'Respect' and 'Disrepute'

[stockyfox]

‘Respect’ and ‘Disrepute’

 

As the news broke that Nigel Pearson was the latest manager to incur the wrath of the Daleks, as they once again burst on the scene to terrify their menial subjects glibly bleating ‘Respect, Respect, Respect’and ‘Disrepute, Disrepute, Disrepute’, I began to wonder if they actually know what these words mean.

 

According to my dictionary, ‘Respect is to treat with consideration, to regard with deference, to spare from insult, injury, interference etc. Well, I have never known a Dalek show the slightest consideration for anyone other than their own inner sanctum. They regard others with defiance, not deference and their treatment of managers and players is an insult to their intelligence and honesty.

 

Disrepute is to bring into disgrace, to dishonour  and to discredit. Now surely these words reflect more upon themselves and their henchmen rather than those sinned against, So really, their refusal to monitor standards coupled with their tolerance of injustice and incompetence is a disgrace and discredits those who deserve respect.

 

The Daleks very occasionally acknowledge that they don’t get it right but even so, they are never wrong. However, to be seen to be fair, the Daleks always allow their victim to appeal. That is only so they can have a laugh.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Someone please Photoshop Howard Webb's face onto a picture of Davros.

[Dan LCFC]

Another cracking post. Spot on.

[davieG]

Not sure about Salem's but the appeals meetings remind me of this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAbJjktk7E&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3SAbJjktk7E

[Captain...]

Fans, managers and players will not have respect for refs until they give more transparency over decisions and are held accountable for them after the match. They get scrutinised regardless by the press so why not release the press report and have to answer questions. I'm sure that managers would be less likely to fly off the handle if they knew answers were coming. I would also like to see refs miked up like in rugby, and cricket, and most other credible sports.

Remember Beckford's non sending off against Brighton, Kasper's red against Forest, Gavin Ward... That is just 3 off the top of my head and no compensation financial or footballing or otherwise.

Respect works both ways and until the refs respect the players, the clubs, the game they aren't going to get it back.

[MGLCFC]

It would be good if they were wired up like rugby refs, but unfortunately as most games are screened before the 9pm watershed, the foul and abusive language commonly used by the majority of footballers would make it unbroadcastable. I do feel refs need to be more accountable for their actions, but foul and abusive language directed towards officials by players and managers is not acceptable IMO. The reason why refs in rugby are wired up is that players are generally far more respectful.

[ealingfox]

Respect has to be earned.

[leicsmac]

It would be good if they were wired up like rugby refs, but unfortunately as most games are screened before the 9pm watershed, the foul and abusive language commonly used by the majority of footballers would make it unbroadcastable. I do feel refs need to be more accountable for their actions, but foul and abusive language directed towards officials by players and managers is not acceptable IMO. The reason why refs in rugby are wired up is that players are generally far more respectful.

 

Easy solution to that - any bad language used within the mic distance that can be picked up is an automatic red card and suspension. That would cut it out pretty quickly I guess. 

 

Honestly I see no good reason why footy refs cannot be miked up like their rugby counterparts and I think it would be a really good thing for the game - would allow accountability as the ref would have to explain his actions where everyone can hear and it would give the fans some insight too. 

[MarkHowieLCFC]

Mike them up like rugby refs...least we get to hear what the refs excuse is!

[MGLCFC]

Easy solution to that - any bad language used within the mic distance that can be picked up is an automatic red card and suspension. That would cut it out pretty quickly I guess. 

 

Honestly I see no good reason why footy refs cannot be miked up like their rugby counterparts and I think it would be a really good thing for the game - would allow accountability as the ref would have to explain his actions where everyone can hear and it would give the fans some insight too. 

Could end up with 5 a side.

 

I'd love to hear what the ref had to say, giving reasons for his decision, but within that there would have to an acceptance that decisions made may be incorrect. I looked at the pictures of Billy Davies and the anger, vitriol and aggression shown in his facial expression is just not acceptable. Those involved in football, whether it be fans, players or managers need to realise without officials there would be no game. I don't think referees deserves the abuse and threatening behaviour aimed towards them. Surely it's harassment in the workplace and whilst we all are frustrated at incompetence by some officials, I'm sure we all have bad days at the office. (and I know Mr. Deadman appears to have more than most) 

[leicsmac]

Could end up with 5 a side.

 

I'd love to hear what the ref had to say, giving reasons for his decision, but within that there would have to an acceptance that decisions made may be incorrect. I looked at the pictures of Billy Davies and the anger, vitriol and aggression shown in his facial expression is just not acceptable. Those involved in football, whether it be fans, players or managers need to realise without officials there would be no game. I don't think referees deserves the abuse and threatening behaviour aimed towards them. Surely it's harassment in the workplace and whilst we all are frustrated at incompetence by some officials, I'm sure we all have bad days at the office. (and I know Mr. Deadman appears to have more than most) 

 

Possibly, but only at the start until teams take the hint. 

