Referee's & umpires in the firing line

[Ackroman]

They used to say that the man in the middle has a good game when he's invisible. Not today I'm afraid. He/she has to satisfy the rampant blame shift of coaches, clubs, fans, video refs, VAR's, TMO's etc and the scrutiny of TV pundits and the media in all sorts of sports.

This last week we have heard about death threats towards Wayne Barnes in RU, RL refs getting it in the neck allowing the ruck to be slow in the recent tests giving England an unfair advantage, cricketers getting sent off due to having a dodgy helmet without facing a ball and Mikel Arteta and his club wanting the moon on a stick because one of their defenders fell over and let another player use his leg to score a point, even though a recent, "leave refs alone", charter has been signed by all Premier League clubs.

Have we reached the bottom yet? And what other examples of foul play/ bungling/biased refereeing exists in world sport?

Or can the principles of honour and fair play, overcome the rabid gamesmanship and exhibitionism that transcends all sport? What examples of Paulo Di Canio levels of sportsmanship still exist?

[Midlands hobo]

Sadly it's a consequence of professional sport. Teams are now so evenly matched that a bad call can make or break a teams game and by extension season.

[Futtocks]

Barnes may have suffered from the concerted push in recent years to make a "character" out of the sententious windbag Nigel Owens, which has put the spotlight even more on the officials in a sport where a referee has more opportunities to affect the outcome than most.

[Midlands hobo]

24 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Barnes may have suffered from the concerted push in recent years to make a "character" out of the sententious windbag Nigel Owens, which has put the spotlight even more on the officials in a sport where a referee has more opportunities to affect the outcome than most.

When I did RU ref training we were told that rugby has laws not rules. Rules are black and white and for stupid footballers. RUgby has laws which are open to interpretation.

Keen example being the ball carrier must release the ball immediately. However immmeeeaaadiiiiaaattteellllyyyy can be a long word. I.e if a team pisses you off you can still play to the letter of the law but totally differently for both teams. 

Bias it seems is built into the fabric of the game. Say yes sir sorry sir don't give away stupid penalties and you get treated well, take the ###### annoy the ref suffer.

[Futtocks]

6 minutes ago, Midlands hobo said:

When I did RU ref training we were told that rugby has laws not rules. Rules are black and white and for stupid footballers. RUgby has laws which are open to interpretation.

Other sports also have laws, which the fans often casually refer to as rules.

But only one sport's stuffy fans always go "well, they're not rules, they're laws, ACT-ually" as if that makes them special. Dreadful, aren't they?

Edited November 8, 2023 by Futtocks

[Midlands hobo]

5 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Other sports also have laws, which the fans often casually refer to as rules.

But only one sport's stuffy fans always go "well, they're not rules, they're laws, ACT-ually" as if that makes them special. Dreadful, aren't they?

Just a way to justify applying them how they see fit to the benefit of whoever they fancy.

However let it not be said some refs don't have a sense of humour. One of my favourites was while I was running touch this guy say to the RU ref "you're a f***ing s**t referee" The ref was about 22 years old a and like a flash looked at the player and said. " I know, if I was better I wouldn't be with a s**t team like yours". 

Even the players laughed and if I remember got him utterly bladdered after the game and had to drive him home to his mum's house 

[Padge]

58 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Other sports also have laws, which the fans often casually refer to as rules.

But only one sport's stuffy fans always go "well, they're not rules, they're laws, ACT-ually" as if that makes them special. Dreadful, aren't they?

When you use laws to differentiate from rules you need to explain why.

The main reason is you can change interpretations of a law but a rule is fixed, without the difference every time you wanted to change the 'rules' you would have to rewrite them.

Coaches need to learn that once a decision is made, that is the decision, he should have no reason to comment on it despite TV pundits trying to cause controversy. Players should receive an instant ban for criticising a refs decision, coaches should be fined and made to watch games at home.

 

[Ackroman]

10 hours ago, Padge said:

When you use laws to differentiate from rules you need to explain why.

The main reason is you can change interpretations of a law but a rule is fixed, without the difference every time you wanted to change the 'rules' you would have to rewrite them.

Coaches need to learn that once a decision is made, that is the decision, he should have no reason to comment on it despite TV pundits trying to cause controversy. Players should receive an instant ban for criticising a refs decision, coaches should be fined and made to watch games at home.

 

Sport was about entertainment, now it's a results business. However, how can it be a business? IMO every business can be successful but not every team, and it's the refs job to differentiate through rules and laws.

Last night Marcus Rashford caused an Indian burn to someone's ankle and it's set fire to the internet. Ridiculous.

[Midlands hobo]

AI refs. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

You never hear a cricket crowd chanting, "who's the b*****d in the hat?"

Edited November 9, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[Ackroman]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

You never hear a cricket crowd chanting, "who's the b*****d in the hat?"

You mean the shuffling clothes horse?