Lack of respect for referees.

[Trojan]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Must resist.....

No there won't I stand in the wing terrace.

[Trojan]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Trojan, you say i am calling you a liar (which at no point have I ) and then say its "actionable" which i find interesting.. what actions can you take?

yet you are happy to not be sure of the team and yet say that the refs were bending over backwards to get them into SL.. 1 do you have proof of the fact they were doing this to Celtic. 2. if you are not sure that it was Celtic then why bring that in, if it wasnt then who were they favouring that day except "not your team"

You've added more info which is interesting for sure, but as with Dave I cannot understand the chain of events at all.. and equally if it was exactly as you say then do you know that no action was taken (for sure) by the match review panel on this incident? as we have stated before everyone makes mistakes its just how regular and how deliberate he may well have been heavily punished for said cock up for example. 

before people have a go at refs I just wish they would get all their facts right, which is the point of what we have been saying. You yourself had a go at the ref yet his decision was right, your justification showed that you didnt know 2 of the rules (one of which had changed) which is proof to the point that until all the facts are known it is unfair to have a go.

I'm not sure it was Celtic.  What I am sure about is that Fev and Celtic were vying for top spot, and incidents like this one which disadvantage Fev were regularly occurring. Needless to say Celtic were promoted, and promoted again, the consequences we all know about.

 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Trojan said:

I'm not sure it was Celtic.  What I am sure about is that Fev and Celtic were vying for top spot, and incidents like this one which disadvantage Fev were regularly occurring. Needless to say Celtic were promoted, and promoted again, the consequences we all know about.

 

The problem is, as it is with these arguments always ( and I cannot emphasise enough I’m not having a pop anyone from any club could say be saying what you are) the above doesn’t half sound like sour grapes when taken out of context.  Even when games are looked at, like the Wigan v Warrington game, without a rule book in hand but thinking more like a player and how we would expect it to be reffed a “spirit of the game” view.. of which I have many many times ( as a wire fan I would have given the Wigan try and was surprised until I started to read and hear the experts talking about the law which is stupid) we have a different view to that of the man in the middle with the rule book.. 

I will keep away from specific allegations re how one team is treated over another as I believe they are actually actionable if you cannot prove them.

[JohnM]

Very VERY dangerous ground to imply that refereeing decisions are ever based on something other than rule infringement. 

Yes,  refs make mistakes, but in this day and age, they are examined in detail like never before.

Of course, people are free to rant at refs decisions,  as I did recently (probably the only occasion i have done this since joining the forum,  even though everyone knows the refs are prejudiced agsinst Wigan )

However,  on detailed review of video evidence, I believe that refs are much more accurate than some might allege .

I think though, refs are far too tolerant of on-field dissent and would like to see a cracking down on such behaviour.

[deluded pom?]

 

7 hours ago, JohnM said:

Of course, people are free to rant at refs decisions,  as I did recently (probably the only occasion i have done this since joining the forum,  even though everyone knows the refs are prejudiced agsinst Wigan )

So it was you on television behind the posts when Wigan played Warrington in the cup the other week.

[Cerulean]

8 hours ago, JohnM said:

Very VERY dangerous ground to imply that refereeing decisions are ever based on something other than rule infringement. 

 

But referees do base their decisions on factors other than the rules.

There are vast numbers of rule infringements tolerated every game. Most fans want, expect, demand that the game is stopped as little as possible. Referees do not enforce scrum laws, almost every play-the-ball has off-side by the defence, and every play-the-ball close to the line. Most tackles have some head contact with only a head contact to initiate the tackle being penalised. Hands on the ball at the end of the tackle and ball stealing is a major problem, not usually because the referee gets it wrong, but because the referee chooses to “keep the pace on the game”. We were told a couple of weeks ago that playing the ball on the mark was to be enforced, but there are still teams getting enormous unearned advantage because the referee is reluctant to enforce the laws. Dissent is frequent, and to a large extent, tolerated.

