Referees

[sunshine1875]

What are we going to do about them? Yesterday's games against the Infirm were perfect examples of how our referees are biased towards the Infirm.

I honestly believe that a referee has to be 100% certain that a foul has been committed by the Infirm in the key areas of the pitch (i.e. around and in the box) and at key times in matches (i.e. just as the Infirm are about to win the title) before he gives the opposition the foul. Whereas he only needs to be 40-50% certain before he awards a foul to the Infirm under similar situations.

Obviously, we can analyse slow-motion footage from games from ten different angles to decide whether a foul has been committed or not. What I am talking about is that split-second decision that the ref has to make a decision, then I believe he follows the above criteria. I am certain that had the Riodan or Nish situation occured at Ipox the Rangers would have got the penalty/goal.

This has been going on for years - the big decisions always go the Infirm's way. I have heard comments like "but the ref is Celtic minded so why would he favour Rangers" Because he doesn't want the spend 10 days being ridiculed in the press and having thugs threaten his wife and kids. Whereas, yesterday's Ref is forgotten by many except us Hibees.

It doesn't just happen to Hibs. What about that non-existant penalty to Rangers in the last minute at Tiny a few years ago or the League Cup semi when Ferguson controlled the ball with his hand before scoring. Would Hertz have gotten these decisions. No!

This has been going on for years - so what can we (all clubs) do to demand a fairer playing field. They have more fans, hence more income - they surely don't need bias from referees too!:grr::grr:

[givescotlandfreedom]

I think the who GFA is corrupt and fundamentally poisened towards the Old Firm and the referees are just part of that system. The was no way we were going to be allowed to win or draw yesterday. It would be the same if it was Aberdeen, Hearts or anyone. The Old Firm must win.

[Lofarl]

Its the same in every league I fear, until games use tv replays for key decisions nothing will ever change. We all know of countless decisions that have went against any team you can think off, including rantic.

[PISTOL1875]

I think the who GFA is corrupt and fundamentally poisened towards the Old Firm and the referees are just part of that system. The was no way we were going to be allowed to win or draw yesterday. It would be the same if it was Aberdeen, Hearts or anyone. The Old Firm must win.

You can't do anything about the performance of ref's.. Anybody who DOES come out and speak out is singled out by ref's in the future.. The ref's movement is so close knitted,they all look out for each other and any manager who does speak out gets shafted...

[PatHead]

Alex Ferguson didn't when he was Aberdeen manager. The only manager I can think of who did on a regular basis.

[sunshine1875]

Its the same in every league I fear, until games use tv replays for key decisions nothing will ever change. We all know of countless decisions that have went against any team you can think off, including rantic.

But there are very few occasions when a non-Infirm team gets a decision in a key game at a key time in the box against the Infirm. We did get one decision going our way against Rangers last season when TV evidence cleary showed that it was inconclusive whether the ball crossed the line or not. However, in most occasions that would have been a Rangers goal.

The point that I am making is that in that split second the ref is more likely to favour the Infirm than against them.

[sunshine1875]

You can't do anything about the performance of ref's.. Anybody who DOES come out and speak out is singled out by ref's in the future.. The ref's movement is so close knitted,they all look out for each other and any manager who does speak out gets shafted...

Also, the press/media are all part of the pro-Infirm movement that whilst they may point score against each other they refuse to speak out against the Infirm ref bias. Those who do, do it as a joke.

Is there a need for a united supporters group from all non-Infirm teams to put out a statement such as the Celtic/Rangers groups do when they feel their club is being picked on. Or a boycott of Infirm-loving papers - i.e the Record or Sky.

Ideas to provoke response. I have had enough of this bias. It is killing our game.

[SidBurns]

I'm kinda coming at it from both angles here as (a) a Hibs fan and (b) a referee...

I agree that decisions do seem to go the way of Rangers and Celtic moreso than the rest of the teams and yes if Riordan's penalty had happened at the other end it may have been more likely to be given, however referees can only do so much. I mean no-one could do anything if we had smashed two forty yarders in yesterday...

Maybe we and the other teams just look for excuses all the time? I mean maybe if no team had beaten the Old Firm EVER we'd have a point but IT HAS happened before...

