Post history

History for Colvinator

The man in the middle - Referee Admiration/Angst/Appointments thread

Back to topic

Current version

Posted March 06, 2019 05:29 · last edited March 06, 2019 05:31

Yakcall wrote:

Kyle1502 wrote:

Yakcall wrote:

Kyle1502 wrote:

Yakcall wrote:

Really good article about referees in England https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ridiculous-refereeing-obsession-why-hell-would-you-bother

Never really understood this comparison. Missing an open goal isn't against the LOTG, but a catastrophic officiating error is. Nonetheless, good article. 

Really? Its not about the fact that its against the LOTG, its the unfair comparison that humans make mistakes, yet a player is more likely to be forgiven for that mistake than a referee is for their one. 

Premier League referees make 245 decisions per game on average, or one every 22 seconds. Sky Sports calculated in March 2018 that, again on average, five of those decisions were incorrect. Any player on the pitch is likely to make more: misplaced passes, failed dribble, missed chances, fouls committed, poor position or marking, the wrong decision taken.

Think how much a referee has to do and watch and its pretty impressive how few mistakes they do make but they make that one mistake and especially with VAR these days, and it gets viewed over and over again in super slow motion. That is really what the comparison is about, they get lambasted for their mistake more than a player would ever get. 

I just think it's comparing apples with oranges, to a degree a players job relies on correct officiating (i.e., strikers get paid to score goals, so they deserve to have every legitimate goal they score stand; and defenders get paid to stop goals, so they deserve to have illegitimate goals conceded ruled out - if it can be that simple) but a refs job doesn't rely on strikers scoring goals or a midfielder completing passes. In saying that, I'm probably making a different comparison about the same two things so I can see the point you're making.

As you say, decisions get analysed so much these days - so I wonder how different things would be if there weren't pre and post match shows, or whether the pundits on these shows didn't talk about refereeing mistakes. Same thing with post match interviews - managers like complaining that they should have had a penalty, or the opposition should have had a man sent off. Again, if these interviews didn't happen there probably won't be such a focus on incorrect decisions, and the general perception of the decisions won't be (often incorrectly) influenced by these pundits and managers. 

Very true and it is mention in the article, if everything wasn't under a microscope (and weren't possible million dollar decisions) then there wouldn't be so analysed. So its a damn hard job that is for sure

Of the '245 decisions per match' how many are actually difficult?

For me, if a ref gets 99% of decisions correct, but then make one or a few shocker calls that change the match criticism is warranted. There's probably only a handful of 'pivotal' decisions per match. Better comparison with refs is probably a goalkeeper. Will get lambasted for a big mistake even if many times they did many decent rollouts of the ball to a defender or some reasonable goal kicks. As for refs getting a harder time than players do, tell that to Loris Karius!

Also should be appreciated that things can look quite different live depending on the angle ref is looking at etc. How many times have we all watched something at a match and seen afterwards it looks quite different on the replay. 

Not sure what is being said or proposed here about post-match interviews and shows, I certainly don't want them cancelled. I can't remember many times referees have been criticised in pre-match shows.

Criticism of bad refereeing isn't exactly new. Whether the level of criticism is more or about the same as 20 years ago I don't know. VAR is supposed to make things easier for refs, but if it's making things worse for them I'm happy to support them in scrapping it! 

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 06, 2019 05:31
Yakcall wrote:
Kyle1502 wrote:
Yakcall wrote:
Kyle1502 wrote:
Yakcall wrote:

Really good article about referees in England https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ridiculous-refereeing-obsession-why-hell-would-you-bother

Never really understood this comparison. Missing an open goal isn't against the LOTG, but a catastrophic officiating error is. Nonetheless, good article. 

Really? Its not about the fact that its against the LOTG, its the unfair comparison that humans make mistakes, yet a player is more likely to be forgiven for that mistake than a referee is for their one. 

Premier League referees make 245 decisions per game on average, or one every 22 seconds. Sky Sports calculated in March 2018 that, again on average, five of those decisions were incorrect. Any player on the pitch is likely to make more: misplaced passes, failed dribble, missed chances, fouls committed, poor position or marking, the wrong decision taken.

Think how much a referee has to do and watch and its pretty impressive how few mistakes they do make but they make that one mistake and especially with VAR these days, and it gets viewed over and over again in super slow motion. That is really what the comparison is about, they get lambasted for their mistake more than a player would ever get. 

I just think it's comparing apples with oranges, to a degree a players job relies on correct officiating (i.e., strikers get paid to score goals, so they deserve to have every legitimate goal they score stand; and defenders get paid to stop goals, so they deserve to have illegitimate goals conceded ruled out - if it can be that simple) but a refs job doesn't rely on strikers scoring goals or a midfielder completing passes. In saying that, I'm probably making a different comparison about the same two things so I can see the point you're making.

As you say, decisions get analysed so much these days - so I wonder how different things would be if there weren't pre and post match shows, or whether the pundits on these shows didn't talk about refereeing mistakes. Same thing with post match interviews - managers like complaining that they should have had a penalty, or the opposition should have had a man sent off. Again, if these interviews didn't happen there probably won't be such a focus on incorrect decisions, and the general perception of the decisions won't be (often incorrectly) influenced by these pundits and managers. 

Very true and it is mention in the article, if everything wasn't under a microscope (and weren't possible million dollar decisions) then there wouldn't be so analysed. So its a damn hard job that is for sure

Of the '245 decisions per match' how many are actually difficult?

For me, if a ref gets 99% of decisions correct, but then make one or a few shocker calls that change the match criticism is warranted. There's probably only a handful of 'pivotal' decisions per match. Better comparison with refs is probably a goalkeeper. Will get lambasted for a big mistake even if many times they did many decent rollouts of the ball to a defender or some reasonable goal kicks. As for refs getting a harder time than players do, tell that to Loris Karius!

Also should be appreciated that things can look quite different live depending on the angle ref is looking at etc. How many times have we all watched something at a match and seen afterwards it looks quite different on the replay. 

Not sure what is being said or proposed here about post-match interviews and shows, I certainly don't want them cancelled. I can't remember many times referees have been criticised in pre-match shows.

Criticism of bad refereeing isn't exactly new. Whether the level of criticism is more or about the same as 20 years ago I don't know. VAR has actually taken some of the criticism away from the on the park referee.