The Ref Stop

The future of refereeing

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Has this world cup made potential referees think to not take it up?

Every game people are criticising officials and VAR.
Every game even players and management are criticising officials.
I get its been happening for years but for some reason I just think its got far, far, worse this summer.
Every minute challenge. Every little incident (or non incident) has been scrutinised and dissected to the nth degree. And its always the refs fault.
Even President(s) are getting involved and belittling officials and decisions.
A lot of people, I feel, will see this and think why bother.
Laws are becoming harder to understand. In the pro game a lot of laws are ignored and does (and will continue) to makes things far worse in grassroots for the sake of entertainment.

Should the grassroots game have its own laws?
Should the pro game draw up add ins to LOTG and show amendments to one's that they are more lenient on (such as subs and anyone else about celebrating every goal on the pitch, celebrating with fans which should be auto card etc).

We will always have refs but personally think the standard will be much lower going forward as eventually they'll need to promote someone to replace the current ones even if its the best of a bad bunch (not trying to say any ref is bad, just not to the standard we would normally expect in the PL).
 
The Ref Stop
I think the earlier new referees are taught that you referee a different game to what you see on the TV the better.

Scrutiny is part of refereeing at all levels and if you can't detach and dissociate from it, it'll eat you alive. That said, clickbait culture is rife and growing, this obviously doesn't help, but if you care enough about refereeing and have enough knowledge and/or the right network you can see through most of it.

I aim to make a point of speaking to players and coaches about topical incidents before a game to make sure we're all on the same page - lets not pretend they know the laws or what should/shouldn't be happening anyway.
 
Last edited:
While many argued that VAR would reduce controversy, a lot of what it has done is draw more attention to the refs, as the game stops and everyone watches the ref go see the same replays they have been watching. On subjective calls, of course that doesn’t solve the controversy, just adds focus to the refs. Several of the VAR interventions would “fixes” calls that would have been relatively unnoticed after the games, but became big issues with the changes. At least I don’t have VAR in my games!
 
ocj1998 said:
I think the earlier new referees are taught that you referee a different game to what you see on the TV the better.

Scrutiny is part of refereeing at all levels and if you can't detach and dissociate from in, it'll eat you alive. That said clickbait culture is rife and growing, this obviously doesn't help, but if you care enough about refereeing and have enough knowledge and/or the right network you can see through most of it.

I aim to make a point of speaking to players and coaches about topical incidents before a game to make sure we're all on the same page - lets not pretend they know the laws or what should/shouldn't be happening anyway.
Click to expand...
I get that.
Some refs will have thick skin to defeat the moaners but will these also have the skill? Its a hard balance and potentially a smaller pool going forward and more and more scrutiny in the pro game will lead to more youngsters thinking not for them.

That last paragraph is all good, and I know most players dont know the laws but when they have watched over 100 games from the world's supposed top officials and, based on the clickbait videos and posts etc, seen many so called decisions that we know/feel are wrong but overlooked in games and then we give them, this will just make things worse for everyone especially younger/new refs.
 
Potentially, but then we are looking at recruitment, education and mindset problems.

What percentage of new referees start because they enjoy watching referees on TV? What are the main reasons for referees taking it up (£££)?

Will more start because they think they can do better than what they see on a weekend or on TV?

Yes, you're bound to have some not up to the standard or with the motivation to improve in all of these categories, but I think we can be more optimistic than that.

Potentially just my obsessive & optimistic mindset taking hold here, but I've met some fantastic younger referees that aren't phased by any of it either.
ladbroke8745 said:
I get that.
Some refs will have thick skin to defeat the moaners but will these also have the skill? Its a hard balance and potentially a smaller pool going forward and more and more scrutiny in the pro game will lead to more youngsters thinking not for them.

That last paragraph is all good, and I know most players dont know the laws but when they have watched over 100 games from the world's supposed top officials and, based on the clickbait videos and posts etc, seen many so called decisions that we know/feel are wrong but overlooked in games and then we give them, this will just make things worse for everyone especially younger/new refs.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think it has got any worse, I was going to games well before the start of the Premier League and the abuse towards the match officials was as bad then as it is now. The difference now is there is way more scrutiny with many more games televised, and using far more cameras than they used to. Then chuck in the cesspit that is social media, and there is just a lot more focus on refereeing decisions than there ever has been before.

Not sure why it would put potential new referees off, anyone going into refereeing hasn't ever done it because they want to be liked or adored. Some get into it for money, others for the belief that they can improve football, some because they have a power trip, some because they can't play any more and want to stay involved, but I'm not sure anyone ever thought I'll get into refereeing because I want a relaxing Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning where everyone loves me.
 
i think the tone of abuse has not got worse. Forensic dissection and accusations of bias and conspiracy have got worse.

But I think refereeing analysis is promoted way more and way more positively on socials than ever - and reaches non referees. And all the ref social channels covering the WC and grassroots are having an impact and making refereeing more relatable.
 
