Rugby players aren't above a bit of cheating if they think they can get away with it. Remember the Tom Williams 'bloodgate' incident which was not a one-off. Certainly on the field rugby players accord refs far more respect that footballers do. It is something I have always admired when watching either League or Union.
good article and I would add that it is interesting to note that one minute someone is arguing for consistency of decisions, the next they are arguing for common sense to be applied to some decisions.
Very interesting thread analysing the game of football as a whole. I agree there is a problem with the game and the influx of foreign players apparently bringing gamesmanship into the game. Diving, feigning injury, imaginary card waving. The behaviour of players leaves a lot to be desired. The amount of money in football doesn't help when a single decision could cost millions of pounds. Is it right that sort of decision should rest of the shoulders of one man who sees the incident once at full speed? The analysis of decisions now is also getting silly. Things are slowed down to frame by frame speed as well as from 10 different angles. The ref gets to see it once, from one angle at full speed. That's where maybe technology could help referees on crucial match decisions. Consistency is a hard one. All referees are different as all players are different so will interpret things differently. The laws are there to be interpreted and all are enforced according to the opinion of the referee so there will always be room for debate and interpretation by all who attend games. I have been a referee for 9 years and have taken my fair share of dog's abuse in that time. On the whole though I do enjoy it and have a laugh with my fellow colleagues and those officials who run clubs who are friendly and respectful. Insults tend to run off my back like water off a duck's back like Sunday when I was sending a player off for a second yellow and he called me an effing d***head. I've learnt to rise above it. All I know is I love football, I don't ref to seek attention, to get off by telling players what to do or be a jobsworth, I wasn't bullied at school and I am not a geek. I simply love the game and love being involved in it in whatever capacity I can (and I was never much of a player). I love challenging my fitness, my decision making, my knowledge of the game/laws, my man management skills etc etc
i cant stand referees in general. most take the approach of a school teacher, and i mean that in the worst possible way. not the cool P.E. teacher who you was able to talk to and have a laugh with, therefore obtaining the respect of his pupils...but more the arsehole geography teacher who didnt listen to a word you say and cant get his horse high enough.
as a player that played at half a decent level, the refs attitude generally gets worse the higher you get.
Im not saying all refs are like this, just the majority. There are some excellent youngs refs especially at kent county level, and some players do themselves no favours with their attitude and language, i just think that it works both ways.
Referees are there to control the game...not change it.
Good article, well though out, however one very small criticism, re the Fulham throw in 5 years ago, yes it was the wrong decision, but ultimately we failed to defend against it so being honest, it was our fault we got relegated!
It was a pig awful decision. It was 2 yards in front of the assistant near the half way line and the Fulham player clearly punched the ball out of play yet they get the throw and that was in the PL. Most decisions I can defend but that one I can't. The assistant dropped a catastrophically huge b*ll*ck that day.
Thanks for the nice comments. @Stig - Really interested in this Will Schultz character. I'll need to look him up.
Problem is the Ref's are being directed by people who never played the game and that coupled with the fact they mostly are non players themselves creates the utter stupidity that reigns in the game at present. Do Ref's get a lot of stick...........yes but mostly deserved as it is they who give these crazy decisions week in wek out
I don't mean to be harsh Davali, but I think this attitude is part of the problem. Think about how many refs there have been in professional football. Hundreds, thousands maybe. Were they all useless because they "don't know the game"? Do you not think it odd that, out of all those referees, there's only a couple of refs that we'd likely agree were nigh-on faultless (Collina)? Could it be that the job is doomed to failure? If so, surely it's necessary to change approach...
The essence of my point is that they make crazy decisions because footballers do everything they can to confuse referees. As SirJohn said, refs are not cheats. And rarely do they have an ego that affects their judgment (although I do get irritated by the melodramatic way some of them act when making a decision, particularly Webb's penalty-point stance).
When I watch the NBA, I am so thrilled to see two teams going at it with almost no animosity, no arguing, no vein bulging hatred. They don't argue because they have a degree of trust in and respect for the referees (college education and discipline no doubt helps) and have the back up of TV replays if all else fails. Last season during the finals there was a court invasion and a brief ruckus - turns out that ANY player who hits the court when that happens is banned. Genius!
As someone once joked in an article I read, the best thing to do is, whenever handbags break out, blow the whistle, count to five, and send off any player who's left standing up. Ergo, all players have to sit on their hands like children. All those left standing are considered the perpetrators and dealt with. No need for peacemakers and the argey bargey that comes with doing that - just sit down. Now THAT would be something!