We now demand - in the top games, visible to the large audiences - that referees manipulate the laws and orchestrate  the game rather than adjudicate, and this they do. They choose when to intervene according to an agenda supplied to them and interpreted by them. Some teams are better than others at judging the level of intervention that the referee chooses. If your team benefits, you are happy with the situation. Referees make very few mistakes: they are obviously the best there are at what they do. But they do choose which of the laws to enforce, and at what stage. That it has reached this situation is odd, and diminishes the sport in some eyes.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Cerulean said:

But referees do base their decisions on factors other than the rules.

There are vast numbers of rule infringements tolerated every game. Most fans want, expect, demand that the game is stopped as little as possible. Referees do not enforce scrum laws, almost every play-the-ball has off-side by the defence, and every play-the-ball close to the line. Most tackles have some head contact with only a head contact to initiate the tackle being penalised. Hands on the ball at the end of the tackle and ball stealing is a major problem, not usually because the referee gets it wrong, but because the referee chooses to “keep the pace on the game”. We were told a couple of weeks ago that playing the ball on the mark was to be enforced, but there are still teams getting enormous unearned advantage because the referee is reluctant to enforce the laws. Dissent is frequent, and to a large extent, tolerated.

We now demand - in the top games, visible to the large audiences - that referees manipulate the laws and orchestrate  the game rather than adjudicate, and this they do. They choose when to intervene according to an agenda supplied to them and interpreted by them. Some teams are better than others at judging the level of intervention that the referee chooses. If your team benefits, you are happy with the situation. Referees make very few mistakes: they are obviously the best there are at what they do. But they do choose which of the laws to enforce, and at what stage. That it has reached this situation is odd, and diminishes the sport in some eyes.

whilst i agree with what you are saying to a large extent I would also have a look at the rule book on this... with a lot of what you are saying the rule book does not prescribe exact margins and time frames etc.. so, for example, lying on at the play the ball does not have a "they must get up before 5 seconds" it is about "making the best attempt" and "not excessive amount of time" etc.. 

In the same way as the offside rule is about being back 10 not about being back to the ref so if you are judging it on tv or in the crowd by "he is infront of the ref" then that may be wrong as the ref could be back 12 but be saying to the team in defence "your ok there" etc.. 

This is why i say about not always knowing what is going on when you are watching.. the laws are not always prescriptive, they are not always what you think they are etc.. 

I would like them to clamp down on the dissent, even the players going up to them when he is talking to the video ref should be stopped, he is sending it up to be looked at so go away, if you are right then the video ref will pick it up. 

[dkw]

What always annoys me is when coaches use the ref to cover up their own/there players incompetence, which has led to the situation we now have where fans and players feel empowered to lash out at refs. The only people who can stop this is the coaches and commentators who spend far too much time going over every single 50/50 decision so they can also blame the ref. Frankly the referee constantly makes far less mistakes than any of the players, coaches or commentators.

[deluded pom?]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

In the same way as the offside rule is about being back 10 not about being back to the ref so if you are judging it on tv or in the crowd by "he is infront of the ref" then that may be wrong as the ref could be back 12 but be saying to the team in defence "your ok there" etc.. 

The shouts of 'offside ref' when the above situation occurs is one of my big bugbears.

[Cerulean]

5 hours ago, RP London said:

whilst i agree with what you are saying to a large extent I would also have a look at the rule book on this... with a lot of what you are saying the rule book does not prescribe exact margins and time frames etc.. so, for example, lying on at the play the ball does not have a "they must get up before 5 seconds" it is about "making the best attempt" and "not excessive amount of time" etc.. 

In the same way as the offside rule is about being back 10 not about being back to the ref so if you are judging it on tv or in the crowd by "he is infront of the ref" then that may be wrong as the ref could be back 12 but be saying to the team in defence "your ok there" etc.. 

This is why i say about not always knowing what is going on when you are watching.. the laws are not always prescriptive, they are not always what you think they are etc.. 

I would like them to clamp down on the dissent, even the players going up to them when he is talking to the video ref should be stopped, he is sending it up to be looked at so go away, if you are right then the video ref will pick it up. 

Thank you for the response.

