No good could ever come of it tbh mate
Grassroots Interview
- Thread starter James P
- Start date
Yeah, I don't like the idea of being asked to talk directly to camera. If someone happens to film me while I'm having a chat pre or post-match with the manager, captain etc then I'm not going to go "90's celebrity" and push the camera away, but I think that comes across very differently (including to the CFA!) than you actually directly talking to the camera.
Of all the Youtube clubs, I only really watch Palmers regularly - recently they've sometimes included the bit where the ref has come over and said hi to the manager before the match, and I think it comes across quite well and humanises them. But definitely agree there's nothing good that can come of going out of your way to be formally interviewed at this level.
Last edited:
N
The answer to your question is an unequivocal yes. Football desperately needs people like this referee. There's a huge referee shortage in grassroots. The most important thing at dog and duck level is not that the referee is fully up to date with the laws. Its not that he complies with the CFA social media policy and its not that his personality is outside of what other referees would prefer it to be.
It's that he's there to referee a game of park football so that 30 or so people can enjoy a game of football and get some exercise on a weekend, including for himself. Those factors are far more important than anything else I've read on this thread imo.
The answer to your question is an unequivocal yes. Football desperately needs people like this referee. There's a huge referee shortage in grassroots. The most important thing at dog and duck level is not that the referee is fully up to date with the laws. Its not that he complies with the CFA social media policy and its not that his personality is outside of what other referees would prefer it to be.
It's that he's there to referee a game of park football so that 30 or so people can enjoy a game of football and get some exercise on a weekend, including for himself. Those factors are far more important than anything else I've read on this thread imo.
I generally agree, except there must come a point when the attitude and disregard for the laws makes it no better than having an unofficial one.
Every day when we hear stories of 'last week's ref' no?
Anubis
RefChat Addict
ok try this, couple, mum dad, have night at theatre next Sat. They have child
they cant find a sitter.
however, there is one sitter avail from an agency, qualified, registered, but his/her reputation aint great.
Do we utilise the sitter, as afterall its them or no night out ( which has been paid for, holiday from work taken)
or go, no, This person is not to the exoected standard for the task in hand, there willl be no night out.
everyone can of course have their own views. When you wear that badge, you are representing refereeing, Its not a joke.
football does not need referees who are incoherent with the laws of the sport they are taking money to officiate at,
If you wish to pay a shabby gas fitter to do your cooker innstsll on the basis he is qualified and better than nobody doing it, thats entirely your call.
if someone like ( obv not a direct dig at the ref in question) the ref in the clip wishes to officiate unbadged and without payment, thats diff
when they wear the badge and take a fee for their services, its not too much to expect they conform as much as possible to a minimum standard.
or else as someone else says,what you have in reality is merely a neutral, not a match official
another reason it’s ill-advised to do ‘interviews’ during this social media fad is the comments on YouTube for the video. Say what you like about the application of law but comments about the referee are just abusive. It can have a serious impact to a persons mental health all in the name of YouTube viewing figures, so be careful what you agree to as a referee!
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Worked at ITV for nearly 38 years and EVERY on screen contributor had to sign a 'Release Form' as the minimum requirement.
Obviously the 'stars' and regulars had full blown contracts, but the relatively simple release form protected both ITV and the individual.
It basically gave ITV the 'rights' to the 'performance', they could use it as they wished, including editing the contribution, and were not liable for any further payment.
By just agreeing verbally to someone interviewing you without any legal agreement or at least something in writing, you are taking a very big risk indeed, as the 'producer' can use your words as and when they like.
Obviously the 'stars' and regulars had full blown contracts, but the relatively simple release form protected both ITV and the individual.
It basically gave ITV the 'rights' to the 'performance', they could use it as they wished, including editing the contribution, and were not liable for any further payment.
By just agreeing verbally to someone interviewing you without any legal agreement or at least something in writing, you are taking a very big risk indeed, as the 'producer' can use your words as and when they like.
I've officiated on several televised games and the commentators usually make a point of having a chat with the match officials when they are first out on the pitch. They want to make sure they pronounce your name correctly, but also they are looking for your opinions on the game and football in general. You often hear Martin Tyler, in particular, mention conversations he has had with the officials. One of them, with the floor manager, asked us if we'd be willing to do a piece on camera and all four of us politely declined. It wouldn't have been controversial as would have been before the game, and was more around how we got into refereeing and our experiences of it, but ultimately it would have been unsanctioned and just not worth the risk.
Let's not forget this is adult football. And you ask every single one of those people either playing or coaching in that game if they'd want a ref who isn't upto date with the modern laws or do it themselves then every single one would rather have a ref. Changes to the drop ball law, ever
changing handball laws etc may mean alot to those of us interested enough in officiating to talk about it online etc, but alot of players/referees see it for what it is and that's a minor inconvenience when compared to having no ref. Imagine losing more refs (and the benefits refereeing has for these people) because they arent fully up to date with this year's laws. Ridiculous.