Some really good points here and agree that some referees see themselves as celebrities not there to make sure the game is played in an honest fair way and the laws are upheld. That doesn't take away the fact that as a club/team you don't have to join in with the harrasssing and shouting at the ref I would still prefer us not to do that.
as for se9addicks comment about Rugby I agree and don't agree. For sure there is rule breaking and sometimes outright violence but it is dealt with swiftly and harshly. But for definite you see no dissent from players to a decision you do see the captain ask the ref why he made a decision but once explained it is accepted. That has to be better than what we see on a Football pitch.
Excellent post Jimmy and I find it hard to disagree with anything you say.
Rather depressingly I think the game's gone too far down this road to pull back and expect players to start acting in a more honest way.
Fergie is the biggest disciplinarian manager around probably yet even he condones and supports his player unsporting behaviour like we saw with Rooney's card waving at the weekend. I'm afraid as long as his team gets the benefit he seem to turn a blind eye and this seems the default position of all managers who are effectively the only people capable of infuencing a change in this sort of carry on.
Not that I condone it in itself per se but the days of a Clough giving his millionaire player a clump for getting himself booked for diving are a thing of history.
Agree wth @harveys gardener about retrospective punishment for players conning the refs. Players waving imaginary cards, feigning injury, diving all over the place..bans/fines, end of. Might make them think twice before doing it.
My gripe with referees is that whilst they have to abide by the laws/rules in place, some of them seem to have no concept of the way football is/should be played having never kicked a ball in their life. Don't know what the answer to that is though as you will rarely get ex-footballers becoming refs.
There are many problems with the way the game is played and officiated. Player honesty is the single biggest issue, of players didn't dive, cheat, lie and try to stretch the rules in every conceivable way then refereeing would be a much easier task.
However, I think the way the game is officiated at the top level is deeply flawed. Having a single guy in charge is just screaming scape goat, and gives credence to the phrase "behind the refs back". American football handles this well by having lots of officials, none of whom are the main man, any one of them able to call a foul at any time. Hockey also does a better job, by conceding the game is too fast for one man to keep up with it has 2 referees, thus meaning far less is missed.
My other gripe, which I've mentioned before, is the entire yellow/red card system. It manages to over and under-punish players and sides on a regular basis. It is almost completely subjective, and the players all play the system, trying to get opponents booked, etc.
I've thought for a long time that the refs job would be a lot easier if he didn't have to worry about bookings. Just give fouls, etc. and leave the disciplinary side to a video panel. Then there would be no benefit in diving, trying to get opponents booked, etc. All that would happen is that you'd gain disciplinary points when the video panel see your cheating. This would also get rid of the problem of yellow cards making a slightly mis-timed tackle, a wild swipe, time wasting and a whole host of other offences being equal.
It would also avoid the problem of incorrect red cards ruining games. At a rough estimate, 30-40% of all red cards I've seen in the prem this season have either been contentious or harsh. Games have been ruined as a spectacle because of mis-application, or over application of the rules in far too many instances.
Also, red card as punishment is often insufficient and can actually put the harmed team at a disadvantage. Say for example Man Utd are playing Arsenal, they're 4-0 up and Van Persie gets a red card for some petulance in the 91st minute. Man Utd gain no benefit whatsoever from the opponents foul play and the penalty to Arsenal, in that match at least, is negligible. Now Arsenal are playing Man City the following week, Utd would love Arsenal to take points from City, but they haven't got Van Persie, so the punishment, for a foul against Man Utd, now actively disadvantages Utd.
The only way to stop players cheating is to punish both them and their clubs. So players are fined/banned and clubs must lose points. You move to a video panel system, they award disciplinary points on a far finer scale than yellow/red and then the punishment can be more easily tailored to fit the crime.
When i played Sunday league there were not always enough refs available, so we had to take turns ourselves at doing it. Which was an experience all round. Two of my best mates (also our best players) were (are) Glaswegians. They used to shout and scream at me like Wayne Rooney. In the end I just got pissed off and booked one of them, even though I didn't have a book. Just utterly surreal. And of course those two did anything not to take their turn as ref. Tells me something, but I am not sure what. Well, I guess abusing the ref has been institutionalised in a way that it has not in rugby, and it is global, and very difficult to stamp out. I'd be in favour of much tougher rules, but alongside it I want extensive video technology to improve the quality of decision making. The fourth offical and the ref should be wired up, with the fourth official having in front of him the same video playback as the TV guys have. Imagine the Hamer-Orient incident. Ref blows up, but asks 4th official for second opinion. We all see that he's done that. Total time needed, 20 seconds, but we as fans can all see that the ref has asked for a second opinion with a superior view and the ability to look again. We as fans (and by definition the players) could not possibly shout and scream then, could we? It is so bloody obvious that I just can't understand why people are so reluctant. Except that 'people' are the unaccountable, corrupt FIFA led by Blatter...
