Rooney Rule Take Two

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/31907241

being a short fella, who's over 40, can I perhaps ask for a Rooney rule?

Crimey wrote:Also just a point referee's decision in the Premier League are more accurate than they ever have been.

That still doesn't mean they are good enough though. Would you rather have 100% correct through technology so there is no argument or 75% correct and a blatant one wrong?

I think the video ref is the best idea anyway. Just someone to sit up and watch the game and talk to the referee through his earpiece and to show it on the big screen. Even the potential to throw a little bit of hawk eye in there as well to see where the foul is. But human error always happens so that's why they need a bit of technology.

FootballLight wrote:

Crimey wrote:Also just a point referee's decision in the Premier League are more accurate than they ever have been.

That still doesn't mean they are good enough though. Would you rather have 100% correct through technology so there is no argument or 75% correct and a blatant one wrong?

It's actually something like 99.8% correct and technology will not bring it up to 100%. My point is you can't suggest that refereeing standards are a more pressing matter when the evidence suggests there isn't actually very much wrong and it's been improving consistently for years.

Crimey wrote:

FootballLight wrote:

Crimey wrote:Also just a point referee's decision in the Premier League are more accurate than they ever have been.

That still doesn't mean they are good enough though. Would you rather have 100% correct through technology so there is no argument or 75% correct and a blatant one wrong?

It's actually something like 99.8% correct and technology will not bring it up to 100%. My point is you can't suggest that refereeing standards are a more pressing matter when the evidence suggests there isn't actually very much wrong and it's been improving consistently for years.

It can't be improving so consistently otherwise there wouldn't be so much criticism and there wouldn't be referee's saying they'd benefit from technology. And 99.8% is still better than 75%. We haven't seen goal line technology put a foot wrong yet.

FootballLight wrote:

Crimey wrote:

FootballLight wrote:

Crimey wrote:Also just a point referee's decision in the Premier League are more accurate than they ever have been.

That still doesn't mean they are good enough though. Would you rather have 100% correct through technology so there is no argument or 75% correct and a blatant one wrong?

It's actually something like 99.8% correct and technology will not bring it up to 100%. My point is you can't suggest that refereeing standards are a more pressing matter when the evidence suggests there isn't actually very much wrong and it's been improving consistently for years.

It can't be improving so consistently otherwise there wouldn't be so much criticism and there wouldn't be referee's saying they'd benefit from technology. And 99.8% is still better than 75%. We haven't seen goal line technology put a foot wrong yet.

You can't use that argument and then suggest that the Rooney Rule or at the very least encouraging women and those of ethnic minorities to get involved in the sport isn't needed, considering that the latter is also talked about a lot and the numbers of both has been criticised.

There is hyperbole about refereeing in the media, the standards are not slipping, it's just there is a higher scrutiny as coverage increases and the stakes, financially, are raised.

No, you misunderstand, 99.8% is the standard referees are hitting currently, without technology. 75% is a ridiculous number. My point is that even with video technology decisions aren't going to be 100%, the increase in correct decisions will be minimal.

I believe the number of ethnic minorities and perhaps women is of need of more action than refereeing standards.

It is nowhere near 99.8%, where did that number come from?

Going back to 2012 I remember there being stories that at that time they got 92% of decisions correct, and that it had risen 20% in the five years prior to that, I'd be surprised if that number hadn't continued to rise.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/aug/riley-pleased-with-improved-refereeing-standards.html

Sorry I was thinking of offside decisions which are 99%.

Of major decisions it is 94% correct which is much higher than 75% and I think it's too high to get the level of scrutiny it currently does.

You probably could get to 100%

Your average game would last about 4 hours mind

Derbymanc wrote:

4L's that's ridiculous, some fans are honest, some want it their own way. There is no reason why a Ref can't discuss a contentious decision after the game and explain his decision. You might not agree with the reason but at least there is a reason for it.

A rule needs bringing in and enforcing to stop them surrounding the ref though, start showing them yellow's/red's and it will soon stop.

I agree that some fans are honest, but they are not the problem, the problem is the significant number of fans who aren't.  

I remember an incident in a one day cricket international between England and West Indies back in the 1980's.  Botham appealed for LBW against Viv Richards and the umpire (I think it might have been Jack Hampshire) gave Richards out.  Later, he went on the record admitting that he might have made a mistake.  After that, the press, TV pundits and radio commentators were on his back for the entire season.  The poor man had his every decision scrutinised.  He only lasted another season after that before retiring, some said in disillusionment with what had happened to him.

Bearing in mind that this was in the 1980's, when television and radio were much less intrusive than they are now, and also that, at that time, cricket umpires were held to be almost infallible and were regarded in the utmost esteem, the treatment of that official was genuinely shocking.  It was quite extraordinary for the time.

