The Ref Stop

Appeals

Should appeals be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 24 100.0%

  • Total voters
    24

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Should we, as in UK football, get rid of appeals?
Im not saying mistakes can happen, but to me it truly undermines referees.
Whether you think it was a red or not at the weekend, the Bruno one, the Norgaard one etc, to me, it looks bad on referees if they're having their authority decided by ex players and managers who, as you know from Sky Sports and other channels the commentators and analysts talk out their backsides. Even Clattenburg couldn't make his mind up about the elbow in the Joao Pedro incident.

All this latest one has done is create further uproar with referees. The next one for Arsenal will literally be having every movement scrutinised. Every whistle blown or not blown criticised.
This match on Sunday between Arsenal and Manchester City is already going to be about the referee and he is on to a loser. It'll be Saudi paid this and that if anything goes against Arsenal.
 
The Ref Stop
No. Referees are already wrongly accused of having too much ego - removing the one obvious source of "accountability" won't help that perception at all.
Yet elsewhere around the world where there are no appeals the refs don't get half the abuse ours seem to get, then level of scrutiny is less.
That's not to say they don't get any, but it's causing more bother.
Now the next game MO does gets micro analysed by fans, especially Arsenal ones even if they're not involved as they'll be saying he gave it v us but not them etc. The talk pre match on Sunday will all be about MO and the overturned appeal saying he was wrong. Was he wrong? Personally I don't think so, but 3 ex players and managers (who would instruct his players to do that to stop an attack at all costs but always expect a yellow) think he did because they're looking at it from a playing point of view.
The same with Norgaard incident. As a Brentford fans, I thought it was wrong (not through bias, but i see it as an attempt at scoring and Pickford putting himself in that position to endanger himself. Yet many on here think it should have been red and decision not overturned. Now with my refs hat on, I can see why red was given and probably also give one myself if I see it well enough.
So who's wrong? Me or the system?

Something is definitely wrong with the appeals process. I can understand for things like mistaken identity but everything else i think if you trust them to go out and be impartial then trust their judgement.
 
Very clear "no" for me.

I work with athletes in a different sport and aside from the fact that removing the right of appeal for player related sanctions would not be Human Rights Act compliant given the potential loss of income/ability to earn a living, why would we want players in any sport punished for something they didn't do?

It is naive and entirely unrealistic to expect any referee at any level to get every decision correct and one of the biggest issues pervading many sports (from media, fans, clubs, athletes and administrators) is the unrealistic and impossible pursuit or expectation of perfection from referees.
 
Last edited:
Yet elsewhere around the world where there are no appeals the refs don't get half the abuse ours seem to get, then level of scrutiny is less.
That's not to say they don't get any, but it's causing more bother.
Do you have a citation for that or is it just anecdotal?
 
Very clear "no" for me.

I work with athletes in a different sport and aside from the fact that removing the right of appeal for player related sanctions would not be Human Rights Act compliant given the potential loss of income/ability to earn a living, we would we want players in any sport punished for something they didn't do?

It is naive and entirely unrealistic to expect any referee at any level to get every decision correct and one of the biggest issues pervading many sports (from media, fans, clubs, athletes and administrators) is the unrealistic and impossible pursuit or expectation of perfection from referees.
This.
But we've had threads and debates over whether a corner or GK should have been given recently so... 🤦🏻
 
Very clear "no" for me.

I work with athletes in a different sport and aside from the fact that removing the right of appeal for player related sanctions would not be Human Rights Act compliant given the potential loss of income/ability to earn a living, we would we want players in any sport punished for something they didn't do?

It is naive and entirely unrealistic to expect any referee at any level to get every decision correct and one of the biggest issues pervading many sports (from media, fans, clubs, athletes and administrators) is the unrealistic and impossible pursuit or expectation of perfection from referees.
But if players play dirty, like Skelly did, he has removed that right himself by giving the referee a choice to make.
Michael Oliver, in this case, didn't ask him to rake his studs down the back of his opponents leg. He did that on his own accord.
I can sympathise with mistaken identity and have that as chance of appeal, but for anything foul related we're told referees decision is final (even worded in a way in the LOTG is it not?), but it's not though.
 