We always ask course members (new referees) why they choose to take up the whistle. Around 70% mention money. It's seen as preferable to shelf stacking. Most are 14-16 years of age.
We make the point that local and professional football are very different, something we cover in (e. g.) dissent, the way cards are displayed, and other elements of refereeing.
We make the point that they need to be mentally strong as they will need to deal with abuse from adults (spectators and some coaches)
We make the point that they will become aware of social media abuse and complaints about their decisions, and the fact that they must not get sucked into commenting on social media.
With a shortage of mentors to help in early games most newbies are out there alone a week after the course. A real challenge in the current working environment, especially for a mid-teen suddenly alone at a game rather than part of a team.
We do all we can to prepare them, but it's a big leap!
As we approach the new season, our regular request - if anyone can give up a couple of hours to mentor new referees in their area, please make your availability known to the person who appoints in your area. It's very rewarding! Thank you.
 
There seems to be the consensus that it's not getting worse but that also implies the absence of it getting better. There's too many band-aid fixes and not exactly enough progression.

The bureaucrat's (IFAB) solution to most issues is to take away discretion from the referee—referees are criticized most for their application of discretion. But at grassroots and pro-am with no VAR, discretion is a referee's greatest tool. No new referee is going to sign up thinking they'll get their hands on VAR, headsets, or electronic flags for their first match, but the trickle down effects changes to the LOAF that impacts entry level referees who do not have the tools that they're written for, applying increasingly complex laws that are just nonsensical for three men to enforce on 22+bench and spectators.

With this context it is no wonder why new referees are overwhelmed no matter the warnings given as the problem is more systematic and intricate then just stonewalling abuse which seems to take up an ever more present amount of time then something as basic as keeping in line with second to last, or at least attempting to maintain the fitness to keep up with play. No wonder refs get the abuse then?
 
LCCE said:
There seems to be the consensus that it's not getting worse but that also implies the absence of it getting better. There's too many band-aid fixes and not exactly enough progression.

The bureaucrat's (IFAB) solution to most issues is to take away discretion from the referee—referees are criticized most for their application of discretion. But at grassroots and pro-am with no VAR, discretion is a referee's greatest tool. No new referee is going to sign up thinking they'll get their hands on VAR, headsets, or electronic flags for their first match, but the trickle down effects changes to the LOAF that impacts entry level referees who do not have the tools that they're written for, applying increasingly complex laws that are just nonsensical for three men to enforce on 22+bench and spectators.

With this context it is no wonder why new referees are overwhelmed no matter the warnings given as the problem is more systematic and intricate then just stonewalling abuse which seems to take up an ever more present amount of time then something as basic as keeping in line with second to last, or at least attempting to maintain the fitness to keep up with play. No wonder refs get the abuse then?
Click to expand...
Good post, but it will never change because it will never change on TV
Behaviour has been entirely allowed to deteriorate in this World Cup and the African Nations doesn't even merit comment
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Has this world cup made potential referees think to not take it up?

Every game people are criticising officials and VAR.
Every game even players and management are criticising officials.
I get its been happening for years but for some reason I just think its got far, far, worse this summer.
Every minute challenge. Every little incident (or non incident) has been scrutinised and dissected to the nth degree. And its always the refs fault.
Even President(s) are getting involved and belittling officials and decisions.
A lot of people, I feel, will see this and think why bother.
Laws are becoming harder to understand. In the pro game a lot of laws are ignored and does (and will continue) to makes things far worse in grassroots for the sake of entertainment.

Should the grassroots game have its own laws?
Should the pro game draw up add ins to LOTG and show amendments to one's that they are more lenient on (such as subs and anyone else about celebrating every goal on the pitch, celebrating with fans which should be auto card etc).

We will always have refs but personally think the standard will be much lower going forward as eventually they'll need to promote someone to replace the current ones even if its the best of a bad bunch (not trying to say any ref is bad, just not to the standard we would normally expect in the PL).
Click to expand...
I have said it for years but the main problem and still the same now is that, commentators and pundits don't have to do a Laws of the Game exam. Picking out the 2 main BBC co-commentators, if you take Alan Shearer as an example he needed a LOTG exam to pass some of the coaching qualifications he did, that was back in 2009, Danny Murphy is the other one has had limited coaching experience and last played professional football in 2013. The amount of chances to the Laws since then is crazy. Yes they are good for being able to comment on tactics, suggestions etc but I personally think a good referee should easily know the game to a level where we know different formations, drop zones/likelihood of set pieces outcomes especially if we were watching the professional game.

Pretty much 99% of all commentators and pundits refer to cautions as bookings and I can't even remember when they were last called that in the Laws of the Game, I did my 1st qualification in 2004 and it was called a caution then plus you have them referring to as rules not Laws. It doesn't help that even when a referee gets a decision correct they are being criticised by commentators that last had involvement in the game over 10 years ago. In the France vs England game, commentator Steve Wilson told viewers that the flag had gone up for offside against one of the French players when it had gone out for a throw, although it is simple things like that they are causing problems. Then you have the foul opinions when they only spot it after the 3rd attempt at a super slow mo angle that the referee didn't have say it should/shouldn't have been a penalty or what have you.
 
