Captains to Approach Refs

[Simi]

What do people think to this move then? Seems that it's going to happen sooner or later

Only captains allowed to approach referees to contest a decsion.

Personally not a fan of it. If the FA actually managed to discipline teams and players properly it wouldn't be a problem.

By doing this you're taking many characters out of the game and moving football in the wrong direction.

[Uncle Albert]

What do people think to this move then? Seems that it's going to happen sooner or later

Only captains allowed to approach referees to contest a decsion.

Personally not a fan of it. If the FA actually managed to discipline teams and players properly it wouldn't be a problem.

By doing this you're taking many characters out of the game and moving football in the wrong direction.

Why? So you enjoy idiots like kolo Toure running 50 yards of the pitch to try and influence a desicion of a game. This is brilliant news, finally The F.A has done soemthing good. What direction is it going now?

[Fez of Mahrez]

I'm not sure it will work. Referees don't seem to have any common sense so another well-intentioned plan will probably end up as farcical as usual. When players are unhappy, their natural reaction will be to look at the ref. Where do you draw the line?

[act smiley]

To be honest, I dunno why this would be needed - just needs people to let the refs dish out loads of cards for dissent like I'm sure they'd love to.

[Simi]

Why? So you enjoy idiots like kolo Toure running 50 yards of the pitch to try and influence a desicion of a game. This is brilliant news, finally The F.A has done soemthing good. What direction is it going now?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not dismissing the idea completely, what I'm saying is if the FA had handled these sort of incidents properly we wouldn't need to be going down the route of making these new rules.

I'm not condoning the actions of the likes of Toure and the Chelsea squad for one second.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not dismissing the idea completely, what I'm saying is if the FA had handled these sort of incidents properly we wouldn't need to be going down the route of making these new rules.

I'm not condemning the actions of the likes of Toure and the Chelsea squad for one second.

You mean you're not condoning them?

[Simi]

I'm not sure it will work. Referees don't seem to have any common sense so another well-intentioned plan will probably end up as farcical as usual. When players are unhappy, their natural reaction will be to look at the ref. Where do you draw the line?

To be honest, I dunno why this would be needed - just needs people to let the refs dish out loads of cards for dissent like I'm sure they'd love to.

These are the things I was going to touch on.

We wouldn't be here had the referees and the FA handled the situations in the way they preach often enough.

This will end up taking away a lot of character from the game.

[davieG]

Haven't they tried this before? Like so many things the FA do they do it to make it to make it look like they're doing something but after a while it just fades away like it never existed.

Why are they starting at grass roots level, they should start with the likes of Rooney?

The whole things flawed anyway why does any player need to approach a referee they rarely if ever take any notice.

[lildave3]

Does this mean you can't even talk to a ref and ask him to explain their decision anymore?

[davieG]

These are the things I was going to touch on.

We wouldn't be here had the referees and the FA handled the situations in the way they preach often enough.

This will end up taking away a lot of character from the game.

I wouldn't say 11 players surrounding the ref adds any character to the game.

[Simi]

I wouldn't say 11 players surrounding the ref adds any character to the game.

No. This is not what I'm trying to say.

That is not acceptable, it should be dealt with. It's not, simple.

When a bad decsion has been made, we've seen often enough Hume show his displeasure at it. Not always in a violent way, that's what I'm referring to.

[Finnegan]

Brilliant idea, and about time. I'm all for "characters in the game", or whatever, but all this crowding the referee shit is ridiculous. It doesn't happen in rugby, and rugby's still plenty full of "characters."

Of course you'll still be able to ask the ref to explain decisions, but your captain will shoulder the responsibility of doing so - it just stops teams like Chelsea having every twat on the pitch up in the poor bastard's face every time he dares, say, accuse Didier Drogba of diving.

About fucking time.

[davieG]

Does this mean you can't even talk to a ref and ask him to explain their decision anymore?

Is there any point - get on with the game FFS he aint going to change his ruling. It's bad enough that most free kicks take about 5 minutes to set up, only to most of them go flying over the cross bar.

[MikeyT]

I think its a good idea, but whether it will work remains to be seen. How many other laws have we seen disregarded in the game before, like the 6 second rule for Goalkeepers for example.

I doubt it will work. There will still be players surrounding the ref even if the law does come in. Whats the ref gonna do...book every player for doing it. There would never be any players left to finish a match!

Cant see it working myself.

[lildave3]

Is there any point - get on with the game FFS he aint going to change his ruling. It's bad enough that most free kicks take about 5 minutes to set up, only to most of them go flying over the cross bar.

Yes there is.

When a decision goes against me, I want to know what i've done wrong. I'm not saying his decision should be changed, I just want to know why he's given the free kick, or why he didn't think a certain tackle wasn't a foul etc.

