|
Post by inee on Jul 21, 2016 11:56:00 GMT
Since when was swearing at the ref allowed anyway? for the players never, for the fans since the whistle blew at the first ever game
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 21, 2016 12:13:14 GMT
I think the refs should be Mic'd up as well. The only trouble there is that the refs probably don't want to explain their decisions anyway
|
|
|
Post by hargravegas on Jul 21, 2016 20:03:35 GMT
a step in the right direction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 5:43:14 GMT
This is no change really. Some refs can interpret dissent any way they like currently and we saw an opposition player sent off for choice words to the ref last season.
I'd prefer just to give a ref full autonomy in interpretation with some guiding principles. For example, he may respond differently to being surrounded if it's happening all the time by a particular team for fairly straightforward decisions, to when he has just given a penalty in the last minute of a league decider or Derby to a decision he himself was only 70/30 on. Players are human too and we know the difference between passion and pressuring officials.
Also, "Come on ref surely not?" Isn't like "you ******* are you blind?"
We are all adults, referees know what they are taking on in doing the job....let them police games as they wish and interpret "dissent" as they wish.
It's nice to see the FA pay lip service to this, but it's also worth remembering that violence and dissent in football is FAR better than it was in the 80s and 90s. Football is far more professional now. Go and watch some old rovers games and note knee high tackles, there was far more players "squaring up", far more incidents of a big huddle of players, ref in the middle, punching, pushing and shoving. It gives the media, who are generally not natural football supporters, something to talk about, but players behaviour is nothing as bad as it was. It's also worth noting the stamping on faces, gouging and even blood capsules in rugby (that beacon of sportsmanship) and ball tampering, pitch roughing up and sledging in cricket. I think football is singled out as it's more working class, and as such, the issues with the game reflect the morality of the group in using overt honest aggression rather than the more cultured sports, where players are very polite but still poke eye balls when the camera and referee look elsewhere!!
|
|
|
Post by spiess1 on Jul 22, 2016 6:26:20 GMT
I hope no referee would ever give any decision he was "only 70/30" on, least of all a penalty. The minute of anything happening should be irrelevant for a referee. Where something happens on a pitch should not affect a decision by a referee either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 7:08:33 GMT
I hope no referee would ever give any decision he was "only 70/30" on, least of all a penalty. The minute of anything happening should be irrelevant for a referee. Where something happens on a pitch should not affect a decision by a referee either. Letter of the law only for you then. Taxi drivers better get buying hay bales.
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Jul 22, 2016 7:21:10 GMT
The players could always just RESPECT the referees decision and get on with the game...
Just thought I'd throw that out there.....
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Jul 22, 2016 7:38:35 GMT
Perhaps the FA should do more to ENSURE each team keeps 11 players on the pitch and referees get more of their decisions right in respect of the rules as they are. Far too many games are ruined for the watching supporters by their team going down to 10 ,9 or even 8 players. I have long thought that the sin bin method with a slight difference - a player red carded should be allowed to be replaced by a substitute. The problem is that too much inconsistency in decisions made is ruining games and teams are losing points because of it and the decision has later been reversed because the referee got it wrong. IMO foul play should be suffered by the player and the game is between 2 teams of 11 players.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 22, 2016 8:06:12 GMT
I have long thought that the sin bin method with a slight difference - a player red carded should be allowed to be replaced by a substitute. Blimey, really? 'Ok, meatheaded-enforcer, I want you to kick their star player as many times as you can in the first fifteen, and then when you're sent off, we'll replace you with our more skillful playmaker.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 8:08:48 GMT
Totally agree with Antonio. If a player is red carded, then the team should suffer. As it's a team game, if the same player keeps transgressing, then it's the responsibility of the team to get on his back and sort him out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 8:53:18 GMT
I have long thought that the sin bin method with a slight difference - a player red carded should be allowed to be replaced by a substitute. Blimey, really? 'Ok, meatheaded-enforcer, I want you to kick their star player as many times as you can in the first fifteen, and then when you're sent off, we'll replace you with our more skillful playmaker.' Was about to post something similar.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jul 22, 2016 9:01:21 GMT
This is no change really. Some refs can interpret dissent any way they like currently and we saw an opposition player sent off for choice words to the ref last season. I'd prefer just to give a ref full autonomy in interpretation with some guiding principles. For example, he may respond differently to being surrounded if it's happening all the time by a particular team for fairly straightforward decisions, to when he has just given a penalty in the last minute of a league decider or Derby to a decision he himself was only 70/30 on. Players are human too and we know the difference between passion and pressuring officials. Also, "Come on ref surely not?" Isn't like "you ******* are you blind?" We are all adults, referees know what they are taking on in doing the job....let them police games as they wish and interpret "dissent" as they wish. It's nice to see the FA pay lip service to this, but it's also worth remembering that violence and dissent in football is FAR better than it was in the 80s and 90s. Football is far more professional now. Go and watch some old rovers games and note knee high tackles, there was far more players "squaring up", far more incidents of a big huddle of players, ref in the middle, punching, pushing and shoving. It gives the media, who are generally not natural football supporters, something to talk about, but players behaviour is nothing as bad as it was. It's also worth noting the stamping on faces, gouging and even blood capsules in rugby (that beacon of sportsmanship) and ball tampering, pitch roughing up and sledging in cricket. I think football is singled out as it's more working class, and as such, the issues with the game reflect the morality of the group in using overt honest aggression rather than the more cultured sports, where players are very polite but still poke eye balls when the camera and referee look elsewhere!! Not sure where you are coming from with rugby? Like football rugby is a completely different game now then when I started playing in the mid 1980s with far less of what could be called gratuitous violence (or if you were a player self policing of the game). What hasn't changed us the respect shown to referees they have always been called sir, their decisions whether you agree with them or not are excepted & it's very clear that only the players involved in the incident and the captain can talk (politely) to the referee. When bad things do happen like the single incident of the blood capsule( a fairly desperate effort to make a point ny yourself) they are dealt with harshly by the authorities. Go look at the bans dished (out in months) when gouging does occur compared to bans dished out for career ending assaults in football. If only football had the disciplinary problems that rugby does then it would barely have a problem at all.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Jul 22, 2016 9:03:12 GMT
Depends how you feel about watching a game 10 v 11 when you have spent a lot of money to travel away. Personally I prefer to have a fair game. I would go more for increasing the suspensions for those sent off.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 22, 2016 9:24:01 GMT
Depends how you feel about watching a game 10 v 11 when you have spent a lot of money to travel away. Personally I prefer to have a fair game. I would go more for increasing the suspensions for those sent off. Well, then you can get your star player out for six weeks with an injury, coz of a reckless challenge. You don't get any advantage in the game and you get a disadvantage coz your best player is stretchered off. Then the team that causes you grief have a disadvantage over the next six games, say, coz of a suspension, so all your rivals could end up benefiting from the incident. Obviously if a bloke is sent off for kicking the ball away and then taking his shirt off, or some other technical infringement, then your point is more valid.
|
|