A&H

Grassroots Interview

An out of date referee, or one who rarely leaves the centre circle, is definitely better than no referee. A significant percentage of games that become violent and end up getting abandoned are where they were being refereed by a coach or manager.

But, and I have been saying this for years, there should be an annual mandatory LoTG exam that all referees have to pass and that covers the changes that year. It can be easily done online, and can even be "open book", but I know for a fact that some referees haven't looked at the LoTG for over 10 years and are woefully out of date. I know there is an argument it would drive people away, but I don't think it would. Those that don't bother to keep up with laws are typically those that are doing it for the money, and they would spend 30 minutes taking an online exam to stop the cash cow from disappearing. I have to pass quarterly exams at work to prove I am up to date on regulations around money laundering, anti-bribery, financial crime, etc, it is just fundamentally wrong that referees don't have to.
 
The Referee Store
Either pass a yearly lotg and/or have a league rep/ref association panel member out at random for a once over.
If the league are then happy with who is. in effect, representing them, fine
 
Anubis said:
Either pass a yearly lotg and/or have a league rep/ref association panel member out at random for a once over.
If the league are then happy with who is. in effect, representing them, fine
Click to expand...

The latter doesn't really work though as something involving a law change might not happen in that game. As an example, I've had many games without a dropped ball.
 
Can only agree about having to resit some kind of test every few years. I was talking to a family member recently - he's a coach for a grassroots team - and he was saying he's due to go on a coaching course soon to renew his "badges" he has that qualify him as a coach. I feel something similar is only fair for referees, especially at grassroots levels as we are the only ones who get paid to be there.
 
RustyRef said:
An out of date referee, or one who rarely leaves the centre circle, is definitely better than no referee. A significant percentage of games that become violent and end up getting abandoned are where they were being refereed by a coach or manager.

But, and I have been saying this for years, there should be an annual mandatory LoTG exam that all referees have to pass and that covers the changes that year. It can be easily done online, and can even be "open book", but I know for a fact that some referees haven't looked at the LoTG for over 10 years and are woefully out of date. I know there is an argument it would drive people away, but I don't think it would. Those that don't bother to keep up with laws are typically those that are doing it for the money, and they would spend 30 minutes taking an online exam to stop the cash cow from disappearing. I have to pass quarterly exams at work to prove I am up to date on regulations around money laundering, anti-bribery, financial crime, etc, it is just fundamentally wrong that referees don't have to.
Click to expand...
I agree and what you describe would be less onerous and time consuming than the DBS check and safeguarding course that we have to renew every 3 years.
 
Are pensioners going to sit a lotg exam? Alot of them will not. I've used this chap as an example before and I will do now. His name is Stan and he refereed into his 80s for my local club in North Derbyshire/South Cheshire. He passed his exam and refereed countless games over decades. Even deep into his 70s he was there every week doing the clubs u11s, u12s, u13s etc. Legend of a bloke but he's not seen a law change for a very long time. He never gets his cards out (a very stern word often did the trick). He's refereed the parents and even grandparents of the kids that are playing. Do the kids give a damn that he's not able to get about the pitch or apply modern law? Do the parents care? They care more about Stan than any laws anyway, he's allowing their young kids to have a game of football. Frankly, half of them love the bloke.

In that town you don't get refs and have struggled for years because it's right on a County border and it's always the furthest team away from the refs. An observer would give him a terribly bad mark. But who actually cares? He's facilitating a game of football. Yes it's an extreme example but it's true and it provides perspective!
 
Ben448844 said:
Are pensioners going to sit a lotg exam? Alot of them will not. I've used this chap as an example before and I will do now. His name is Stan and he refereed into his 80s for my local club in North Derbyshire/South Cheshire. He passed his exam and refereed countless games over decades. Even deep into his 70s he was there every week doing the clubs u11s, u12s, u13s etc. Legend of a bloke but he's not seen a law change for a very long time. He never gets his cards out (a very stern word often did the trick). He's refereed the parents and even grandparents of the kids that are playing. Do the kids give a damn that he's not able to get about the pitch or apply modern law? Do the parents care? They care more about Stan than any laws anyway, he's allowing their young kids to have a game of football. Frankly, half of them love the bloke.