Just making the point that before the Premier League, the foreign players and the money there wasn't even a quarter of the diving, cheating and unsporting behaviour that you see now. I think most would agree diving and simulation started in foreign football long before it did in England.
Always wondered on a Sunday morning why Spankie would always book my foreign players for innocuous things. Now I know why :-) Great article, and the replies have made it a very interesting debate.
I think the waving of imaginary cards by players should be an auto red as should diving. However refs are seen as pantomime villains, and we as footy fans need something to moan about.
I don't see any conflict with refs being more consistent and applying common sense - common sense should be 'common' to them all and those that don't possess it should be booted out. I think it is also right that foul play and wrong decisions that refs miss should be reviewed honestly after games - this would make the ref's job easier as it would put players off dishonest play if the punishment was sufficient.
One of the problems for a ref is that they are human and they often during games don't know what way to give a decision. If anybody has had to ref a game at whatever level, they will undertsand what I mean by this. I always tried to play on this fact when I played and called for everything - I even got booked once for calling for too much when the ref got fed up of me, but I reasoned that if the ref wasn't sure it might help him make his choice if you get in there first with 'our ball' etc... I think that is why players at all levels always call for things even when it is ridiculous to do so - they ref might after all have missed it.
The big thing refs need though is video evidence. It can be introduced without breaking up the play if strictly limited as other sports succesfully do and can actually provide some excitement to games as you can witness in rugby and cricket when a deceision is awaited.
refs have a very difficult job and it is made harder by players who get in the ref's face when a decision goes against them. When a ref makes a decision he is often surrounded by complaining players, why doesn't ref tell them if they don't disperse each one will get a yellow card and then if any player other than the Captain comes near him to complain he will get a yellow card.
I would absolutely love to see someone do that. Especially against the likes of Man Utd, who have made a living from intimidating officials.
"In 5 seconds time, anyone within 2 yards of me who doesn't have a Captain's armband on will be going in the book. 5-4-3-2-1!"
When i played Sunday league there were not always enough refs available, so we had to take turns ourselves at doing it. Which was an experience all round. Two of my best mates (also our best players) were (are) Glaswegians. They used to shout and scream at me like Wayne Rooney. In the end I just got pissed off and booked one of them, even though I didn't have a book. Just utterly surreal. And of course those two did anything not to take their turn as ref. Tells me something, but I am not sure what. Well, I guess abusing the ref has been institutionalised in a way that it has not in rugby, and it is global, and very difficult to stamp out. I'd be in favour of much tougher rules, but alongside it I want extensive video technology to improve the quality of decision making. The fourth offical and the ref should be wired up, with the fourth official having in front of him the same video playback as the TV guys have. Imagine the Hamer-Orient incident. Ref blows up, but asks 4th official for second opinion. We all see that he's done that. Total time needed, 20 seconds, but we as fans can all see that the ref has asked for a second opinion with a superior view and the ability to look again. We as fans (and by definition the players) could not possibly shout and scream then, could we? It is so bloody obvious that I just can't understand why people are so reluctant. Except that 'people' are the unaccountable, corrupt FIFA led by Blatter...
I'm sure the "video referee" is part of the reason things are still holding together in rugby.
You can imagine Ferguson sitting next to the 4th official "whispering" in his ear while he watched it again if football introduced it though!
I think the whole point would be for the video official to be in a sealed room, away from the reactions of the both the managers/coaching staff, and the crowd, so as not to be influenced by anything but the actual events videoed.
Always wondered on a Sunday morning why Spankie would always book my foreign players for innocuous things. Now I know why :-) Great article, and the replies have made it a very interesting debate.
Ha, ha lol. Sorry about that Smudge ) Video referees, goalline technology and a video link from the 4th official to the ref are fantastic ideas. It would bring officiating and football as a whole into the 21st century.
I think the whole point would be for the video official to be in a sealed room, away from the reactions of the both the managers/coaching staff, and the crowd, so as not to be influenced by anything but the actual events videoed.
The problem with the appeal is that you have to be clearly innocent even to have a chance. If the decision was probably wrong it isn't sufficient. Hamer most likely didn't prevent a goalscoring chance or meant to handle the ball but he lost his appeal too.
Ah, but somebody told these players to dive, feign injury and all the play acting that makes up the game today. It wasn't us, the supporters. Why is it that a referee in rugby can control and have the respect of 6'6", 17 stone players, whereas in football there is no respect.