JamesL said:
This one does my head in - laws are a set of rules. It is not wrong to call them rules imho
Click to expand...
To be fair I imagine the use of the word Law in Laws of the game probably dates back to the time, it sounds more formal to enforce a Law than a rule.
 
SMYeaSM said:
I have said it for years but the main problem and still the same now is that, commentators and pundits don't have to do a Laws of the Game exam. Picking out the 2 main BBC co-commentators, if you take Alan Shearer as an example he needed a LOTG exam to pass some of the coaching qualifications he did, that was back in 2009, Danny Murphy is the other one has had limited coaching experience and last played professional football in 2013. The amount of chances to the Laws since then is crazy. Yes they are good for being able to comment on tactics, suggestions etc but I personally think a good referee should easily know the game to a level where we know different formations, drop zones/likelihood of set pieces outcomes especially if we were watching the professional game.

Pretty much 99% of all commentators and pundits refer to cautions as bookings and I can't even remember when they were last called that in the Laws of the Game, I did my 1st qualification in 2004 and it was called a caution then plus you have them referring to as rules not Laws. It doesn't help that even when a referee gets a decision correct they are being criticised by commentators that last had involvement in the game over 10 years ago. In the France vs England game, commentator Steve Wilson told viewers that the flag had gone up for offside against one of the French players when it had gone out for a throw, although it is simple things like that they are causing problems. Then you have the foul opinions when they only spot it after the 3rd attempt at a super slow mo angle that the referee didn't have say it should/shouldn't have been a penalty or what have you.
Click to expand...
I use the word Rules because I find it cringeworthy saying 'Laws'
Seems like an outdated and pretentious use of the word to me. Rules are typically given to sports and games whilst Laws are more formal and created by governments
Anyway, vast majority of decisions require judgement (of CRUEF, last touch, ball in/out) and no special knowledge of 'Law'. We referees just revel in the self-importance of knowing the terminology. Well, I don't! I come on a referee forum to 'make friends' with fellow referees!
It all lends itself to division in the game. Refs hate pundits an pundits hate refs etc etc
 
SMYeaSM said:
I have said it for years but the main problem and still the same now is that, commentators and pundits don't have to do a Laws of the Game exam. Picking out the 2 main BBC co-commentators, if you take Alan Shearer as an example he needed a LOTG exam to pass some of the coaching qualifications he did, that was back in 2009, Danny Murphy is the other one has had limited coaching experience and last played professional football in 2013. The amount of chances to the Laws since then is crazy. Yes they are good for being able to comment on tactics, suggestions etc but I personally think a good referee should easily know the game to a level where we know different formations, drop zones/likelihood of set pieces outcomes especially if we were watching the professional game.

Pretty much 99% of all commentators and pundits refer to cautions as bookings and I can't even remember when they were last called that in the Laws of the Game, I did my 1st qualification in 2004 and it was called a caution then plus you have them referring to as rules not Laws. It doesn't help that even when a referee gets a decision correct they are being criticised by commentators that last had involvement in the game over 10 years ago. In the France vs England game, commentator Steve Wilson told viewers that the flag had gone up for offside against one of the French players when it had gone out for a throw, although it is simple things like that they are causing problems. Then you have the foul opinions when they only spot it after the 3rd attempt at a super slow mo angle that the referee didn't have say it should/shouldn't have been a penalty or what have you.
Click to expand...
Hmm

I think the main problem is the chaos refereeing and lack of application of the laws at televised matches - not just the WC, see also EPL etc.

Pundits gonna pundit.
 
SMYeaSM said:
Pretty much 99% of all commentators and pundits refer to cautions as bookings and I can't even remember when they were last called that in the Laws of the Game,
Click to expand...

I don’t think “booking” was ever in the LOTG. So far as I know, it has always been the casual term, as when a player is cautioned, the ref writes it down in his book. (Though many refs, especially at higher levels, simply right on the card.) I’ve got no problem at all with commentators referring to bookings—that isn’t delivering false information. It’s the lack of understanding Laws that matter that drives me nuts, as that is what makes people think they know the rules and that refs don’t when the ref makes the right call.
 
In Football, laws govern the sport and are strict. Rules complement the laws and govern a competition within the sport. Non compliance usually have different types of consequences. Some rules in one competition may contradict the rules in other competitions.

Some other sports refer to their laws as rules but in general laws have a higher level of authority than rules.
 
RefereeX said:
The worst comeback in football is when a player said something about the rules and the referee says 'actually, they're laws'.
Click to expand...
I have used "you're right... i dont. But I know the laws".
I have only ever used that line a couple times but in the right moment.
Use it when heated and itll backfire.

But generally speaking I ignore the term rules as I have from time to time used it myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top