Referees - do they need to have played the game?

[davieG]

DAVE BLASTS 'USELESS' REF

Sat 13 Mar 2010

Dave Jones blasted the match officials after Cardiff's 1-0 defeat away to promotion rivals Leicester - even though their decisions didn't cost the Bluebirds the game.

Dave revealed details of an argument with the officials and said: "It just goes to show how difficult it is for us as players and managers when officials tell me that they don't need to know the game as long as they know the laws of the game.

"I've been in the game a long time and it's not just about the laws of the game, you've got to know the game, and when they tell me that, I can't see the situation improving. There are certain things that need to be looked at. If officials only need to know the laws of the game and not how it's played, then we are in some serious trouble.

Asked about the referee's performance, Dave replied: "I I thought he was useless."

The gaffer added: "Leicester's keeper should have had the biggest round of applause because he made an unbelievable save and the ref gave a goal kick. That's not knowing the laws of the game - he just missed it. The whole stadium must have been laughing at him.

"The officials' performance didn't cost us today, but something needs to be looked at by the hierarchy when we have officials who believe that it 's not knowing about the little pushes and shoves that go on in the game, it's all about the laws.

"You don't play football with just the laws- it has to be played by people who know what they're doing not just by what they read in a book. That's the worst thing.

"Decisions went against both teams. I think they were absolutely awful. You need to know the game. It doesn't matter at what level you've played. You can't just read a book and say that's the law and that's what we're going to do.

"There are things that go on in professional games and in Sunday parks matches - a little lean over, a little push, a little bit of cleverness, a little bit of gamesmanship from players- and if you haven't played the game you might as well tear up the rule book and throw it away.

"I've been in the game a long time as a young player, manager, coach, and senior player and when I hear someone say you don't need to know the game the referees' association need to have a long hard look at themselves.

"The standard of refereeing we was terrible, shocking. If all I need to know is the rules of rugby, I might as well learn them and go and be a rugby referee. But I wouldn't know all the little tricks in that sport.

"Officials think they know the laws of the game, we think we know the game, and somewhere along the line we've got to marry it up and they're not doing it.

"You don't need to have played the game at the highest level, but you need to have played it.

"I'll probably get in trouble now - I suppose I'll get a fine. But I need some better officials in control of games, especially now at the business end of the season. The officials were poor today.

"You can't just say: 'I've read the laws of the game so I am a good referee.' I find that extraordinary and quite sad. I thougt the officials wre shocking today for both teams. Somewhere along the line people must start listening to people in the game. Our game has got nowhere to go with people who just read books and saw they know it.

"I don't think any of those officials today have kicked a ball."

[davieG]

I think he's right but I'd suggest he looks at himself and other mangers/players and asks why they condone all the subtle cheating?

Perhaps if the players stopped shirt tugging, feigning injuries, over-reacting to fouls, diving and all other aspects of cheating and mangers actively discouraged/fined it the refs would have less to look out for.

[Benji]

It's too easy for him to generalise like that. Every referee has their own interpretations on the game and having completely ex-player refs would make no difference.

If anything, I'd expect former players to allow a lot more than ref's do nowadays, having played the game they'll see little pushes as "part and parcel of the game" and let it continue. A completely independent person working purely by the letter of the law and a bit of common sense however will be more open to enforce it. And at the end of the day, id it's a foul in the book it's a foul full stop, otherwise why have the laws?

You see it in rugby quite a bit, especially with scrums. If you put 2 referees on a pitch in some rugby matches and get them to watch a scrum 2 or 3 times out of 5 they'd penalise a different team to each other. Bias to how they like the game played, and how they played it come into it. Some like to see a good attacking push while others appreciate just as much a resiliant defence. Everytime you watch a game on TV you'll hear an ex-player commentating and questioning how a referee has penalised one team and not another for collapsing or turning the scrum. Link that to football, I imagine a former striker will be quick to offer more penalties and penalise defenders than a former defender would, and where exactly would the consistency be? Imagine Dickov or Howard being a premier league referee, they'd give 40 fouls a game to the attacking side on the edge of the box to players that are clearly backing in and looking for the foul.