Because in rugby any back chat or the slightest hint of dissent and the referee marches play on ten metres. If you make a habit of giving away yardage like that you'll find yourself very unpopular with your teammates.
We also need to see retrospective bans for anyone who has conned the ref - dives or falling poleaxed holding face when an arm has brushed a chest. Refs need more consistency though. And Fulham's pen was a joke, clearly got the ball 1st, did he consult a lino, I think not. Hamer's red, the ref obviously didn't see it and guessed, on player reaction. They don't help themselves.
I seem to remember Gordon Durie getting a retrospective ban after conning the referee into pretending that he had been fouled. The problem is though one of proportion. Say a player gets tackled - they fall over theatrically and hold their ankle or head as though they've been shot and are mortally wounded. Everyone can see that the victim is play acting, but undeniably the player has had contact with a member of the opposition. In cases like that the referee has a difficult job sorting out whether it was a foul or whether the reaction was proportional. By all means ban those who dive and feign injury without contact, or drop a foot as they are going past or over a diving player - but it isn't always clear cut whether contact was intentional or not.
The problem is though one of proportion. Say a player gets tackled - they fall over theatrically and hold their ankle or head as though they've been shot and are mortally wounded. Everyone can see that the victim is play acting, but undeniably the player has had contact with a member of the opposition. In cases like that the referee has a difficult job sorting out whether it was a foul or whether the reaction was proportional. By all means ban those who dive and feign injury without contact, or drop a foot as they are going past or over a diving player - but it isn't always clear cut whether contact was intentional or not.
People often say "Well if it wasn't a foul it must be a booking for play acting!", as though the two are mutually exclusive. Say we have a situation where there is contact. Nothingf serious but definite contact. If the fouled player just falls over then gets back up again what would the ref do? Probably just award a foul. But we then have a player who has been fouled and is also bidding for an Oscar Nomination for Best Faked Injury. Book him. Foul one way (no booking) and a booking for the play actor.
if the player who is fouled twists his ankle as he falls, there is no way of the ref knowing if he is play acting or not. there is no way of knowing the extremety (is tht a word) of their pain. another example, a player is fouled and when he falls has his hand trodden on by accident, he holds his hand writhing in pain. u cant book him for tht...?
Comments
Certainly on the field rugby players accord refs far more respect that footballers do. It is something I have always admired when watching either League or Union.
Consistency is a hard one. All referees are different as all players are different so will interpret things differently. The laws are there to be interpreted and all are enforced according to the opinion of the referee so there will always be room for debate and interpretation by all who attend games.
I have been a referee for 9 years and have taken my fair share of dog's abuse in that time. On the whole though I do enjoy it and have a laugh with my fellow colleagues and those officials who run clubs who are friendly and respectful. Insults tend to run off my back like water off a duck's back like Sunday when I was sending a player off for a second yellow and he called me an effing d***head. I've learnt to rise above it. All I know is I love football, I don't ref to seek attention, to get off by telling players what to do or be a jobsworth, I wasn't bullied at school and I am not a geek. I simply love the game and love being involved in it in whatever capacity I can (and I was never much of a player). I love challenging my fitness, my decision making, my knowledge of the game/laws, my man management skills etc etc
as a player that played at half a decent level, the refs attitude generally gets worse the higher you get.
Im not saying all refs are like this, just the majority. There are some excellent youngs refs especially at kent county level, and some players do themselves no favours with their attitude and language, i just think that it works both ways.
Referees are there to control the game...not change it.
The essence of my point is that they make crazy decisions because footballers do everything they can to confuse referees. As SirJohn said, refs are not cheats. And rarely do they have an ego that affects their judgment (although I do get irritated by the melodramatic way some of them act when making a decision, particularly Webb's penalty-point stance).
When I watch the NBA, I am so thrilled to see two teams going at it with almost no animosity, no arguing, no vein bulging hatred. They don't argue because they have a degree of trust in and respect for the referees (college education and discipline no doubt helps) and have the back up of TV replays if all else fails. Last season during the finals there was a court invasion and a brief ruckus - turns out that ANY player who hits the court when that happens is banned. Genius!
As someone once joked in an article I read, the best thing to do is, whenever handbags break out, blow the whistle, count to five, and send off any player who's left standing up. Ergo, all players have to sit on their hands like children. All those left standing are considered the perpetrators and dealt with. No need for peacemakers and the argey bargey that comes with doing that - just sit down. Now THAT would be something!
as for se9addicks comment about Rugby I agree and don't agree. For sure there is rule breaking and sometimes outright violence but it is dealt with swiftly and harshly. But for definite you see no dissent from players to a decision you do see the captain ask the ref why he made a decision but once explained it is accepted. That has to be better than what we see on a Football pitch.