It's not arguing with him, it's just understanding a little more. Most of the refs in the games i've played in have understood this and explained and been happy to do so, then you get the c*nts that ignore you.

[davieG]

Yes there is.

When a decision goes against me, I want to know what i've done wrong. I'm not saying his decision should be changed, I just want to know why he's given the free kick, or why he didn't think a certain tackle wasn't a foul etc.

It's not arguing with him, it's just understanding a little more. Most of the refs in the games i've played in have understood this and explained and been happy to do so, then you get the c*nts that ignore you.

Well all they need to do is to indicate why the decision has been made. It's not rocket science.

What do you do if you disagree with him, it doesn't change anything - it just creates more frustration you'd be better off just getting on wth it.

[Joe.]

I just can't see it working.

There's very little respect for referees these days and most footballer's can't resist a dig at any opportunity. Are referees really going to book any other player other than the captain who contests a decision? I don't think so.

And are the FA trying to suggest captain's are responsible enough to have this "priveledge"? John Terry is one of the worst offenders for it and he gets away with it every week as a captain, as well as the rest of the Chelsea team, and does nothing to try and get his team mates away from the referee.

Also, is it really appropriate for a captain to run over to the referee wherever he may be at any point in the game to contest the decision?

It's an issue that certainly needs dealing with but I'm not sure this is the right way of doing it.

[lildave3]

Well all they need to do is to indicate why the decision has been made. It's not rocket science.

What do you do if you disagree with him, it doesn't change anything - it just creates more frustration you'd be better off just getting on wth it.

If he explains why he made the decision and I can see his logic, then no problem. Even if I do disagree.

[davieG]

If he explains why he made the decision and I can see his logic, then no problem. Even if I do disagree.

But if the ref stopped to explain every decision he made there'd be even less football played and there surely enough stoppages in the game as it is.

For me I'd go the opposite way in order to encourage quickly taken free kicks. I would advocate the ref being available to answer queries after the game.

There's just far too many stoppages as it is, delayed free kicks/throw-ins, time wasting for supposed injuries, get the player off the pitch if he can walk, not playing the advantage often enough. Last night in the first half the ball couldn't have been in actual play for more than 15 minutes.

[Finnegan]

There's very little respect for referees these days and most footballer's can't resist a dig at any opportunity. Are referees really going to book any other player other than the captain who contests a decision? I don't think so.

They'll start by pushing the free kick back ten yards (where appropriate) and book persistent offenders, yes. And of course it would work. The first two or three times players got sent off for consistently getting in the ref's face, people would sit up, pay attention and stop fooking doing it.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly be against this.

It DOES work, and I'm fed of hearing that it's "different" that it works in rugby. Bullshit.

[lildave3]

But if the ref stopped to explain every decision he made there'd be even less football played and there surely enough stoppages in the game as it is.

For me I'd go the opposite way in order to encourage quickly taken free kicks. I would advocate the ref being available to answer queries after the game.

There's just far too many stoppages as it is, delayed free kicks/throw-ins, time wasting for supposed injuries, get the player off the pitch if he can walk, not playing the advantage often enough. Last night in the first half the ball couldn't have been in actual play for more than 15 minutes.

I'm not saying every decision, that would be ridiculous.

[Finnegan]

Look. If a ref blows up and you're genuinely baffled, you're not going to be punished for turning around and sincerely, honestly asking what the decision was for. He can give a simple, short answer "shirt pulling", "high foot", whatever and move on.

But why do you need to be arguing or complaining directly to the ref? Have a little bit of faith in officials and your captain to sort things out between them. There is no, single, solitary reason why players should be surrounding a ref. If he feels he needs to talk to you, he will come to you. End of story.

[davieG]

I'm not saying every decision, that would be ridiculous.

But it would be if they felt like they needed an explanation.

[davieG]

They'll start by pushing the free kick back ten yards (where appropriate) and book persistent offenders, yes. And of course it would work. The first two or three times players got sent off for consistently getting in the ref's face, people would sit up, pay attention and stop fooking doing it.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly be against this.

It DOES work, and I'm fed of hearing that it's "different" that it works in rugby. Bullshit.

It should work but we seem to have seen so many of these initiatives introduced but they fade away after awhile or rescinded.

[davieG]

Look. If a ref blows up and you're genuinely baffled, you're not going to be punished for turning around and sincerely, honestly asking what the decision was for. He can give a simple, short answer "shirt pulling", "high foot", whatever and move on.

But why do you need to be arguing or complaining directly to the ref? Have a little bit of faith in officials and your captain to sort things out between them. There is no, single, solitary reason why players should be surrounding a ref. If he feels he needs to talk to you, he will come to you. End of story.

Agree and it would be even simpler if they indicated what the foul was for.