On the match, the corner that they should have had, that's purely about having a decent eyesight. Former player or not, if you have a pair of eyes you can see that the ball get's deflected. It's not exactly a good example for him to use as the start of his argument. What he's saying could help, but I don't see it as clear cut as he does. I also find it quite strange for him to use todays game to go on this prepared rant when a blatant penalty decision gave his side a chance to get something from the match.

[davieG]

It's too easy for him to generalise like that. Every referee has their own interpretations on the game and having completely ex-player refs would make no difference.

If anything, I'd expect former players to allow a lot more than ref's do nowadays, having played the game they'll see little pushes as "part and parcel of the game" and let it continue. A completely independent person working purely by the letter of the law and a bit of common sense however will be more open to enforce it. And at the end of the day, id it's a foul in the book it's a foul full stop, otherwise why have the laws?

You see it in rugby quite a bit, especially with scrums. If you put 2 referees on a pitch in some rugby matches and get them to watch a scrum 2 or 3 times out of 5 they'd penalise a different team to each other. Bias to how they like the game played, and how they played it come into it. Some like to see a good attacking push while others appreciate just as much a resiliant defence. Everytime you watch a game on TV you'll hear an ex-player commentating and questioning how a referee has penalised one team and not another for collapsing or turning the scrum. Link that to football, I imagine a former striker will be quick to offer more penalties and penalise defenders than a former defender would, and where exactly would the consistency be? Imagine Dickov or Howard being a premier league referee, they'd give 40 fouls a game to the attacking side on the edge of the box to players that are clearly backing in and looking for the foul.

On the match, the corner that they should have had, that's purely about having a decent eyesight. Former player or not, if you have a pair of eyes you can see that the ball get's deflected. It's not exactly a good example for him to use as the start of his argument. What he's saying could help, but I don't see it as clear cut as he does. I also find it quite strange for him to use todays game to go on this prepared rant when a blatant penalty decision gave his side a chance to get something from the match.

Some good points there, sub-conscious bias I'd guess is in everyone.

[Webbo]

The problem with using ex players as refs is that most players play into their mid to late 30s and refs have to retire at 48 not giving them long to work their way up.

As for yesterdays ref missing that corner from Weale's save, the ref just didn't see it. It wouldn't make a difference whether he was an ex player or not.

[Nick]

I think he is right when saying that refs should have played football at 'some level.'

I think anybody doing any job has a better idea of proceedings if they have been made subject to what they now control.

The ref doesn't have to 'let more stuff go' as an ex-player of some sorts, he has to have the knowledge and the empathy to make an informed judgement.

The experience allows that judgement to be informed.

We are not talking about bending the rules or the laws, we are talking about interpretation of the laws.

Laws will always be subject to interpretation - hence the need for courts.

I say, ensure that those making the decisions are the best placed people to do so and I think direct experience in the subject matter is necessary to directly influence and inform said governance.

Que referees with no footballing background challenging this....... my retort will be, how would you know that you are making the right judgement calls, if there is experience and knowledge that you could have learnt from playing the game that you don't have?

N.

[Matt]

Hang on, I thought in general he favoured Cardiff slightly, on a whole he was one of the better referee's we had this season (Look Kareem, I'm giving a referee credit - Not showing "Sheer hate and vitriol", I just say what I see and a majority are poor, end of).

As I always say everyone makes mistakes, no-one is perfect, I understand that and referees have a very hard job, but some mistakes and the quantity of mistakes are just getting out of hand, as for yesterdays referee he wasn't bad made a couple of mistakes but (And probably because we won - If we'd have drew or lost it may be a different story) the referee gave a foul in Cardiff favour in their penalty box, then later in the game didn't give us a penalty for a slightly (Arguably) worse situation that he gave for their freekick - when Vaughan got crowded out. Also he gave Berner a yellow for what appeared where I was sitting a little kick out, yet not for a Cardiff player who imo appeared to kick out, but he did then book one of their players for a 'lesser offence' imo when he held Howard back. - They are the only major decisions I remember him making wrong, i'm sure there were others and i'm sure as I was focusing on Leicester more there we're decisions he got wrong for Cardiff (I did notice one of out players handball in the box).