Imagine now, what would happen in the modern atmosphere in football...!!  The man would be pilloried to hell and back.  He sure as hell wouldn't be respected for his honesty.  

We have to recognise that football is the most poisonous game in the entire sports canon.  In no other game, anywhere in the world, bar none, is the treatment of match officials so appalling.   This atmosphere would not be alleviated if referees were made accountable to fans or television.  Rather, putting such power in the hands of malign individuals like Robbie Savage would be tantamount to giving an automatic rifle to a hyperactive child and telling him to go play with it.  

In my humble one, fans, pundits, the press, commentators and everybody else on the periphery of the game simply cannot be trusted to behave fairly, responsibly and without malice.

Your comment that players should be carded for surrounding referees is nugatory.  There is already such a rule in place, tucked away in Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct).  It is called dissent, which is, according to Law 12, an automatic yellow card offence.  The reason players are not always carded for what they do is because referees are overwhelmingly tolerant of such behaviour.  They make allowances for the behavioural characteristics of excitable young men and they largely ignore such shenanigans.   If they were to card every player who ever dissented, matches would have to be abandoned before half time, and then the referees would be blamed for killing the game.

Funny, isn't it.... If they were to apply the sanction that they already have at their disposal, it wouldn't be the players who took the blame in the press or the TV studios for their bad behaviour, you'd have the likes of Shearer saying something like "It's ridiculous to show a card to a player who is only trying to make his point to the ref.  We need to get some common sense in the game."  

Admit it..... you can just hear it now.

We do have exceptionally good referees who deserve the protection of the FA because football is a jungle full of very vicious animals.   Throw them to the wolves and you'll soon find you don't have any.

The referee who sent the wrong WBA player off came out and admitted his mistake after the game a few weeks ago, haven't seen any criticism or abuse aimed at him since admitting he made a mistake, in fact a lot of football fans have admired his decision.

So based on the evidence after that event it would be fair to assume that you're incorrect.

hampo171 wrote:The referee who sent the wrong WBA player off came out and admitted his mistake after the game a few weeks ago, haven't seen any criticism or abuse aimed at him since admitting he made a mistake, in fact a lot of football fans have admired his decision.

So based on the evidence after that event it would be fair to assume that you're incorrect.

Not at all.  He also, apparently, received death threats.  


As does this official:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9210806/Chelsea-fans-still-send-me-death-threats-after-Barcelona-semi-final-in-2009-reveals-referee-Tom-Henning-Ovrebo.html

This article is dated today, and refers to an incident that occurred in 2009.  

How about this, then......

http://www.donaldcollins.org/Officials/Attacks%20Against%20Officials.htm

The list includes threats or acts of violence against officials in other sports too, but the overwhelming majority relate to attacks on football referees, including incidents where officials have actually been killed.


Interesting article. Read this:

http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1020-October-2011/7927-amateur-referees-face-increasing-abuse

It's dated the 12th April 2012.

You've linked three articles that have nothing to do with the example I gave. Speaking to fans on social media they admire that he came out and admitted his mistake, I've seen no mention in the media that he has received threats of any kind.

I sometimes wonder if I said the sky was blue would you argue as you seem to believe you're 100% right about every topic you discuss.

In fact, I remeber Andre Mariner came out and apologised for his mistake last season when he went Gibbs off instead of Oxlaide-Chamberlain, again I don't recall any abuse aimed towards him following his announcement.

Ovrebo's performance in that semi final was so bad that rightly or wrongly it was inevitable to lead to threats as did Urs Meier in 2004 when I felt his decisions had a rather unsavoury tinge to them.

Linking other sport in other countries has no relevance to football in England, referees in rugby for instance are widely respected, they make mistakes as everyone else does but they're transparent with the ref mics.

Football referees in this country have no accountability and it is that that annoys the fans, if they were more vocal and I think ref mics is a necessity then the respect for them would go up.

Exactly HH, it's not about making them accountable to the fans. It's about making the fans understand why decisions are made, educated not ignore the problem.

But we're all ignoramus's Hampo so how will we ever understand

Your way way overthinking this 4L's, if you make the refs accountable then a lot of fans will be happy, if they stand up and admit their mistakes then the fans are happier and we also have the hope that they'll learn it for next time.

As for the dissent rule being there, well it's about time it was used. Footballs stuck with too many people that make excuses not too change things up because 'it's tradition' or 'people won't understand'.

We should be trying to make the game fairer and accessible again.

Too much money in soccer for Chairmen to take undue risks on untried Women coaches me thinks (Hard enough for black would be managers).... however that's not to say they can't be employed on the coaching staff and If impress..... start progressing that way...

Only be a good thing more Women wanting to take up positions in the game....

Keep telling Jo she'd make a great center half.................But she can't agree terms with Didsbury.............