The dog and duck leagues, who do we think referees the majority of games? When I played the last few years of my nomadic career at dog and duck they were retired men mainly, or certainly over 50. You'd get the occasional youngster but usually they'd quit way before their first season ended. Some would quickly progress up the leagues after a couple of years but they were the exception not the rule.
It was almost exclusively retired men or men who'd packed in playing at 35/40 who wanted to give something back. Alot of these older refs played in the leagues they go on to officiate in for years. We can argue the toss over whether its ideal or indeed correct at all. We can say whatever we like to try and make our dog and duck leagues ideal breeding grounds for fully competent referees. But it does not change the simple fact that the older men who dedicate themselves to these leagues year in, year out keep them running.
We are far too dismissive about these people on here. Too quick to criticise. Their service, commitment and willingness to ensure a game of footy can be played after people have worked all week should be appreciated. Yes they should know upto date laws. It is not ideal. But it is so much better that they are referees for the health and enjoyment of everyone involved, including the referee!
Anubis
RefChat Addict
changing handball laws etc may mean alot to those of us interested enough in officiating to talk about it online etc, but players see it for what it is and that's a minor inconvenience.
of course I take on board those points.
fact still remains, you accept below standard, we are all grouped as below standard
i know for one I have too much pride in my own performances to be lumped into a jar with someone lax and dismissive of their duties.
its not ok ( imo) to basically masquarade as a football referee,
i also fully understand some folk think it is ok to do so
there is an imfamous league where I am.
its a cess pit
it could be a total coincidence its pool of referees are exact the ' service the gane' custodians....
expect, however we try pretend that it is, the reality is, its really not.
of course I take on board those points.
fact still remains, you accept below standard, we are all grouped as below standard
i know for one I have too much pride in my own performances to be lumped into a jar with someone lax and dismissive of their duties.
its not ok ( imo) to basically masquarade as a football referee,
i also fully understand some folk think it is ok to do so
there is an imfamous league where I am.
its a cess pit
it could be a total coincidence its pool of referees are exact the ' service the gane' custodians....
expect, however we try pretend that it is, the reality is, its really not.
Refereeing standards are set by what we see on TV. This filters down to grass roots, not the other way round
What we see on TV is nowhere near good enough
That's why we're all tarred with the same brush as being 'below standard'
The poor standard of Referring on TV (on the FOP and VAR) is a huge subject (beyond scope of this discussion), but is fundamentally a function of the overall Governance of football (FIFA/IFAB) and the culture in the game. The SG1 Referees themselves are elite individuals (in all respects) and are the least complicit element in the chain
So the fellah in the OP is an essential contributor to the game and shouldn't be overly held to account for standards of officiating at grass roots
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Having now watched the clip, the guy is merely a neutral observer.
What we see on tv, ( and given this guy claims he sees no tv), has no connection to his display.
To turn up without a badge and take no fee would be servicing the game
To wear a badge and take the match fee, without adhering to the lotg, is another loaf of bread,
I see your point, but without these R's, participation levels in the game would be worse than they already are. Which would be a bad thing
I don't think the analogy of childminding is relevant because it's not comparing apples with apples. The two have a different 'level' of responsibility
A service to this game for example, is delivered through nothing other than impartiality. So he is providing a level of service to the game, even if the service is not of a high standard
Anubis
RefChat Addict
I of course fully understand that.
For the 0.2% on the grand scale its worth though, I dont go around accepting ( or giving) anything but the best. I dont approach with family life, work, or refereeing with a " rubbish but better than nothing" mindset.
i would detest being labelled as " sh1t but better than nobody"
my pride would be too hurt
on the flip side, there might be folk out there happy to be tagged as such.
of course others are welcome to try build their own house without due knowledge or care. They also though cannot complain when their house falls down,
its acceptance of mediocrity that stagnates improvement.
Last edited:
To take it back to this specific example though, it's clear that this guy does not consider himself "sh1t" - you can tell by the way he talks that he felt he had a good game, that he thinks he's doing the right thing etc. And that despite clearly being (at best) a couple of years out of date on the laws, he's unlikely to look back on this performance as one that needs improving. He is not accepting mediocrity, at least not in himself, he thinks he's done a pretty good job there. I suspect if you asked, he'd have some strong opinions on some of his younger colleagues, but even that I don't think would count as accepting mediocrity!
So this takes it back to @Ben448844 's point:
So this takes it back to @Ben448844 's point:
Unless we can significantly increase the rate of people signing up as referees (and sticking with it as well), the option is simply a guy like this or no one. Infact, I've seen a huge amount of uncovered matches this season in the various emails I've seen from my leagues even with people like this bumbling around. If you went around and culled the registration of every referee like this who hasn't been to a laws seminar in the last 5 years, you'd have entire 10-division league weekends being covered by a single-digit quantity of referees - I don't think you could come up with a quicker and more effective way to just kill off grassroots football than that!
