111 in 800000 chance

[Big Cat]

According to the FA, according to BBC 5 Live (this morning), there were 800000 affiliated games last year, but only 111 proven cases of assault against a match official
So approx. 1 in 8000 chance of this happening in a game. Or about 300 years of refereeing on a fairly average annual game count

 

[Sheffields Finest]

111 players should never play again..... no ifs, buts or snowflake 'he's not that type of player', defences!!!! Bye bye..... you crossed a line!!!

 

[Big Cat]

111 players should never play again..... no ifs, buts or snowflake 'he's not that type of player', defences!!!! Bye bye..... you crossed a line!!!

I'm betting the statistic has been reached in such a way as to gloss over the problem
Judging by the New River thing circulated in the news recently ( the Turkish team ), who knows how many cases were unproven?

 

[Trip]

Hmm, "proven cases".

You'd need a lot more detail on those numbers to draw any firm conclusions. For example, what constitutes an assault? What is the burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt, or balance of probabilities?

I'd be very interested to know how many cases of reported assault were "not proven".

 

[Big Cat]

Maybe the FA included U7s and U8s and so on to paint a rosy picture. I'd be interest to know if anyone else was listening to the show around 9am today as they only mentioned the figures briefly

 

[one]

According to the FA, according to BBC 5 Live (this morning), there were 800000 affiliated games last year, but only 111 proven cases of assault against a match official
So approx. 1 in 8000 chance of this happening in a game. Or about 300 years of refereeing on a fairly average annual game count

Yeap. And the VAR accuracy in the world cup was 99.7%. I think they used the same statistician.

 

[RustyRef]

Judging by the New River thing circulated in the news recently ( the Turkish team ), who knows how many cases were unproven?

That is a bit of a myth, read the whole case notes that are openly available on the LFA's website. Yes, the players got off but that appears to be because the wrong players were charged and the referee accepts this. The club were fined £700, and the identified club offender fines £800 and banned for life. They are unprecedented bans and fines for that level of football.

 

[one]

A few years ago, after a game, my Son's referee team were locked in their change room (from outside) for about 10 minutes. During the 10 minutes the door was kicked by people from outside numerous times. Does that count as proven assault?

Just this year one of our referee teams was forced to lock themselves in the clubhouse for 15 minutes for fear of their safety with home team fans banging on the window. Police were called. They were never physically harmed. Does that count as proven assault ?

There are numerous cases of physical harm and actual assualt I was directly involved in or know about but that is beside the point. Frankly I am amazed why someone wants to gather stats misrepresenting the referee abuse which is a huge problem in almost every country worldwide.

 

[bester]

All players should be banned until the offending players are identified.
This may seem draconian but consider that if a club folds owing money to the CFA then all registered players will be suspended until they’ve paid “their share” of the fine.

 

[Big Cat]

That is a bit of a myth, read the whole case notes that are openly available on the LFA's website. Yes, the players got off but that appears to be because the wrong players were charged and the referee accepts this. The club were fined £700, and the identified club offender fines £800 and banned for life. They are unprecedented bans and fines for that level of football.

OK, forgive me ignorance on this subject. I'll take a look at the LFA site

 

[RustyRef]

From the report ...


8. The referee was extremely fair in his evidence and admitted that he could not identify who assaulted him other than Mr Kartas. He could not say, with any degree of certainty what part any of the three participants before him had played, or what their intentions were at the material time.
9. At the time, as shown by the CCTV evidence, the referee was on the floor. He could not be seen in the recording at the time the three participants arrived at the melee.
10. He agreed that to be the case after having considered the CCTV evidence with the participants asking questions.
11. It seemed that he had identified the three participants from the CCTV evidence and from what he had been told by others.
12. For the record Mr Eren was number 8, Mr Doran number 23 and Mr Sumbul number 4. It was noted from the referees Extraordinary Incident Report that GS player number 23 was identified as Mr Emrah Coskungonul. He says that in the team sheet there was a mistake with his shirt number but the “identity of this player was confirmed by witnesses who know him”.
13. That seems to be strong evidence, but in his statement Mr Doran makes an admission as follows :
“I am a new player for GSFC, having joined very late on in the season. I feel that the boys are a strong knit, passionate group of young men – all of whom have welcomed me into there team, and community – I am of Irish descent. I believe I have been identified incorrectly as EMRAH, but I was wearing number 23 on the day. I would like to inform you of my actions on the day”. (sic).
14. Bearing in mind that admission, the referee and those who identified number 23 to him as being Emrah Coskungonul must have been mistaken.
17. Very genuinely, after reviewing the CCTV evidence and listening to and then answering various questions from the participants, the referee told the three participants and the Commission that he apologised for people having to attend the hearing if he had got the identity of the participants wrong, or if he had got their intentions wrong.
18. He had identified them from the CCTV recording by their numbers on their shirts and saw them enter the melee and could see that they were trying to open a way towards him. He did not know what their intentions were.


I very much doubt any commission could come to a guilty charge after that.

 

[bester]

Depends what was on the CCTV footage. On the brief video that did the rounds I don't think you could identify any players, but that seemed to be phone footage.

 

[zarathustra]

You can make statistics say whatever you want.

And while that is 111 cases that were proven, we'd need to know the details of every report of assault against a match official.

I know that we, as referees, only attend hearings as witnesses for the CFA, and in the majority of cases that is fine, but where a match official has been, or reports that they have bee, assaulted it doesn't seem quite fair.

A referee who is assaulted and has to attend a personal hearing is there as the, alleged, victim and not simply as a witness to events.

The player accused is free to bring every man and his dog along to say how he didn't do it, and how he's a great guy etc. They can pick the referees report apart but the referee has no re-course, we cannot submit any evidence such as witnesses or video footage to back us up, and if you were on your own then you won't even have your assistants there to give their version of events.