[Guest Mee-9]

Ex-player or not, a ref's going to get a decision wrong once in a while. Why does it matter if its an ex-player or not? He's just moaning cause he lost the game. From Weales save, if it would have been a corner chances are it would of amounted to nothing. He'll probably get done by the FA for his comments anyway.

[dandannieldanok]

I can understand Jones' frustration, yesterday's ref was plain incompetent. It's too difficult to find enough people who have played to then go on to become referees, but yes in an ideal world referees would have previously played the game in some capacity.

I think he's right but I'd suggest he looks at himself and other mangers/players and asks why they condone all the subtle cheating?

Perhaps if the players stopped shirt tugging, feigning injuries, over-reacting to fouls, diving and all other aspects of cheating and mangers actively discouraged/fined it the refs would have less to look out for.

Agreed, the subtle cheating makes the referee's job a nightmare at times. However modern referees need to learn to deal with it because it's certainly not going out of the game.

[Bert]

I remember a few years ago, I was playing in a game and the ref was useless. As the game went on, I was getting more and more wound up. Got to a stage where I got booked, and I asked the ref had he ever played the game? He said "No, I didn't need to" My reply was "Well If you did, you'd now that stuff happens" He then said "Well sadly, 90% of the players don't know the rules of the game". Tosser.

Yesterdays ref was shit.

[Fosse Boy]

Seems to work in cricket. I think pretty much every umpire on the First Class panel has played at that level. Just depends whether you could trust a football ref who's also an ex-pro not to be favouritist towards former team-mates/against players he may have had run-ins with during his career I guess.

[Bert]

Seems to work in cricket. I think pretty much every umpire on the First Class panel has played at that level. Just depends whether you could trust a football ref who's also an ex-pro not to be favouritist towards former team-mates/against players he may have had run-ins with during his career I guess.

You can umpire 'til pretty much any age in cricket. Not in football.

[Fosse Boy]

You can umpire 'til pretty much any age in cricket. Not in football.

Good point, but you could still get a few years out of a footballer who retires in their mid to late thirties?

[davieG]

At the rate we're going with one referee, two assistant referees, one fourth official and two goal line referees they could probably carry on until they're 70.

[john_lcfc]

anybody who plays local football will know that the best referees are the young ones these days.

They are taught how to referee and are consistent and apply the laws. The older ones are inconsistent and wishy washy. So I dont believe ex players will not make any difference at all as they dont know how to run the game and when to caution etc which referees now generally get spot on. Of course from time to time there will be human mistakes but as already said ex pro or not the Weale incident the ref just missed it, maybe a player ran in his line of vision?

[Jay]

I just think yesterdays ref was useless wouldn't matter if he had played the game or not he was just rubbish.

The throw in was a total farce when he clearly didn't remember what he had done and was trying to give a drop ball and had to be told by both sets of players what had actually gone on! it would have made no difference if he had got 100 caps for England or had never even kicked a ball he was just inept.

[ozleicester]

Its time the age limit was reviewed and decisions made on the quality of the ref, not their age.

Assuming that the age rules have been in place for quite sometime, the life span of people.. and their physical and mental capabilities have increased enormously over the last 2/3 decades.

Even people Davie G's age have valid opinions

[MPH]

Sounds to me like he just wanted to vent his frustrations out at someone after losing an important game.

[hairy]

The ref and the linesmen were poor. The ref let too many things go and appeared to have little control when you consider the throw in farce. The linesmen didn't help him with decisions either. I am not sure if any of them had played the game before would help as they all just seemed to lack the ability to make a decision.