I found him... LWR!!

[zarathustra]

CFA’s still circulate changes to LOTG each summer don’t they? Could be an easy “read this pdf and answer these X questions (or something)” when taking annual registration fees.

Kent certainly does.

The biggest challenge would be building a test into WGS and keeping it upto date.

If referees can't be bothered to even take a cursory glance at the laws before the season even starts, then I would question whether they would be missed if they didn't re-register.

 

[es1]

Kent certainly does.

The biggest challenge would be building a test into WGS and keeping it upto date.

If referees can't be bothered to even take a cursory glance at the laws before the season even starts, then I would question whether they would be missed if they didn't re-register.

They absolutely would be missed though

At the moment we're down for refs all over the country. Bringing in any sort of lotg test would further reduce that.

More clubs refs reffing their own games.

For all involved a ref is always better than no ref imo

 

[PP62]

This is one area where the local RA is great. At ours (and I assume all the others) we cover law changes at our August meeting every season. A number of our members are the grass roots referees (old and young) who have no desire to progress and they do keep up to date with changes.

 

[zarathustra]

They absolutely would be missed though

At the moment we're down for refs all over the country. Bringing in any sort of lotg test would further reduce that.

More clubs refs reffing their own games.

For all involved a ref is always better than no ref imo

But why? If referees don't know the laws of the game then surely it's no different to having either the club's refereeing their own games, or just picking a random person off the street and giving them a whistle.

 

[Ben448844]

Kent certainly does.

The biggest challenge would be building a test into WGS and keeping it upto date.

If referees can't be bothered to even take a cursory glance at the laws before the season even starts, then I would question whether they would be missed if they didn't re-register.

Put that question to those teams who wouldn't have a referee.

 

[es1]

But why? If referees don't know the laws of the game then surely it's no different to having either the club's refereeing their own games, or just picking a random person off the street and giving them a whistle.

Better someone neutral than not, is what I really want to say!

 

[zarathustra]

Put that question to those teams who wouldn't have a referee.

If that's the case, then maybe they should amend match fees.

Have an optional lotg test when you register, and club's can pay more for a referee who has proven they are upto date on the laws, and less for a referee who couldn't be bothered.

For example, my local Sunday league the fee is a flat £30, perhaps club's could pay £30 for someone who has passed a quick test when they registered, or £15 for someone who couldn't be bothered to take 15 minutes to do a quick test.

Why should club's be forced to pay full fee for a referee who hasn't even bothered to look at the laws in 10 years?

 

[es1]

If that's the case, then maybe they should amend match fees.

Have an optional lotg test when you register, and club's can pay more for a referee who has proven they are upto date on the laws, and less for a referee who couldn't be bothered.

For example, my local Sunday league the fee is a flat £30, perhaps club's could pay £30 for someone who has passed a quick test when they registered, or £15 for someone who couldn't be bothered to take 15 minutes to do a quick test.

Why should club's be forced to pay full fee for a referee who hasn't even bothered to look at the laws in 10 years?

A nice idea but you'll just end up with all the refs that fail quitting (Or a large proportion) so you get the same result!

 

[JamesL]

They absolutely would be missed though

At the moment we're down for refs all over the country. Bringing in any sort of lotg test would further reduce that.

More clubs refs reffing their own games.

For all involved a ref is always better than no ref imo

Would it? There is no evidence to suggest that at all.
Has as much basis as the theory of if refs were better qualified I. E. Tested annually. There would be less confusion in games when LWR still penalises last years laws then possibly dissent and abuse reduces retaining better trained referees for longer.

It's not hard to produce a LOTG exam solely on law changes that forces refs to at least look at the changes in the book. No one should fail an open book exam.

 

[zarathustra]

A nice idea but you'll just end up with all the refs that fail quitting (Or a large proportion) so you get the same result!

I envisage an online test done at time of registration, so there would be no reason why anyone taking it couldn't have the laws open in front of them.

But that's by the by, why should club's be forced to pay full fee for a referee who hasn't read the lotg for 10 years?

 

[es1]

I envisage an online test done at time of registration, so there would be no reason why anyone taking it couldn't have the laws open in front of them.

But that's by the by, why should club's be forced to pay full fee for a referee who hasn't read the lotg for 10 years?

I disagree with your opinion tbh. In an ideal world every ref is, at the very least, clued up on the laws.

I just think that having a ref is more important than not having one. And doing something like this will lead to fewer refs.

 

[zarathustra]

I disagree with your opinion tbh. In an ideal world every ref is, at the very least, clued up on the laws.