Rather depressingly I think the game's gone too far down this road to pull back and expect players to start acting in a more honest way.
Fergie is the biggest disciplinarian manager around probably yet even he condones and supports his player unsporting behaviour like we saw with Rooney's card waving at the weekend. I'm afraid as long as his team gets the benefit he seem to turn a blind eye and this seems the default position of all managers who are effectively the only people capable of infuencing a change in this sort of carry on.
Not that I condone it in itself per se but the days of a Clough giving his millionaire player a clump for getting himself booked for diving are a thing of history.
Great post @JiMMY 85.
My gripe with referees is that whilst they have to abide by the laws/rules in place, some of them seem to have no concept of the way football is/should be played having never kicked a ball in their life. Don't know what the answer to that is though as you will rarely get ex-footballers becoming refs.
However, I think the way the game is officiated at the top level is deeply flawed. Having a single guy in charge is just screaming scape goat, and gives credence to the phrase "behind the refs back". American football handles this well by having lots of officials, none of whom are the main man, any one of them able to call a foul at any time. Hockey also does a better job, by conceding the game is too fast for one man to keep up with it has 2 referees, thus meaning far less is missed.
My other gripe, which I've mentioned before, is the entire yellow/red card system. It manages to over and under-punish players and sides on a regular basis. It is almost completely subjective, and the players all play the system, trying to get opponents booked, etc.
I've thought for a long time that the refs job would be a lot easier if he didn't have to worry about bookings. Just give fouls, etc. and leave the disciplinary side to a video panel. Then there would be no benefit in diving, trying to get opponents booked, etc. All that would happen is that you'd gain disciplinary points when the video panel see your cheating. This would also get rid of the problem of yellow cards making a slightly mis-timed tackle, a wild swipe, time wasting and a whole host of other offences being equal.
It would also avoid the problem of incorrect red cards ruining games. At a rough estimate, 30-40% of all red cards I've seen in the prem this season have either been contentious or harsh. Games have been ruined as a spectacle because of mis-application, or over application of the rules in far too many instances.
Also, red card as punishment is often insufficient and can actually put the harmed team at a disadvantage. Say for example Man Utd are playing Arsenal, they're 4-0 up and Van Persie gets a red card for some petulance in the 91st minute. Man Utd gain no benefit whatsoever from the opponents foul play and the penalty to Arsenal, in that match at least, is negligible. Now Arsenal are playing Man City the following week, Utd would love Arsenal to take points from City, but they haven't got Van Persie, so the punishment, for a foul against Man Utd, now actively disadvantages Utd.
The only way to stop players cheating is to punish both them and their clubs. So players are fined/banned and clubs must lose points. You move to a video panel system, they award disciplinary points on a far finer scale than yellow/red and then the punishment can be more easily tailored to fit the crime.
"I agree there is a problem with the game and the influx of foreigners bringing gamesmanship into the game."
do me a favour, Spankie. Do you work for MigrationWatch?
Great article, and the replies have made it a very interesting debate.
However refs are seen as pantomime villains, and we as footy fans need something to moan about.
One of the problems for a ref is that they are human and they often during games don't know what way to give a decision. If anybody has had to ref a game at whatever level, they will undertsand what I mean by this. I always tried to play on this fact when I played and called for everything - I even got booked once for calling for too much when the ref got fed up of me, but I reasoned that if the ref wasn't sure it might help him make his choice if you get in there first with 'our ball' etc... I think that is why players at all levels always call for things even when it is ridiculous to do so - they ref might after all have missed it.
The big thing refs need though is video evidence. It can be introduced without breaking up the play if strictly limited as other sports succesfully do and can actually provide some excitement to games as you can witness in rugby and cricket when a deceision is awaited.
"In 5 seconds time, anyone within 2 yards of me who doesn't have a Captain's armband on will be going in the book. 5-4-3-2-1!"
You can imagine Ferguson sitting next to the 4th official "whispering" in his ear while he watched it again if football introduced it though!
I seem to remember Gordon Durie getting a retrospective ban after conning the referee into pretending that he had been fouled. The problem is though one of proportion. Say a player gets tackled - they fall over theatrically and hold their ankle or head as though they've been shot and are mortally wounded. Everyone can see that the victim is play acting, but undeniably the player has had contact with a member of the opposition. In cases like that the referee has a difficult job sorting out whether it was a foul or whether the reaction was proportional. By all means ban those who dive and feign injury without contact, or drop a foot as they are going past or over a diving player - but it isn't always clear cut whether contact was intentional or not.