beyond a cross field kick and it's never used at scrums when the footage will often show the ref has given the penalty the wrong way or because of an accidental infringement.

Tl;dr version - keep it out of football and don't claim it's brilliant in rugby when it's not as good as you think.

[thisal]

Are refs really that bad?  if you read on here after a game or on the phone ins or media reports or managers interviews you would think refs were always making mistakes. But when you actually watch it on tele later the person that is correct most often is the referee. 

it's also bit rich of managers to complain about referees when they  spend so much time coaching players to cheat and live by he was touched so he was entitled to go down.

[7-2]

33 minutes ago, forameus said:

Which is a by-product of the game now being "the product", where how it is being perceived on television is more important than anything else.  

Away from the AMF stuff, it's untrue.  I'd far rather watch a match that is 7 against 8 with some very, very tried and angry people after a huge rammy.  

Must admit that has gone through the mind a few times, are they advised to keep it 11 v 11 as much as possible because of the 'the product' and the tv contract. The number of times players are not receiving a second booking for offences that would normally see them yellow carded doesn't help discourage the thought.

[forameus]

Just now, 7-2 said:

Must admit that has gone through the mind a few times, are they advised to keep it 11 v 11 as much as possible because of the 'the product' and the tv contract. The number of times players are not receiving a second booking for offences that would normally see them yellow carded doesn't help discourage the thought.

I don't think it's that deep.  I was more referring to the people talking about the game, the whole "no-one likes to see that" and "sending off ruined the game" pish.  Comes from the same stable as "want to see the best players playing at the tournament" desperation, which seems to be slowly erasing the fact that it's a team sport where some people win and some people lose.  

Put it this way, I've never left Firhill thinking "aye, the game was good, but only because the referee decided to keep 22 players on the park". 

[come on shire]

It'll be fairer to judge when football embraces the technology more so rugby and football referees will be on a similar playing field.  To compare it just now isn't a good idea as it's in it's infancy in roundball.

Having rugby as my first sport I only have a very limited interest in football tbh.  However, to the people here who are incapable of separating sport from politics I'm not a "no" voting Tory btw

I've never missed a Scotland Murrayfield game since 2012 but can safely say TMO helps make decisions a lot fairer. 

I've only been to 3 Scotland football games in my entire life (more just a night out as opposed to a passion project for me) but notice that decisions from the ref just seem to get players and the crowds backs up so tech and a TV official is the way forward in your sport.  Too early to judge...

[Jeek]

Some amount of snobbery on this thread right enough.

Mic up the refs.
Players screaming obscenities at officials will soon see their sponsors drift away. I'd bet they'd be a lot more civil once a few million a year just evaporated out of their bank account.

I love rugby, watch a lot of it, and whilst the TMO is good, it's a pain sometimes. I don't think it works in football either for the reasons stated numerous times.

Some folk on here need to drink a pint of their mate's piss and chill out a bit.

[Merkie84]

My main argument against video refs is this. 

Saying rugby uses video refs  but football doesn't isn't accurate.  Very elite level ruby ( six nations, World Cup etc) uses video refs. The rest of rugby doesn't.

While in rugby , this isn't really an issue as has already been pointed out, no one actually gives a f**k  about rugby apart from the occasional international for a social occasion. Few people, even the most ardent of rugby advocates follow rugby week in week out at domestic or local level. So having video refs for those few games that garner any interest isn't really a problem.

Football on the other hand is about far more than elite levels and has a strong following all over the world and right down through the levels. So while it might be possible to have video refs in the EPL , champions league  or World Cup, it is not an option to have it in say the Juniors or league of Ireland.

One of the joys of football and why it is far superior to rugby is that a game of football can be enjoyable at any level, as the game is exactly the same, be it pub league or World Cup final.  Video refs make elite football a different game.

 

 

 

 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Amazing that folk are mentioning the one or two times the video refereeing failed.  Never mind the thousands of times it worked, eh? 
 

Mind you the same thing goes for refereeing decisions that aren’t technically assisted

[RandomGuy.]

