A&H

Being seen to discuss

WilliamD

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
What do we think about the recent increase in ceremonial discussions between referee and assistants on TV. We have 2 from Madley (the offside debate with his assistant recently and the Liv/Eve match where he jogged all the way from the left corner to the middle to discuss with Moss) and we have Moss yesterday who went over to the assistant after the penalty that might of been a double touch (wasn't for me).

Personally I don't like it. They have comms so they can have quick and private input from the assistants. Be decisive and let's play. It's one thing at our level if we have neutral assistants and no comms - it can show the players we are trying to work together to make the right decision - but I don't think it's good for the pro game as it slows things down, doesn't offer the audience any more real information, and actually not required as they can talk over comms. Nothing good can really come of it for the referee - take the Madley Liv/Eve example...he has clearly already decided to be everybody's friend by not carding the push, the verbal, the man handle etc but then he trots over to Moss to have a chat. Now if he goes back and starts handing out cards he looks a muppet for missing everything in the first place when he is right there and moss in a different post code - or he does nothing (what he did) and we all know that Moss was encouraging him to do something.

Is this possibly a directive? - "be seen to discuss major decisions". If so I go back to the point that it's really not useful for the audience - slows it down, and doesn't actually give us any more information. Maybe the prem could take a page from American football and publicly announce major decisions over the speaker system in the stadium - they have even started explaining non decisions on mic which I think is great.
 
The Referee Store
I'm a big fan of AR's being seen to make decisions rather than simply let the ref take all the flack. And I think comms should be used where possible to help them make decisions and look like they're signalling them proactively. Where it's something like "did the attacker or defender play the ball to a player in an offside position?" the AR can just take a quick answer from the ref and then make a clear, strong decision. However where a discussion is more complicated like the Liv/Eve offside decision, I think going over to have a chat looks better (and is probably easier to hear) than an extended discussion over comms with the ref stood in the middle of the pitch.

But I totally agree that the Madley/Moss discussion looked ridiculous - what's the point in going over to have a discussion if you've already made your mind up and don't want to take any advice? If you go over to have a chat and the fully qualified AR/4th is advising something, you have to have a pretty good reason to think you should be overruling their advice. If he was going to keep bottling out of any cards, he could have done that without dragging the 4th official into it. You could quite easily sell that chat as "confirming" cards you were already going to give, as we would at lower levels with NAR's after a mass con.

I'm not so sure about announcing decisions to the crowd like the NFL does - if only because american football lends itself to stopping and explaining trivial details, where football favours "flow" and "getting on with it". A ref stopping to explain something would be accused of slowing things down, which is more of a problem when we don't use a stop/start clock with clearly defined rules on when it can stop like they do. But there are famous experiments with the ref being mic'd up for TV - and as far as I recall, those experiments were dropped mainly because the mics picked up players swearing and the ref's failing to punish them for doing so.

However I'd be massively in favour of mic-ing up refs for TV, which can then be used to justify a clampdown on aggressive dissent and OFFINABUS at the top levels of the game. And that would only help us deal with it at lower levels. When Rooney gets sent off for swearing at a ref, I can easily justify doing the same on a local park. When he can swear at a ref and get away with it, I look like an officious ****er for taking offence and showing red.
 
GraemeS said:
But I totally agree that the Madley/Moss discussion looked ridiculous - what's the point in going over to have a discussion if you've already made your mind up and don't want to take any advice? If you go over to have a chat and the fully qualified AR/4th is advising something, you have to have a pretty good reason to think you should be overruling their advice. If he was going to keep bottling out of any cards, he could have done that without dragging the 4th official into it. You could quite easily sell that chat as "confirming" cards you were already going to give, as we would at lower levels with NAR's after a mass con.
Click to expand...
If the rumour going round about Firmino using racist language in Portuguese, then checking if Moss (a) heard the word & (b) spoke Portuguese to understand could not have been done over the comms. The implication for an incorrect dismissal woudl have been huge.

They had to discuss next to each other to discuss this.
 
Sometimes I use a face to face chat a an excuse to give myself some thinking time when I need it. Its also a good way to slow down a game which is getting out of control. So its not always about the discussion itself.
 
I think at the level where comma are used they need to talk face to face, so that they can be seen to be talking to each other.

It is an obvious sign that the officials are discussing whatever has happened.

While 99.9% of the time this can be done over comms, if they do this then they get left open to accusations that the assistant had a better view but the ref didn’t ask them etc.

Similar to the fingers on the ear piece to signal that the referee is talking to the VAR, it just lets people know that they are talking.

The only way to negate this would be to transmit the comms between the AR and ref on tv, and similar to rugby, offer fans at the game the option of buying a transmitter that allows them to hear what is said over comms. But this will never happen for a variety of reasons.
 
zarathustra said:
I think at the level where comma are used they need to talk face to face, so that they can be seen to be talking to each other.

It is an obvious sign that the officials are discussing whatever has happened.

While 99.9% of the time this can be done over comms, if they do this then they get left open to accusations that the assistant had a better view but the ref didn’t ask them etc.

Similar to the fingers on the ear piece to signal that the referee is talking to the VAR, it just lets people know that they are talking.

The only way to negate this would be to transmit the comms between the AR and ref on tv, and similar to rugby, offer fans at the game the option of buying a transmitter that allows them to hear what is said over comms. But this will never happen for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
the tv companies should broadcast the conversation as well, but i agree it wont happen
 
Putting your finger to an earpiece is the same stupid human response as turning the radio down on the car when you are looking for somewhere!! :hmmm:
 
I think at lower levels it's great to have contact between the ref and ARs... but... it needs practice... it happens so rarely that it isn't practiced... and what I have experienced is that the conversation can be stilted if e.g. the AR is not enthusiastic/experienced and/or just doesn't have anything to say... and this is all obvious to players. My approach is to try to have as much verbal contact with ARs as possible - the odd "good" or similar - but that still doesn't really help if you go to consult the AR and they just don't have anything to say!
 
santa sangria said:
I think at lower levels it's great to have contact between the ref and ARs... but... it needs practice... it happens so rarely that it isn't practiced... and what I have experienced is that the conversation can be stilted if e.g. the AR is not enthusiastic/experienced and/or just doesn't have anything to say... and this is all obvious to players. My approach is to try to have as much verbal contact with ARs as possible - the odd "good" or similar - but that still doesn't really help if you go to consult the AR and they just don't have anything to say!
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be an issue if @Sheffields Finest and myself were your wingmen for a game, you'd have a running commentary on your performance........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top