When the referee says “stay onside next time, Kev” or the endless equivalents of such, he (or she) is identifying that Kev was offside, and that he chose not to give a penalty because he didn’t want to disturb the flow of the game. It is manipulating the rules for a desired outcome. It may only be me who is disturbed by it, but is there any other sport which is so orchestrated and stage-managed? I once played in a minor game, kindly and generously refereed by Eric Clay who hummed a tune to himself from kick-off to final whistle, and spoke not one word for the entire match. It left an impression which later influenced my own (minor) refereeing and still leaves me disturbed by the necessity for endless badgering by modern refs.

The offside by the defending line is an interesting one: according to the laws of the game, the referee should go back 10 metres with the defending line (or less if he is closely monitoring the play-the-ball) If the referee goes back 12 metres with the defending line, how does each player know what allowance he is permitted in front of the referee, without being individually told? And is it really a surprise that spectators who see a full line of defenders in front of the referee become annoyed. But, again, perhaps I’m the only one who believes that “line speed” is a euphemism for a level of offside allowed because the referee does not want to stop the game too many times.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion (and the revival of very old memories).

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Thank you for the response.

1. When the referee says “stay onside next time, Kev” or the endless equivalents of such, he (or she) is identifying that Kev was offside, and that he chose not to give a penalty because he didn’t want to disturb the flow of the game. It is manipulating the rules for a desired outcome. It may only be me who is disturbed by it, but is there any other sport which is so orchestrated and stage-managed? I once played in a minor game, kindly and generously refereed by Eric Clay who hummed a tune to himself from kick-off to final whistle, and spoke not one word for the entire match. It left an impression which later influenced my own (minor) refereeing and still leaves me disturbed by the necessity for endless badgering by modern refs.

2. The offside by the defending line is an interesting one: according to the laws of the game, the referee should go back 10 metres with the defending line (or less if he is closely monitoring the play-the-ball) If the referee goes back 12 metres with the defending line, how does each player know what allowance he is permitted in front of the referee, without being individually told? And is it really a surprise that spectators who see a full line of defenders in front of the referee become annoyed. But, again, perhaps I’m the only one who believes that “line speed” is a euphemism for a level of offside allowed because the referee does not want to stop the game too many times.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion (and the revival of very old memories).

1. yes i understand what you mean on this but I suppose its the interfering with play.. if Kev is offside but had 0 influence (ie it wasnt much and he didnt move) then i dont see an issue with that if its first time etc.. I think you'd find almost all sports have it as there is very much an interpretation on a number of laws within all games (how do you judge intent for instance).. I agree on the constant badgering though and less is more. MOOOVE!!! seriously!!

2.When i played good refs would be saying simple things like "on me" or "on 6" or "you're ok there Rich" etc so I never had an issue with it personally. I think the bigger key is what you say about spectators in that yes it would help them but frankly there are, at any one time, only about 3-4 columns of seats who can really judge offside properly because they are parallel to where the offside line should be. No one else has the angle of sight to really see who is on that line/behind that line/infront of that line with any accuracy and I just wish people would understand that in the ground. You may think he looks off side but often they arent its the angle you are looking at. 

I get very frustrated at all sport matches with one eyed fans who can see a tiny foul against their team but when one of their own scythes someone down illegally or takes their head off they cant see what the problem is.. its all too common and its the persecution complex that is all to prevalent at the moment IMHO and it spills out into things like this and that horrible set of Wigan fans the other week.

[Dave T]

This referee standing 12m point is B.S. why would the ref stand back 12m when they are the marker for the offside line? 

I think it was Cummings when he was in charge confirmed this isnt a 'thing'.

[RP London]

Just now, Dave T said:

This referee standing 12m point is B.S. why would the ref stand back 12m when they are the marker for the offside line? 

I think it was Cummings when he was in charge confirmed this isnt a 'thing'.

The ref isnt the marker for the offside line IIRC, he can go anywhere, can be keeping a keen eye on the ruck and issues there etc the 12m thing is just an example of where he can be if he wants to be. 

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This referee standing 12m point is B.S. why would the ref stand back 12m when they are the marker for the offside line? 

I think it was Cummings when he was in charge confirmed this isnt a 'thing'.

found this on the laws of the game... 