But if players play dirty, like Skelly did, he has removed that right himself by giving the referee a choice to make.
No, he hasn't. That right to appeal is enshrined in the rules.

Michael Oliver, in this case, didn't ask him to rake his studs down the back of his opponents leg. He did that on his own accord.
Yes he did, but he's entitled to appeal the sanction and if an independent commission deems that decision to be incorrect or unable to be supported on further review on the balance of probabilities (the standard of proof appliable in sporting regulation) for that sanction to be quashed.

I can sympathise with mistaken identity and have that as chance of appeal, but for anything foul related we're told referees decision is final (even worded in a way in the LOTG is it not?), but it's not though.
It is final on the day (factoring in VAR of course), but is not sacrosanct. Nor should it be.
 
But if players play dirty, like Skelly did, he has removed that right himself by giving the referee a choice to make.
Michael Oliver, in this case, didn't ask him to rake his studs down the back of his opponents leg. He did that on his own accord.
I can sympathise with mistaken identity and have that as chance of appeal, but for anything foul related we're told referees decision is final (even worded in a way in the LOTG is it not?), but it's not though.
Ok. Let's start removing rights of appeal. Found guilty of a crime you didn't commit? Tough. Serve the sentence. 👍🏻

Referees are not judge, jury and executioner. On the day we make the call. However players ought to have the ability to ask for a further opinion i.e. appeal the outcome.
 
Appeals / personal hearings are a fundamental right and I wouldn’t be doing away with them.

With caveats about repeat offenders, or future opponents etc… as the referee of THAT particular match: I’ve issued a sanction that I’m empowered to do so, the player and team are punished for the remainder of that match, and I report it afterwards. Regulatory body’s problem after that.

Tangent: Team I support had a bloke sent off for something very similar just before this Arsenal lad. No one on our forum wanted the club to appeal, rather have him unavailable for a fortnight 😂
 
I've said no, but I would caveat that with I believe the appeal panel should be made up of ex-referees, or at least people who have a qualification in the laws.

@JamesL said, referees make mistakes and it shouldn't be right that players are suspended when the referee has dropped a clanger, even though that is the case in many other countries. But the current appeal decisions are, at best, random and that needs to be sorted out.
 
I once went to an appeal and witness A shuffled in.

He went on for 15 minutes and i put my hand up. Though the chair "were you there?". "No."

"So how do you know what happened?"

5 minute adjourment and i was told i wasn't needed any further.

Guilty verdict i found out.
 
Appeals are essential for a just system but I would stop Wrongful Dismissal appeals for matches where VAR is in operation. The opinions of ex-players on whether an 'obvious' refereeing error has occurred cannot reasonably be considered more valid than the referee's, VAR's and AVAR's opinions combined. For matches with VAR a Clearly Excessive appeal would still be possible, so that a standard suspension need not be imposed in exceptional cases while upholding the role of the referee.
 
I once went to an appeal and witness A shuffled in.

He went on for 15 minutes and i put my hand up. Though the chair "were you there?". "No."

"So how do you know what happened?"

5 minute adjourment and i was told i wasn't needed any further.

Guilty verdict i found out.
Had you not turned up, the sent off player would have been let off.
 
Appeals are essential for a just system but I would stop Wrongful Dismissal appeals for matches where VAR is in operation. The opinions of ex-players on whether an 'obvious' refereeing error has occurred cannot reasonably be considered more valid than the referee's, VAR's and AVAR's opinions combined. For matches with VAR a Clearly Excessive appeal would still be possible, so that a standard suspension need not be imposed in exceptional cases while upholding the role of the referee.
For this to work, VAR would need to actually need to be allowed to get involved when they genuinely feel they need to be. Rather than having their hands tied because the referee gave them a vague description on what they believe they saw.
 
I have no evidence to back this up, but I do think that increasing a suspension for 'frivalous appeal' should also be a key part of the appeals procedure, to prevent everyone doing it, but I haven't seen anything like this done for a few years.
 
Back
Top