In that town you don't get refs and have struggled for years because it's right on a County border and it's always the furthest team away from the refs. An observer would give him a terribly bad mark. But who actually cares? He's facilitating a game of football. Yes it's an extreme example but it's true and it provides perspective!
Click to expand...
Take your point but presume he DID register each year and do the relevant DBS/Safeguarding as and when required?

Answering a few simple on line questions, with the aid of the LOTG isn't too much to ask anyone, let alone a 'pensioner' - whatever that means these days! ;)
 
RustyRef said:
The latter doesn't really work though as something involving a law change might not happen in that game. As an example, I've had many games without a dropped ball.
Click to expand...

no its not ideal but its better than nothing, a quick once over

I know here we are guilty of ignoring new referees who cant get promoted, they get their certificate then we have no idea how they are getting on, and more so, neither do they!
 
RustyRef said:
An out of date referee, or one who rarely leaves the centre circle, is definitely better than no referee. A significant percentage of games that become violent and end up getting abandoned are where they were being refereed by a coach or manager.

But, and I have been saying this for years, there should be an annual mandatory LoTG exam that all referees have to pass and that covers the changes that year. It can be easily done online, and can even be "open book", but I know for a fact that some referees haven't looked at the LoTG for over 10 years and are woefully out of date. I know there is an argument it would drive people away, but I don't think it would. Those that don't bother to keep up with laws are typically those that are doing it for the money, and they would spend 30 minutes taking an online exam to stop the cash cow from disappearing. I have to pass quarterly exams at work to prove I am up to date on regulations around money laundering, anti-bribery, financial crime, etc, it is just fundamentally wrong that referees don't have to.
Click to expand...

Absolutely all for this and anything that improves refereeing standards. But with the current shortage of refs, the standard is far less of an issue than the number. We are losing 1000s of games a week no doubt in the UK due to no refs, certainly 100s. All them people of all ages who love the game who aren't playing/coaching etc. That's more important. Get the numbers up and then concentrate on improving standards
 
PinnerPaul said:
Take your point but presume he DID register each year and do the relevant DBS/Safeguarding as and when required?

Answering a few simple on line questions, with the aid of the LOTG isn't too much to ask anyone, let alone a 'pensioner' - whatever that means these days! ;)
Click to expand...

I've no idea but the point is obviously a very pertinent one. I'm going to say that I doubt it. He would've needed help to do it I'd imagine. We had a retirement celebration for him when I was an u11. He was still reffing when I was 33!
 
Ben448844 said:
I've no idea but the point is obviously a very pertinent one. I'm going to say that I doubt it. He would've needed help to do it I'd imagine. We had a retirement celebration for him when I was an u11. He was still reffing when I was 33!
Click to expand...
But if he is refereeing U18s without DBS and SGW qualifications he is committing a very serious offence, no matter how old he is. What happens if a player tells their parents he made an inappropriate comment, they report it, and the CFA find out he isn't allowed to referee? It is arguably obtaining money through false pretences.
 
RustyRef said:
But if he is refereeing U18s without DBS and SGW qualifications he is committing a very serious offence, no matter how old he is. What happens if a player tells their parents he made an inappropriate comment, they report it, and the CFA find out he isn't allowed to referee? It is arguably obtaining money through false pretences.
Click to expand...

I've no idea if he was or wasn't, he's unable to referee now and hasn't for a few years.
 
one said:
Does football need a referee like this? Yes.
Click to expand...

I go against the grain as usual, and suggest no, we don't need them around, not from a refereeing perspective but also a football perspective.

They simply cause problems all the way through the game, one leading to another - I can give examples and be exhaustive about it, but suffice to say, they're the cause of abandoned games, misinformation and the hindrance of a proper development pathway at youth level IMO.
 
