A&H

Need some opinions!

L

Luke Collins

New Member
I've been following the forums for quite a while but never really felt the need to post!
I'm currently doing 5,000 word EPQ (extended project qualification), with the title being 'Refereeing- Why are they the most hated person in Football'. I get the title's pretty broad, but it needs to be so I can drag it out a bit!
I'm basically in need of some opinions and experiences, of stand-out situations where you've been given a right mouthful by a player, coach, spectator etc and why you believe they do it (try to be a bit more specific than 'because they're morons/ they don't get how hard it is).
Looking at getting experiences from a range of levels, whether it be Sunday League, kids games or even higher up if possible.

Appreciate the responses in advance, I've used some of my own but I'd like to get a better range.
Cheers!
 
The Referee Store
Hello!
Thankfully I haven't been abused yet by anyone but if you need someone who has contact Ryan Hampson on Facebook. He Is the guy heading up the referee strike..
 
Luke Collins said:
'Refereeing- Why are they the most hated person in Football'
Click to expand...

I referee because I enjoy it and I think I am reasonably competent at it. If I am hated then I really don't know why. Perhaps you could take an alternative approach to your project by asking/challenging players, coaches, spectators, media etc?
 
Luke Collins said:
I'm currently doing 5,000 word EPQ (extended project qualification), with the title being 'Refereeing- Why are they the most hated person in Football'. I get the title's pretty broad, but it needs to be so I can drag it out a bit!


Appreciate the responses in advance, I've used some of my own but I'd like to get a better range.
Cheers!
Click to expand...

I might not know much about refereeing (I don't) but as an EPQ supervisor and marker I can possibly give some useful advice re your EPQ.

You have identified your biggest problem yourself (this is good - the EPQ is marked not just on the finished essay, but the process you go through to arrive at the finished article (and then your evaluation of it)) when you say that the title is "pretty broad." Getting the title "right" is a key component of a successful EPQ, and you need to narrow down your focus.

Even just changing the title to "Are referees the most hated figures in football?" would be a significant improvement. For a successful EPQ you need to ask a question, analyse both sides of the argument, before arriving at your conclusion for one side or the other, and explaining why you have drawn that conclusion. Changing the title as I suggest gives you a much more binary question that will keep you focused and improve your project. However, don't throw out what you have done so far - make a statement in your log about how you considered your original title, but decided it was to broad and so refined it etc.

With my title, for example, you could begin to segment those "in football" to consider players, coaches, spectators etc. Do different groups have different feelings about referees? Why? How have you gathered this information?

Also, think about your sources. Another key element in the EPQ is to critically analyse your sources and references. Are they reliable? Are they representative? Why? You might chose to disregard a source as they are not impartial or can't be verified (this is good to include in your project, don't just bin them, say you considered them, but are rejecting them because...) For examples, if you are just asking refs for bad experiences then this may be a self-selecting cohort, i.e. you will only hear from those with negative experiences, what percentage of the whole referring fraternity is that?

I hope you don't mind me giving you a few pointers, feel free to ignore them if you wish. The EPQ can be a really interesting journey, but remember that - it is about the whole journey and not just the finished 5000 word essay at the end.

Best wishes

J
 
How are referees the most hated people in football?
 
i was going to say similar things to @RefJef ! I think I great title would be - 'Referees: The most hated in football?'

I would then also go to local Saturday and Sunday games and get some opinions of managers/coaches/spectators/players ... as Jef said, do a complete cross examination type thing - you could then start the project with your thoughts PRIOR to carrying out the examination (literally do this before hand lol) and then finish up with your new look on if we are, and if so, why we are (conclusion)

in terms of helping you out, it is hard - i think we are the most hated 'member' of football - and in short it is because we are an easy scapegoat ... team plays bad? blame the ref, player makes a horrendous challenge? ref was in the wrong to show red, your player gets injured? ref didn't protect him, lose the game in the dying seconds? ref played too much added time, team loses the game even though they finished dominating? ref didn't play enough added time ...

we are literally the best excuse management have - we either give too many freekicks, or we don't let the game flow enough - we shouldn't let players talk to us 'like that', then 'aren't the players allowed to talk to you at all then?!' -

good luck! any chance you can post it on here? would love to sit down and ready what you do.
 
OIREF! said:
I referee because I enjoy it and I think I am reasonably competent at it. If I am hated then I really don't know why. Perhaps you could take an alternative approach to your project by asking/challenging players, coaches, spectators, media etc?
Click to expand...
Yeah I've also been getting opinions from other forms within the game (players/spectators and so on) cheers for your input, appreciate it!
 
RefJef said:
I might not know much about refereeing (I don't) but as an EPQ supervisor and marker I can possibly give some useful advice re your EPQ.

You have identified your biggest problem yourself (this is good - the EPQ is marked not just on the finished essay, but the process you go through to arrive at the finished article (and then your evaluation of it)) when you say that the title is "pretty broad." Getting the title "right" is a key component of a successful EPQ, and you need to narrow down your focus.

Even just changing the title to "Are referees the most hated figures in football?" would be a significant improvement. For a successful EPQ you need to ask a question, analyse both sides of the argument, before arriving at your conclusion for one side or the other, and explaining why you have drawn that conclusion. Changing the title as I suggest gives you a much more binary question that will keep you focused and improve your project. However, don't throw out what you have done so far - make a statement in your log about how you considered your original title, but decided it was to broad and so refined it etc.

