Rare disagreement here, I'm not having that the pundits knowledge of the law is fine, except for using the wrong terminology!
"It's bizarre to me that all others involved in the game seem to expect perfection from the match officials whilst being (more) understanding of the multiple mistakes made by other participants."It's a really interesting debate ... so let's continue
I don't think the motivations at the top level are 'questionable', I think they are clear. Football in the upper echelons is a multi billion pound entertainment business and the powers that be quite understandably have a strong view as to how referees can best contribute to that business. I do however completely agree that the 'filtering down' of this approach makes life harder for officials below this level.
I strongly disagree with the generalisation that officiating at all levels of football is 'poor'. From my ten years of experience from youth football up to National League, I generally and regularly have seen the 'Third Team' being the best team on the FOP. It's bizarre to me that all others involved in the game seem to expect perfection from the match officials whilst being (more) understanding of the multiple mistakes made by other participants.
It frustrates me that, as you say, we all routinely ignore parts of the LOTG. I would love to wave a magic wand and make changes to the basic laws where current convention dictates that they are not applied. Just for starters, imagine if the '6 second rule' became '12 second' but all refs applied it. Or if taking throw ins from any point on the touch line closer to your own goal was legal rather than just 'accepted'. Or that all 'non involved' players needed to be in the other half at the taking of a penalty kick, so the whole messy concept of encroachment just disappeared. Then we could concentrate on consistent application of all laws without the 'get out' card that some were routinely ignored.
And with regard to your last paragraph, that's where I continue to get it but fervently disagree. I know you're passionate about 'doing the right thing' where you see the right thing as what you believe to be fair. But until or unless the view / training of all other referees comes in line with your concept of fairness, you run the real risk of being an outlier breeding inconsistency. Sticking with the OP, the training and communication around DOGSO is clear, easy to understand and consistent. It's not easy on the day for a ref to take that 'mental snapshot' at exactly the right time and there will always be borderline cases ... but at least there is a coherent framework within which to debate any particular incident .... that's surely better than defaulting to what 26,000 individual referees unilaterally decide is "fair"?
In general participant knowledge of the laws are atrocious.
Funny I had that the other day when on the line for a college game.
The post above ought to explain where I'm coming from. The Teams you work with are likely doing extremely well in an impossible job, but that doesn't add up to a game that's well officiated
Ultimately, I'm not really bothered about other Referee's games and whether I'm entirely consistent with them. I've always felt that this sheepish mentality of Refereeing according to someone else's agenda suffocates any chance of 'natural selection'; the sort of which we witnessed in last year's Champions League Final and the subsequent change in how the game is Refereed
Expecting referees to not follow the LOTG is a bit tough. When the concept of DOGSO (originally I believe, the professional foul that was an aspect of SFP) started, it was much more a discretionary call. The criteria were added because Rs were reluctant to call, and they have been tweaked at times.Back to the OP
The point I'm making, is that the Referee's interpretation of OGSO is frequently not what the game expects. Which translates to what non-referees expect. And I'm inclined to agree with the latter, more often that not
Especially at higher skill levels, there's sometimes too much emphasis on 'distance from goal'
How 'central' the play is, ought to be more important than 'direction of play'
And there's no mention of probably the most important consideration, 'whether there's an aspect of USB to the offence'. If a defender, un-sportingly hauls a player down, that likely tells us that the defender considers it an OGSO. Yet Officials are restricted by what's in the shoddy book...
Although, I probably wouldn't be!
It was the assessor that warned me of the loss of scholarship and the fact I knocked a star player out of the next playoff game for accumulated YCs.
He knocked himself out.
If a player has received enough YC to earn a suspension for an important game. then it definitely shouldn’t be the fault of that most recent referee. Player let down by himself AND his management
