Hi All,
Long time no speak, unfortunately almost since I qualified Ive just suffered knee injury after knee injury to the point where I've not refereed for some time!
With that said, I post this idea with the best of intentions and hope you dont think this is a case of someone telling a chef how to boil an egg! I'm sure you have heard them all before and I am interested in your feedback on this. (I am making some assumptions that refereeing process hasnt changed too much in two years, so apologise for any incorrect assumptions)
The proposal is either....
At the end of each match, as part of the report the referee submits, they also submit a score on each team based on some criteria such as behaviour/dissent of the teams, manager/coaches and any team associated spectators. This could be done on a sliding scale similar to the score submitted by teams on the referees performance. If over x amount of weeks (or a season) a team receives a overall score of 5 or below from more than 1 referee they receive some form of punishment, be that points or a fine. I just feel that the knowledge that a referee could have this influence on a club could encourage a better approach to conduct
or
as per above........a team receives a overall score of 5 or below from more than 1 referee over the course of a season this then triggers a process in which a appointed FA rep randomly attends the teams games (incognito of course, not with an FA branded jacket on) and observes the team and then reports on their findings, and again an appropriate punishment is handed out based on the outcome of their findings.
Of course, with this idea it creates extra work for the referee in having to submit further information/report or requires further resource for people to actually assess the teams involved in the game. Its not a solution, just an idea to debate the merits of it as a possible course of action?
Long time no speak, unfortunately almost since I qualified Ive just suffered knee injury after knee injury to the point where I've not refereed for some time!
With that said, I post this idea with the best of intentions and hope you dont think this is a case of someone telling a chef how to boil an egg! I'm sure you have heard them all before and I am interested in your feedback on this. (I am making some assumptions that refereeing process hasnt changed too much in two years, so apologise for any incorrect assumptions)
The proposal is either....
At the end of each match, as part of the report the referee submits, they also submit a score on each team based on some criteria such as behaviour/dissent of the teams, manager/coaches and any team associated spectators. This could be done on a sliding scale similar to the score submitted by teams on the referees performance. If over x amount of weeks (or a season) a team receives a overall score of 5 or below from more than 1 referee they receive some form of punishment, be that points or a fine. I just feel that the knowledge that a referee could have this influence on a club could encourage a better approach to conduct
or
as per above........a team receives a overall score of 5 or below from more than 1 referee over the course of a season this then triggers a process in which a appointed FA rep randomly attends the teams games (incognito of course, not with an FA branded jacket on) and observes the team and then reports on their findings, and again an appropriate punishment is handed out based on the outcome of their findings.
Of course, with this idea it creates extra work for the referee in having to submit further information/report or requires further resource for people to actually assess the teams involved in the game. Its not a solution, just an idea to debate the merits of it as a possible course of action?