Just a few thoughts.......

[PISTOL1875]

I'm kinda coming at it from both angles here as (a) a Hibs fan and (b) a referee...

I agree that decisions do seem to go the way of Rangers and Celtic moreso than the rest of the teams and yes if Riordan's penalty had happened at the other end it may have been more likely to be given, however referees can only do so much. I mean no-one could do anything if we had smashed two forty yarders in yesterday...

Maybe we and the other teams just look for excuses all the time? I mean maybe if no team had beaten the Old Firm EVER we'd have a point but IT HAS happened before...

Just a few thoughts.......

How can we be looking for excuses ?? The standard of refereeing in Scotland is shocking.. Every week we and other teams seem to be talking about the same thing... We can't all be wrong can we ??

[givescotlandfreedom]

You can't do anything about the performance of ref's.. Anybody who DOES come out and speak out is singled out by ref's in the future.. The ref's movement is so close knitted,they all look out for each other and any manager who does speak out gets shafted...

:agree: Plus dont hear Levein making his (correct) statements about the bias anymore. A bought man?

[woody47]

The problem with that :asshole: that we had on Sunday is that he is trully incompetent.

Having said that how about the conspiracy theories that the suits in the west wanted the title sown up against us as can you imagine that bunch of **** winning the league against the other half of the bigot bros at darkhead?. It was bad enough at ER but world war III would have broken out if it ended up at darkhead. Not that that would have been a bad thing though :devil:

[PISTOL1875]

The problem with that :asshole: that we had on Sunday is that he is trully incompetent.

Having said that how about the conspiracy theories that the suits in the west wanted the title sown up against us as can you imagine that bunch of **** winning the league against the other half of the bigot bros at darkhead?. It was bad enough at ER but world war III would have broken out if it ended up at darkhead. Not that that would have been a bad thing though :devil:

IF we had won yesterday , can you imagine the panic in SFA corridors of power now that Rangers are going to Parkhead needing a point to win the league ??

A re-run of the 1999 OF shame game would've been on the horizon me thinks...

[EasterRoad4Ever]

Absolutely no question that the ref yesterday shirked decisions - Thomson's first tackle was a clear yellow card and Whitty's tackle of Riordan was a pen 9 times out of 10. I sincerely believe that the ref had made up his mind BEFORE he even set foot on the pitch what he would be willing to give or not, and this was influenced by the fact that the Huns were about to win the league. That in itself is just totally WRONG. We've seen it all before of course but yesterday there was no way the ref was going to spoil the party.

[Argylehibby]

Refs arent daft either. They will give plenty of 50/50 decisions against the old firm at places on the park where its unlikely to cause damage or when the old firm are well ahead and it doesnt really matter too much. Then that gives Smith and Lennon the chance to point to the poor decisions against them and say there is no bias.

Remember O'Neil shortly after he went to Villa? His comment was "the bigger clubs always get the big decisions". Funny that wasnt the case when he was at Celtic eh?

[maturehibby]

to redress the booking he didnt get at Darkheid the week before as it was a nothing tackle

[gorgie_harp]

Refs arent daft either. They will give plenty of 50/50 decisions against the old firm at places on the park where its unlikely to cause damage or when the old firm are well ahead and it doesnt really matter too much. Then that gives Smith and Lennon the chance to point to the poor decisions against them and say there is no bias.

Remember O'Neil shortly after he went to Villa? His comment was "the bigger clubs always get the big decisions". Funny that wasnt the case when he was at Celtic eh?

Funny that.
The Judas ****, said the same after Villa got a pen yestarday.

[Westie1875]

I'm kinda coming at it from both angles here as (a) a Hibs fan and (b) a referee...

I agree that decisions do seem to go the way of Rangers and Celtic moreso than the rest of the teams and yes if Riordan's penalty had happened at the other end it may have been more likely to be given, however referees can only do so much. I mean no-one could do anything if we had smashed two forty yarders in yesterday...

Maybe we and the other teams just look for excuses all the time? I mean maybe if no team had beaten the Old Firm EVER we'd have a point but IT HAS happened before...

Just a few thoughts.......