Rugby is a different world to football, and the video technology isn't really transferable. Rugby is played a different tempo to football, so give minutes staring at a big screen to see if you've scored works for them. 

I reckon video referees should only be used for cut and dry incidents, like offsides. He's either on or off, same as goal line technology, it's either in or not. Once you start using it to determine fouls and handballs you're entering a murky world. 

[nsr]

Make the video delays long enough and time them correctly, and you could fit in an advert break in the middle of a half. We'll get there one day, one way or another.

[Mark Connolly]

10 hours ago, Randy Giles said:

Referees have had the option of booking players for dissent. But referees have been lenient on it, and the result has been the players and managers getting worse and worse. Which in turn puts more pressure on the referees, which in turn brings performance down.

Instant bookings for dissent is the way to go. They'll push for instant bookings on taking shirts off and celebrating with your supporters, so why not that? Wouldn't eradicate it immediately but it'd slowly but surely lift a hell of a weight from referees.

This.

I've also always wondered what it actually takes to get a red for "Foul and Abusive Language" when you see that flash up on the videprinter, given what you see and hear players shout at refs regularly.

[AMC13]

 

Fucking state of this. f**k Rugby.

 

[come on shire]

33 minutes ago, AMC13 said:

 

Fucking state of this. f**k Rugby.

 

I suppose if it's not soccer and the bitterness and hatred attached then it's not interesting. This wee boy is watching a Scotland team that's WINNING btw.

[oneteaminglasgow]

This wee boy is watching a Scotland team that's WINNING btw.

I don’t understand how this is relevant? Are you suggesting that because Scotland won a game of Rugby that it’s a better sport than football?

[come on shire]

25 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

 

 

I don’t understand how this is relevant? Are you suggesting that because Scotland won a game of Rugby that it’s a better sport than football?

 

Not necessarily and that's personal opinion I guess.  However, the rugby team is a more entertaining watch these days and offers more to get excited about than a brutally underperforming football team that, aside from 2 wins vs France, haven't been to a major finals since 1998 and are in disarray.  However, since 2000 the Scotland rugby team have also had some horrendous times and it's only been up to a few years ago that things have suddenly improved.  However since 2000 we have actually enjoyed wins over the Auld Enemy that the football team haven't mustered. I don't follow the football team personally, just an observation. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

Not necessarily and that's personal opinion I guess.  However, the rugby team is a more entertaining watch these days and offers more to get excited about than a brutally underperforming football team that haven't been to a major finals since 1998 and are in disarray.  However, since 2000 the Scotland rugby team have also had some horrendous times and it's only been up to a few years ago that things have suddenly improved.  However since 2000 we have actually enjoyed wins over the Auld Enemy that the football team haven't mustered. I don't follow the football team personally, just an observation. 

It’s a lot easier to get to a major final when you’re one of about 9 countries that bother with the sport though.

And considering you don’t watch one of them, you can’t really state that one is a more entertaining watch than the other.

Furthermore, Rugby is shite.

[come on shire]

Just now, oneteaminglasgow said:

And considering you don’t watch one of them, you can’t really state that one is a more entertaining watch than the other.

 

 

Ok doke, but I know in which sport a draw with New Zealand isn't really a step forward. 

[AMC13]

Not necessarily and that's personal opinion I guess.  However, the rugby team is a more entertaining watch these days and offers more to get excited about than a brutally underperforming football team that, aside from 2 wins vs France, haven't been to a major finals since 1998 and are in disarray.  However, since 2000 the Scotland rugby team have also had some horrendous times and it's only been up to a few years ago that things have suddenly improved.  However since 2000 we have actually enjoyed wins over the Auld Enemy that the football team haven't mustered. I don't follow the football team personally, just an observation. 

The difference being of course only about 10 nations actually give a f**k about rugby and even then most of them are the second sport in the country so it's easier for Scotland to do well. As for that wee boy it's fucking embarrassing and shows there is absolutely f**k all passion in the sport.