With my title, for example, you could begin to segment those "in football" to consider players, coaches, spectators etc. Do different groups have different feelings about referees? Why? How have you gathered this information?

Also, think about your sources. Another key element in the EPQ is to critically analyse your sources and references. Are they reliable? Are they representative? Why? You might chose to disregard a source as they are not impartial or can't be verified (this is good to include in your project, don't just bin them, say you considered them, but are rejecting them because...) For examples, if you are just asking refs for bad experiences then this may be a self-selecting cohort, i.e. you will only hear from those with negative experiences, what percentage of the whole referring fraternity is that?

I hope you don't mind me giving you a few pointers, feel free to ignore them if you wish. The EPQ can be a really interesting journey, but remember that - it is about the whole journey and not just the finished 5000 word essay at the end.

Best wishes

J
Click to expand...
I've just had some feedback off my supervisor about the title, saying that it wasn't good enough to put it bluntly! Although she doesn't have a clue about he topic, and therefore couldn't really advise me on how to make it any better, so the fact you've been able to give some views from an EPQ and refereeing point is great for me. I'll have a look into it tonight and see if I can word the title better because it isn't great let's be honest...
Cheers again!
 
Charlie Jones said:
i was going to say similar things to @RefJef ! I think I great title would be - 'Referees: The most hated in football?'

I would then also go to local Saturday and Sunday games and get some opinions of managers/coaches/spectators/players ... as Jef said, do a complete cross examination type thing - you could then start the project with your thoughts PRIOR to carrying out the examination (literally do this before hand lol) and then finish up with your new look on if we are, and if so, why we are (conclusion)

in terms of helping you out, it is hard - i think we are the most hated 'member' of football - and in short it is because we are an easy scapegoat ... team plays bad? blame the ref, player makes a horrendous challenge? ref was in the wrong to show red, your player gets injured? ref didn't protect him, lose the game in the dying seconds? ref played too much added time, team loses the game even though they finished dominating? ref didn't play enough added time ...

we are literally the best excuse management have - we either give too many freekicks, or we don't let the game flow enough - we shouldn't let players talk to us 'like that', then 'aren't the players allowed to talk to you at all then?!' -

good luck! any chance you can post it on here? would love to sit down and ready what you do.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware I should be fine to post it once it's done, couldnt agree more with the blame culture we seem to have towards refs though. I'll be sure to post it once it's finished
 
RefJef said:
I might not know much about refereeing (I don't) but as an EPQ supervisor and marker I can possibly give some useful advice re your EPQ.

You have identified your biggest problem yourself (this is good - the EPQ is marked not just on the finished essay, but the process you go through to arrive at the finished article (and then your evaluation of it)) when you say that the title is "pretty broad." Getting the title "right" is a key component of a successful EPQ, and you need to narrow down your focus.

Even just changing the title to "Are referees the most hated figures in football?" would be a significant improvement. For a successful EPQ you need to ask a question, analyse both sides of the argument, before arriving at your conclusion for one side or the other, and explaining why you have drawn that conclusion. Changing the title as I suggest gives you a much more binary question that will keep you focused and improve your project. However, don't throw out what you have done so far - make a statement in your log about how you considered your original title, but decided it was to broad and so refined it etc.

With my title, for example, you could begin to segment those "in football" to consider players, coaches, spectators etc. Do different groups have different feelings about referees? Why? How have you gathered this information?

Also, think about your sources. Another key element in the EPQ is to critically analyse your sources and references. Are they reliable? Are they representative? Why? You might chose to disregard a source as they are not impartial or can't be verified (this is good to include in your project, don't just bin them, say you considered them, but are rejecting them because...) For examples, if you are just asking refs for bad experiences then this may be a self-selecting cohort, i.e. you will only hear from those with negative experiences, what percentage of the whole referring fraternity is that?

I hope you don't mind me giving you a few pointers, feel free to ignore them if you wish. The EPQ can be a really interesting journey, but remember that - it is about the whole journey and not just the finished 5000 word essay at the end.

Best wishes

J
Click to expand...
Jef is a God and I love this forum.
 
Luke Collins said:
I've just had some feedback off my supervisor about the title, saying that it wasn't good enough to put it bluntly! Although she doesn't have a clue about he topic, and therefore couldn't really advise me on how to make it any better, so the fact you've been able to give some views from an EPQ and refereeing point is great for me. I'll have a look into it tonight and see if I can word the title better because it isn't great let's be honest...
Cheers again!
Click to expand...

You don't need to do anymore - you've got the perfect title and method from refjef above and good ideas from others.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about this a bit lately with a growing in interest in psychology and sport when i compare the two sports i referee, namely football and rugby.

Referees in each sport are treated very differently and this is generally recognised to be down to the ethos of the sports. However after hearing a radio discussion about psychological arousal and a human's ability to manage this i have a new theory:

In football, there is a big potential for sudden and at times unexpected events and it's often these that are a trigger for key decisions by a referee. I'm not a psychologist but perhaps the short gap between event and reaction causes a more heightened effect? I think this in turn causes stronger reactions towards referees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top