CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
If only 2/3 of referees are abused, then are the remaining 1/3 the ones who are too arrogant to even notice what's happening around them?
Two thirds of referees suffer verbal abuse....
- Thread starter Padfoot
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think that unfortunately (because this is a serious issue and shouldn't be treated lightly) the title of this thread is a tad misleading (which in turn means that some of the responses are based on that misleading impression).
The original article does not say that 2/3 of referees suffer verbal abuse, it says 2/3 suffer it on a regular basis. So then I think it becomes clearer that the other 1/3 of refs are not saying that they have never been abused, just that they don't face abuse on what they consider to be a regular basis.
Although I am no longer active as a referee, I can honestly say that when I was, I would have been in the 1/3 minority.
The original article does not say that 2/3 of referees suffer verbal abuse, it says 2/3 suffer it on a regular basis. So then I think it becomes clearer that the other 1/3 of refs are not saying that they have never been abused, just that they don't face abuse on what they consider to be a regular basis.
Although I am no longer active as a referee, I can honestly say that when I was, I would have been in the 1/3 minority.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
How would you define abuse for a survey like this? Without knowing what the definition is, the figures are meaningless.
(for that matter, what is 'regular'?)
(for that matter, what is 'regular'?)
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Everybody has their own perception of what abuse is I guess. By the same token, every individual referee has their own tolerance level. Add the players into that equation with exactly the same criteria, and you can begin to see how the abuse thing has developed as a culture in our game. Not a pleasant fact but a true one all the same.
A player will have his own idea of what he considers "an acceptable level" of verbal abuse to a referee, based on what he has seen referees tolerate himself and obviously what he himself has been allowed to get away with. A player who has been come down heavily upon by the referee more often than not during his time will possibly think twice before opening his mouth in the near future, whereas players who have had their abuse tolerated in the past will consider it an acceptable part of the game. (These are usually the players who react like you're Satan himself when you show a yellow for dissent
).
As with nearly all things of this nature, it's an education process really. Consistency from referees with respect to dealing with abuse according to the LOTG (notwithstanding an individual's ability to manage and control players within the context of each match) is the single most important issue in all of it. You simply can't have discipline without the punishment.
Personally, like Peter above, I've been quite lucky I suppose in as much as the instances of what I consider to be abuse toward me have been rare. Having said that, I've only been refereeing since 2012. I'd say that in the 120+ games I've done so far, I've been "abused" in 5 of them or less.
A player will have his own idea of what he considers "an acceptable level" of verbal abuse to a referee, based on what he has seen referees tolerate himself and obviously what he himself has been allowed to get away with. A player who has been come down heavily upon by the referee more often than not during his time will possibly think twice before opening his mouth in the near future, whereas players who have had their abuse tolerated in the past will consider it an acceptable part of the game. (These are usually the players who react like you're Satan himself when you show a yellow for dissent
).As with nearly all things of this nature, it's an education process really. Consistency from referees with respect to dealing with abuse according to the LOTG (notwithstanding an individual's ability to manage and control players within the context of each match) is the single most important issue in all of it. You simply can't have discipline without the punishment.
Personally, like Peter above, I've been quite lucky I suppose in as much as the instances of what I consider to be abuse toward me have been rare. Having said that, I've only been refereeing since 2012. I'd say that in the 120+ games I've done so far, I've been "abused" in 5 of them or less.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Everybody has their own perception of what abuse is I guess. By the same token, every individual referee has their own tolerance level. Add the players into that equation with exactly the same criteria, and you can begin to see how the abuse thing has developed as a culture in our game. Not a pleasant fact but a true one all the same.
A player will have his own idea of what he considers "an acceptable level" of verbal abuse to a referee, based on what he has seen referees tolerate himself and obviously what he himself has been allowed to get away with. A player who has been come down heavily upon by the referee more often than not during his time will possibly think twice before opening his mouth in the near future, whereas players who have had their abuse tolerated in the past will consider it an acceptable part of the game. (These are usually the players who react like you're Satan himself when you show a yellow for dissent
As with nearly all things of this nature, it's an education process really. Consistency from referees with respect to dealing with abuse according to the LOTG (notwithstanding an individual's ability to manage and control players within the context of each match) is the single most important issue in all of it. You simply can't have discipline without the punishment.
Personally, like Peter above, I've been quite lucky I suppose in as much as the instances of what I consider to be abuse toward me have been rare. Having said that, I've only been refereeing since 2012. I'd say that in the 120+ games I've done so far, I've been "abused" in 5 of them or less.
5 or less?
Either you have been refereeing 9 yr olds for 120 games or you cannot recognise abuse.......or you hide behind 'tolerance' and 'management' as an excuse for pretending that you haven't been abused.
Exactly why the problem is so ingrained into the football culture.....referees preferring to ignore the abuse, or find ways to justify not dealing with it.
It will never change until the mindset of referees change.....as long there are colleagues who accept (and therefore encourage) the abuse anyone who doesn't want to be abused is really pissing in the wind and might as well hang up the whistle because they will get nowhere whilst their colleagues condone the abusers.
Why is this so difficult to believe? In your four games this season, according to the stats in your signature, you haven't been abused at all.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Youngest I've ever reffed is U15's Padders me old son. Fact is, 95% of those matches I've done are adult. I've had my fair share of dissent in those matches and have dealt with it accordingly and as per the LOTG. We're talking about abuse here mate, not dissent - please don't confuse the two. If I felt I'd been abused in more than 5 matches during the last 3-4 years I'd have knocked it on the head by now.
If you've been abused in loads of your matches then what can I say? Maybe it's just me that's luckier than you?