Thats the whole point, they shouldn't be doing anything to favour either team and influence the outcome of the match, their job is to be neutral and apply the laws of the game to both teams in exactly the same way.

[PatHead]

I'm kinda coming at it from both angles here as (a) a Hibs fan and (b) a referee...

I agree that decisions do seem to go the way of Rangers and Celtic moreso than the rest of the teams and yes if Riordan's penalty had happened at the other end it may have been more likely to be given, however referees can only do so much. I mean no-one could do anything if we had smashed two forty yarders in yesterday...

Maybe we and the other teams just look for excuses all the time? I mean maybe if no team had beaten the Old Firm EVER we'd have a point but IT HAS happened before...

Just a few thoughts.......

Decisions do not seem to go for them, they do. FACT.
Why do you have to come from both sides? Referees are IMPARTIALor not. do you get that trained that you either support Rangers or Celtic? You are all just ..............and perpetuate belief that all referees are either masonic or Celtic orientated. You people have no place in football and go and follow some other sport

[snooky]

I've posted this before but Andy Walker openly stated on Sportscene once that he was amazed how much Celtic players got away with when he was a player there.
No one picked up on his statement - it was said as an aside. It amazed me as it was the first time I've ever heard a infirmer break rank and actually admit to what we all know is going on.
Re. the refereeing situation, whether it's fear/bribery/bias or, a permutation of the three I don't know, but there's something rancid (no pun intended) in Scottish football.
As if the standard of football isn't bad enough!
EOR

[lapsedhibee]

I've posted this before but Andy Walker openly stated on Sportscene once that he was amazed how much Celtic players got away with when he was a player there.
No one picked up on his statement - it was said as an aside. It amazed me as it was the first time I've ever heard a infirmer break rank and actually admit to what we all know is going on.

Didn't Scott Brown say a similar thing - that what would have got him a booking at Hibs got him a friendly word of advice at Celtc, something like that? :dunno:

[JimBHibees]

:agree: Plus dont hear Levein making his (correct) statements about the bias anymore. A bought man?

Not sure that is fair, he obviously isnt going to say the refs are cheats however he was very critical of Dougie McDonald in the Utd Gers cup tie on Sky recently when Rangers got about 4 or 5 key decisions.

I think the difference is that when there is a decision in an OF non-OF game the refs look for reasons to give decisions for the OF however they look for reasons not to give decisions for the nonOF team, a completely different perspective IMO.

[JimBHibees]

Didn't Scott Brown say a similar thing - that what would have got him a booking at Hibs got him a friendly word of advice at Celtc, something like that? :dunno:


Billy McNeill also admitted that he got loads more decisions when he was manager of Celtic than when he was manager of Aberdeen.

[greenginger]

Should the whole referee debate not be part of the Hendry McLeish report on the poor state of Scottish Football.

The Old Firm can be absolutely crap like this season and still finish first and second in the league so no necessity to become any better.

[dangermouse]

to redress the booking he didnt get at Darkheid the week before as it was a nothing tackle

That happened right in front of me. Thomson let out a yell as he was tackled and hit the deck as if he had been shot. While lying there he kept glancing up at the ref and when he saw Stokes was being booked got up and walked away with a grin like a Cheshire Cat on his face. :grr:

[dangermouse]

Consistency would be nice for a start. If Ian Brines thought the challenge on McGeady was a penalty then with consistency in play the challenge on Riordan should have been also (well it would have been if he still played in a hooped shirt).

Similarly if Lafferty can shove off defenders to score the surely so can Nish (well it would if he was a member of the local Orange lodge)

[Exiled Hibby]

Decisions do not seem to go for them, they do. FACT.
Why do you have to come from both sides? Referees are IMPARTIALor not. do you get that trained that you either support Rangers or Celtic? You are all just ..............and perpetuate belief that all referees are either masonic or Celtic orientated. You people have no place in football and go and follow some other sport

what a ridiculous response. so the guy is a part-time ref..nothing wrong with that. what you are forgetting is that without guys like him there wouldn't be a game.
yes we all get aggrieved at refs poor decisions. I still think that that the vast majority of these are just honest mistakes in exactly the same way Rankin doesn't mean to keep hitting row z with his shots and passes, and zibi didn't mean to drop at least one shot per game at the strikers feet
the guy is probably more of a football fan than you so maybe it should ne you that should go and follow some other sport
rant over

[The_Sauz]

Just had another look at the highlights, and in the first half David Weir wins 2 headers in the Hibs box with his hand out to stop a Hibs player from getting to the ball, just as Nish done (although someone on here claims it was a clear 2 handed push by Nish :bitchy:) , yet no foul....:confused:

[sunshine1875]

So what can we do about this? It has been going on for too long. As I said in an earlier post, the Celtic/Rangers trust would have written to the press on a subject similar to this.