Quote

Indicating ten metres The Referee should usually position himself ten metres behind and to one side of the point at which the ball is played as a guide to the team not in possession. If tackling is excessively keen or play is unnecessarily rough, the referee may forsake the ten metres position in order to be nearer the players involved in the tackle.

so yes you are right and i am incorrect he should mark the ten but equally he doesnt have to so you have to be careful using the ref as a mark and he is a "guide" rather than the mark. 

my point on "point of view" of the fans still stands at least 

[JohnM]

I was with Cerulian to some extent until he mentioned Eric Clay! ......

I think the Operational Rules give the referee a degree of licence over certain things.  When it comes to offside, for example, the OR state "Off Side as applied to a player means that he/she is temporarily out of play and may be penalised if he/she joins in the game."  The operative word to me is MAY rather than MUST.

I'd add that when refs generally don't enforce the rules properly, it is brought to their attention. For example, the recent clamp down on play the ball.

 

again, Indicating ten metres The Referee should usually position himself ten....

usually, not must. Small point I know, but arguable.

 

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, RP London said:

The ref isnt the marker for the offside line IIRC, he can go anywhere, can be keeping a keen eye on the ruck and issues there etc the 12m thing is just an example of where he can be if he wants to be. 

 

32 minutes ago, RP London said:

found this on the laws of the game... 

so yes you are right and i am incorrect he should mark the ten but equally he doesnt have to so you have to be careful using the ref as a mark and he is a "guide" rather than the mark. 

my point on "point of view" of the fans still stands at least 

Well that saved me the effort of replying, thanks RP!

[deluded pom?]

On 22/05/2019 at 16:51, Dave T said:

This referee standing 12m point is B.S. why would the ref stand back 12m when they are the marker for the offside line? 

I think it was Cummings when he was in charge confirmed this isnt a 'thing'.

You may think it’s BS Dave but it does happen. In response to RP who said only a few rows of seats can  see offside/onside for certain. There are lines every ten metres at most grounds. Add to that the lines left by the mower and it’s quite easy to see on or offside if sat high enough in a side stand. I’ve seen it plenty of times this season at Donny. The ref rarely goes back only ten unless the PTB is on a line and it’s easy to judge. Usually they err, sometimes big style, on the side of caution.

[dkw]

8 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

You may think it’s BS Dave but it does happen. In response to RP who said only a few rows of seats can  see offside/onside for certain. There are lines every ten metres at most grounds. Add to that the lines left by the mower and it’s quite easy to see on or offside if sat high enough in a side stand. I’ve seen it plenty of times this season at Donny. The ref rarely goes back only ten unless the PTB is on a line and it’s easy to judge. Usually they err, sometimes big style, on the side of caution.

I've always felt refs taking them back 12 yards is there way of managing a defence that is obviously offside early in a game, I don't mind it but some fans don't realise it and just see a team always a couple of yards offside. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

You may think it’s BS Dave but it does happen. In response to RP who said only a few rows of seats can  see offside/onside for certain. There are lines every ten metres at most grounds. Add to that the lines left by the mower and it’s quite easy to see on or offside if sat high enough in a side stand. I’ve seen it plenty of times this season at Donny. The ref rarely goes back only ten unless the PTB is on a line and it’s easy to judge. Usually they err, sometimes big style, on the side of caution.

I'm not saying refs aren't stood in the wrong position, I am pointing out that this isnt a method, it is an error.

[dkw]

Absolutely it's worthy of a ban and fine, as it is with any coach that blames the ref for a defeat, it's why so many players feel they can have a pop at refs too. 

[Just Browny]

22 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Do his comments merit a ban, a fine, deportation, castration and mutilation as demanded by one poster?

 

I suspect you have exaggerated slightly.

I think Mr Lenagan will take action once he is back from a trip around Australia asking if anyone wants to sign Bullock and Smithies.

[Phil]

I’d often say to the captains before kick off

”this isn’t a democracy, I don’t blow the whistle and then we have a nice little meeting to decide what the decision is. It’s a facist dictatorship and I’m El Presidente”

Said with a smile on my face obviously, but they mostly got the point.

[ckn]

6 posts deleted.  Come on, play nicely.

[Just Browny]

Richard Agar.

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Richard Agar.

Yeah I’ve just mentioned it on the game thread, what a tool.