RobOda said:
I go against the grain as usual, and suggest no, we don't need them around, not from a refereeing perspective but also a football perspective.

They simply cause problems all the way through the game, one leading to another - I can give examples and be exhaustive about it, but suffice to say, they're the cause of abandoned games, misinformation and the hindrance of a proper development pathway at youth level IMO.
Click to expand...
Not disputing what they cause. But the reason football needs needs them is that it will be worse without them. I can do detailed analysis but the gist of it is already mentioned. Without them many games either won't be happening or happen with 'worse referees' which is even more hindrance of a proper development pathway at youth level, also IMO.

It's a sad position football has put itself in when they have to choose between the lesser of the two evils. They need to sort out the root cause of referee shortage and everything would flow on nicely from there.
 
RobOda said:
I go against the grain as usual, and suggest no, we don't need them around, not from a refereeing perspective but also a football perspective.

They simply cause problems all the way through the game, one leading to another - I can give examples and be exhaustive about it, but suffice to say, they're the cause of abandoned games, misinformation and the hindrance of a proper development pathway at youth level IMO.
Click to expand...

How do they hinder a proper development pathway at youth level?

Football is not about the referee. We are just a small part of it. Football is about the participants and the referee is as important as the rest but there are 25-30 people wanting to play a game of football and to stop that en masse because the referee is a bit dog and duck (like the players at that level) is mad.
 
Ben448844 said:
How do they hinder a proper development pathway at youth level?

Football is not about the referee. We are just a small part of it. Football is about the participants and the referee is as important as the rest but there are 25-30 people wanting to play a game of football and to stop that en masse because the referee is a bit dog and duck (like the players at that level) is mad.
Click to expand...

Folk wanting to play a game, great.

Folk registered with a team registered to an FA/league, paying fees, registration of players held, subject to a leagues rules, deserve in return a suitable match referee. From the teams, and regulating body, both sides deserrve that as a bare minimum.

to appoint " someone sh1t cos he is better than nobody" reflects badly on all parties, referee included.
 
Anubis said:
Folk wanting to play a game, great.

Folk registered with a team registered to an FA/league, paying fees, registration of players held, subject to a leagues rules, deserve in return a suitable match referee. From the teams, and regulating body, both sides deserrve that as a bare minimum.

to appoint " someone sh1t cos he is better than nobody" reflects badly on all parties, referee included.
Click to expand...

There is a massive difference between not knowing all the law changes and being ****.
 
Anubis said:
Folk wanting to play a game, great.

Folk registered with a team registered to an FA/league, paying fees, registration of players held, subject to a leagues rules, deserve in return a suitable match referee. From the teams, and regulating body, both sides deserrve that as a bare minimum.

to appoint " someone sh1t cos he is better than nobody" reflects badly on all parties, referee included.
Click to expand...
I think everyone on the thread agrees with your middle paragraph in principal. But when there aren't "suitable match referees" to cover all the matches, your options are:

1. Use someone like this
2. Use a coach/manager from one of the teams
3. Postpone the match until a ref becomes available.

What are you choosing?
 
GraemeS said:
I think everyone on the thread agrees with your middle paragraph in principal. But when there aren't "suitable match referees" to cover all the matches, your options are:

1. Use someone like this
2. Use a coach/manager from one of the teams
3. Postpone the match until a ref becomes available.

What are you choosing?
Click to expand...

I think this sums it up rather well.

And yes there is a massive difference in the difference between being where we want them to be and being ****, and that goes for players and coaches too. There are also referees who know the lotg who could quite easily be called ****.

We're not in a position to pick and choose. A drive on standards can only be successful when we have the quantity of refs to fulfill the games. If you're not getting a game because your area has full ref coverage and those that were chosen have passed an up to date LOTG exam for example then naturally you're going to have to do the exam and improve. We're in a position where games are being cancelled all over or coaches are refereeing, and they're far less qualified, experienced and likely to enforce most of the LOTG than this chap on the video
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top