So what can we (along with followers of other teams) do about it?

[The Harp Awakes]

The problem is that in a one off game it is impossible to prove that referees are biased, you have got to look at the stats over a period of time.

I've followed Hibs for ~35 years and to me it's obvious that there is a bias towards the OF by referees, and in particular to Rangers.

I was very close to the Deek penatly claim on Saturday and had a really good view of it and of the ref, who by the way was in a perfect position to make the call. Looking at the refs face and actions immediately after the incident I honestly believe from the expression on his face that he knew it was a penalty and for whatever reason didn't give it.

I think the Nish 'no goal' incident was less clear cut as Nish had his hand on McCulloch's back and when McCulloch took a dive the ref called a foul. It wasn't a foul IMO but generally refs will give the defender the benefit of the doubt on those occasions.

Also, don't forget the crazy decision by the officals not to send off Boyd for elbowing Zouma at Ibrox - to me that was a worse decision.

[SidBurns]

what a ridiculous response. so the guy is a part-time ref..nothing wrong with that. what you are forgetting is that without guys like him there wouldn't be a game.
yes we all get aggrieved at refs poor decisions. I still think that that the vast majority of these are just honest mistakes in exactly the same way Rankin doesn't mean to keep hitting row z with his shots and passes, and zibi didn't mean to drop at least one shot per game at the strikers feet
the guy is probably more of a football fan than you so maybe it should ne you that should go and follow some other sport
rant over

Cheers Exiled Hibby, couldn't have said it better myself! :greengrin

Having only had refereed eight games so far between the ages of 13's and 19's I am indeed only part-time and yes, we are needed for there to be a game.

Didn't see the whole match on Sunday there as was busy (refereeing funnily enough!?!) but my initial reaction to the Riordan penalty incident was a penalty. Having looked it at afterwards I also still think penalty but from where the referee was, could he be sure? I doubt it. Also, Miller was not offside and Rangers could've possibly went 2-0 up. Swings and roundabouts...

The way I look at it, and this has only just clicked with me over the past year or so, is that over the course of the WHOLE season, decisions even themselves up. EVERY referee, even Colina, has made and will make mistakes just like EVERY player will make mistakes. It's human nature thats all but I'm going off on a tangent now.......

Point is, Celtic and Rangers win the league every year because (a) they have money, (b) they buy all the better players from the other ten teams and (c) they have (a) and (b) to attract the best managers...

I know a lot of you won't agree with me but our referee's are not biased and that is me coming from the angle of a fan and part-time referee. If (and it's a BIG if) I ever make it to Grade 1 I shall be impartial just like everyone else. Don't get me wrong, it would be hard if in the 95th minute of the Scottish Cup Final I had the chance to award Hibs a soft penalty but if it were indeed a soft penalty then sorry, no penalty...

[SidBurns]

Thats the whole point, they shouldn't be doing anything to favour either team and influence the outcome of the match, their job is to be neutral and apply the laws of the game to both teams in exactly the same way.

I didn't mean it that way... My other post(s) might explain...

[SidBurns]

How can we be looking for excuses ?? The standard of refereeing in Scotland is shocking.. Every week we and other teams seem to be talking about the same thing... We can't all be wrong can we ??

In your opinion it is... Fans down south, in Spain, Italy, Germany etc might think the standard of refereeing in their leagues in bad... All about opinions...

[SidBurns]

That happened right in front of me. Thomson let out a yell as he was tackled and hit the deck as if he had been shot. While lying there he kept glancing up at the ref and when he saw Stokes was being booked got up and walked away with a grin like a Cheshire Cat on his face. :grr:

Zemamma!?!?!?! ALL players would do this I'm afraid... Take off the green tinted specs...