 

Totally agree about refs not deserving the flak coming their way - and I think improved accessibility in the form of mikes would help with that.

[foxsake]

Tony Adams!

[Captain...]

Possibly, but only at the start until teams take the hint.

Totally agree about refs not deserving the flak coming their way - and I think improved accessibility in the form of mikes would help with that.

Exactly, and you would think they would trial it pre season and tell each player how that would be a booking. In fact they should do that for all rule changes, give them a couple of weeks grace to get used to it. One example being the 6 second rule, it was never enforced because it would have ruined games at the start. This way players can get used to rule changes without ruining games.

[Guest MattP]

Fans, managers and players will not have respect for refs until they give more transparency over decisions and are held accountable for them after the match. They get scrutinised regardless by the press so why not release the press report and have to answer questions. I'm sure that managers would be less likely to fly off the handle if they knew answers were coming. I would also like to see refs miked up like in rugby, and cricket, and most other credible sports.

 

This is so right, the referees would gain double the appreciation they have if they actually came out onto the tv and explained their decisions afterwards. I agree part of the frustration must be the fact that they can get no answers at all to what has happened.

 

Easy solution to that - any bad language used within the mic distance that can be picked up is an automatic red card and suspension. That would cut it out pretty quickly I guess. 

 

Honestly I see no good reason why footy refs cannot be miked up like their rugby counterparts and I think it would be a really good thing for the game - would allow accountability as the ref would have to explain his actions where everyone can hear and it would give the fans some insight too. 

 

Absolutely, there is no reason at all not to do this.

[RobHawk]

Can't agree more!

 

Referees in rugby still make bad decisions - but being able to hear the explanation for what they have seen, hearing discussions with the touch judge (when required) and the fact you can hear what players are also saying just makes the system so much more transparent and that's all we really want in football! 

 

At the moment football has this belief that referees are gods and can do no wrong - Well that's bollocks, everyone makes mistakes. But hearing what the referees say adds a touch of accountability but also understanding from the side of the fans. 

 

As for swearing - It shouldn't be allowed on the pitch anyway so making steps to remove that can only be a better thing again!

 

Been said a million times i'm sure but when it comes to officiating their respective sports the RFU are lightyears ahread of the FA or FIFA.

[davieG]

I'm all for refs being miked up but it will bring its own problems and I doubt it will alter fans reaction to their decisions that much.

You'd need to decided when a ref will need to resort to the mike as there are so many more potential incidents from who's thrown it is to awarding penalties/red carding someone.

And woe betide it if he gets a decision wrong in the eyes of the fans, I can imagine 'you don't know what you're doing' being sung with extra vigour and by more people.

Still it will make it interesting.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Possibly, but only at the start until teams take the hint. 

 

Totally agree about refs not deserving the flak coming their way - and I think improved accessibility in the form of mikes would help with that.

100% in agreement. Spectators just don't truly know what is happening verbally on the pitch.

 

Tony Adams should have been sent off for calling the ref a cheat, and also got away without a yellow card. Very tolerant ref. A good example off the constant abuse from players, directed at the ref. Bring on the mike, and send off the abusers.

[Captain...]

I'm all for refs being miked up but it will bring its own problems and I doubt it will alter fans reaction to their decisions that much.

You'd need to decided when a ref will need to resort to the mike as there are so many more potential incidents from who's thrown it is to awarding penalties/red carding someone.

And woe betide it if he gets a decision wrong in the eyes of the fans, I can imagine 'you don't know what you're doing' being sung with extra vigour and by more people.

Still it will make it interesting.

 

But how many times do you come away from a match not knowing why a big decision was made, if for example Matt James was sent off for swearing at the ref, nobody would blame the ref, but as you can't hear what he says to the ref nobody on Saturday knew why he had gone, turns out it was for running aggressively towards the ref, who knew that was a rule, well we would have done if the refs were more transparent.

 

I think the refs need more help, so much is subjective when deciding if it is a foul and left open to interpretation, is there contact, did he touch the ball, did he touch the ball or the man first, was it from behind, I'm sure most refs go on gut feeling because it happens so fast and they can't see it from every angle. Then there is all the hand holding, shirt tugging, pushing and shoving in the box at corners, all technically fouls but happen in every game all the time and if you started punishing them you would ruin the game, but how do you stop it? Retrospective action would be a start, there is enough footage of prem matches to be able to analyse each player and fine or ban them for persistant minor or major infringements in the hope that players will stop cheating and start playing to the rules, this includes time wasting, goal keepers taking too long over kicks etc.

 

I also think we need some sort of referral system, incidents where a player is booked or sent off for hand ball when it didn't hit the hand, or penalties are given when you know the player dived. The players on the pitch know, you get one chance you get it wrong you get booked for time wasting, it would take a minute for a video ref to see if the ball hit the players hand or not. It can only be used prove something concrete, like the ball didn't touch my hand, I didn't make any contact with the player, it was outside the area and shouldn't be used for a challenge that takes ball and man and he claims he took the ball first, or where it hits the hand but he says it wasn't deliberate.