I just think that having a ref is more important than not having one. And doing something like this will lead to fewer refs.

So having a warm body in a black shirt is more important than having someone who has kept themselves upto date with the laws.

If that is the case, what is wrong with giving club's the choice of pay full match fee for a referee who is upto date with the laws, or pay half a match fee for a qualified ref who couldn't be bothered to keep upto date, or take the 10-15 to prove they are upto date?

 

[es1]

So having a warm body in a black shirt is more important than having someone who has kept themselves upto date with the laws.

If that is the case, what is wrong with giving club's the choice of pay full match fee for a referee who is upto date with the laws, or pay half a match fee for a qualified ref who couldn't be bothered to keep upto date, or take the 10-15 to prove they are upto date?

I just think the second you put a barrier up to 'these' refs they'll quit.

Plenty won't bother taking the test at all, those that fail won't bother reffing either.

 

[Big Cat]

Participation levels is the most important consideration. More games without someone neutral to referee = less participation
County Leagues have been disappearing all over the place for 3 or 4 decades
A neutral referee who is behind the times, is a miles better option than further killing the game by ridding the game of this resource
I watched an elderly ref in a vets game lately. He could barely move around the pitch and had no clue. Both teams just accepted his limitations and it was a good game. He was possibly the worst ref I've ever seen, but he plugged this hole quite nicely

 

[Ben448844]

Introduce a fee of £15 and you will lose refs and the same problem exists at the bottom level. You ask why should teams put up with a ref who isnt upto date. Well, they always have!

 

[Ben448844]

Participation levels is the most important consideration. More games without someone neutral to referee = less participation
County Leagues have been disappearing all over the place for 3 or 4 decades
A neutral referee who is behind the times, is a miles better option than further killing the game by ridding the game of this resource
I watched an elderly ref in a vets game lately. He could barely move around the pitch and had no clue. Both teams just accepted his limitations and it was a good game. He was possibly the worst ref I've ever seen, but he plugged this hole quite nicely

I know this is a vacuum, but everyone must remember that the game is more important than anything. At the bottom level,players just want a game of football, it's a hobby

 

[zarathustra]

If it doesn't matter whether a referee knows the laws of the game, then it doesn't matter whether they have a qualified referee at all, anyone can put on a black shirt and run around the centre circle.

And, if you really cared about the club's, surely not forcing them to pay full match fee for someone who clearly doesn't care about the game (if they cared they would at least try to keep up with the laws) would be fairer.

Why should club's be forced to pay £30 for someone who doesn't care enough about their role to read the laws once a season?

 

[ARF]

I finally found the IDIOT that makes every team in my county think saying "leave it" is an offence.
I thought he was a myth!!
He gave free kicks on occasions players were telling their team mates to leave it without an opposition player within 20 yards! Painful to watch.
Didn't caution for any of them either!!

Also thought a pass through to an offside player wasn't offside as it took a huge deflection off a defender!!

To top it off he cautioned a player that had come on at half time without telling him (this was a friendly, and about as chilled a match you could hope to referee).

Prob passed his exam 20 years ago and hasn't looked at the laws since.
I'm sure Alex Rush-Fear or others will jump to his defence. But not even attempting to keep on top of the laws (Which is bloody hard this season) actually shows you don't really care and just want the £32 with minimum hassle.

Why on earth have I been name-checked in this?!

 

[Ben448844]

If it doesn't matter whether a referee knows the laws of the game, then it doesn't matter whether they have a qualified referee at all, anyone can put on a black shirt and run around the centre circle.

And, if you really cared about the club's, surely not forcing them to pay full match fee for someone who clearly doesn't care about the game (if they cared they would at least try to keep up with the laws) would be fairer.

Why should club's be forced to pay £30 for someone who doesn't care enough about their role to read the laws once a season?

They'll happily pay £30 just to have a referee in many of the lower leagues in the UK. Alot more. All referees have qualified, but the truth of the matter is that some refs have no interest in the law changes or promotions etc, they simply do it as a hobby and to keep league's they once played in going. They're good guys and they're essential at the bottom of the pyramid.

Don't get me wrong, I wish that there was a surplus of refs and then there could be measures implemented to ensure that all refs maintain good knowledge of the laws but it's not realistic. Fortunately, most of the players/manager don't know any new laws either at dog and duck. At that level, it's the worst players with the worst referees (in theory), but they're all staying involved in the game which is the most important thing.

 

[RobOda]

Introduce a fee of £15 and you will lose refs and the same problem exists at the bottom level. You ask why should teams put up with a ref who isnt upto date. Well, they always have!

Waive the fee if they pass the exam then?