[sunshine1875]

I know a lot of you won't agree with me but our referee's are not biased and that is me coming from the angle of a fan and part-time referee. If (and it's a BIG if) I ever make it to Grade 1 I shall be impartial just like everyone else. Don't get me wrong, it would be hard if in the 95th minute of the Scottish Cup Final I had the chance to award Hibs a soft penalty but if it were indeed a soft penalty then sorry, no penalty...

Thanks for your comments SidBurns. It is good to have it from the ref's view.

To make myself clear, I am not saying a ref shows bias because he supports that team. In fact there are those that claim the ref on Sunday is catholic and hence why should he favour Rangers. That is not my point.

The point is that it is clear that there is a bias towards the Infirm because they are concerned about the possible backlash from the media / fans when a key decision is made against the Infirm, so they then have to be 100% certain that the Infirm have caused an infringement before calling it a foul, whereas the burden of proof appears less when making decisions favouring the Infirm. There are countless situations like this and I meant to refer to the Boyd 'obstruction' against Hibs at Ibrox. That was deliberate and dangerous and he should have been sent off, yet the media had the cheek to report it as Zemamma tends to go down to easily. FFS:grr:

The Miller 'goal', which may not have been a goal as play was stopped before he kicked the ball towards goal and our goalie/defender stopped defending, is not an issue in the media because Rangers were one-up and went on to win the game. Had the scores been level and that decision affected the final result all sort of referee bias would have been discussed in the papers / phone-ins.

Yet there is no media debate about the penalty decision. Funny that.

Your comment that you would not give Hibs a soft penalty in the final of the SC is something to admire. But if that was the other way and Rangers got a soft penalty in the final seconds against Hibs, there would be minimal coverage in the media and it would be reported as another impressive title for Rangers. The other way round and you would spend the next 10 days being ridiculed in the press and having thugs threaten your wife and kids.

[hibsbollah]

In your opinion it is... Fans down south, in Spain, Italy, Germany etc might think the standard of refereeing in their leagues in bad... All about opinions...

:agree:Referees make mistakes all over the world, and have done many times this season. The same anti-Ref hysteria is whipped up by the likes of Alan Green in England but without the masonic/west coast conspiracy overtones we get in Scotland. I just don't buy it. If there was a 'conspiracy' going on it would have been outed by now. Refs favour big clubs in every league.

[SidBurns]

Thanks for your comments SidBurns. It is good to have it from the ref's view.

To make myself clear, I am not saying a ref shows bias because he supports that team. In fact there are those that claim the ref on Sunday is catholic and hence why should he favour Rangers. That is not my point.

The point is that it is clear that there is a bias towards the Infirm because they are concerned about the possible backlash from the media / fans when a key decision is made against the Infirm, so they then have to be 100% certain that the Infirm have caused an infringement before calling it a foul, whereas the burden of proof appears less when making decisions favouring the Infirm. There are countless situations like this and I meant to refer to the Boyd 'obstruction' against Hibs at Ibrox. That was deliberate and dangerous and he should have been sent off, yet the media had the cheek to report it as Zemamma tends to go down to easily. FFS:grr:

The Miller 'goal', which may not have been a goal as play was stopped before he kicked the ball towards goal and our goalie/defender stopped defending, is not an issue in the media because Rangers were one-up and went on to win the game. Had the scores been level and that decision affected the final result all sort of referee bias would have been discussed in the papers / phone-ins.

Yet there is no media debate about the penalty decision. Funny that.

Your comment that you would not give Hibs a soft penalty in the final of the SC is something to admire. But if that was the other way and Rangers got a soft penalty in the final seconds against Hibs, there would be minimal coverage in the media and it would be reported as another impressive title for Rangers. The other way round and you would spend the next 10 days being ridiculed in the press and having thugs threaten your wife and kids.

I was taught that for EVERY decision you need to be 100% sure that a foul has been commited. That's the way I certainly referee every game I've done so far and every game I'll do in the future.

Question, could the referee on Sunday have been 100% (from the angle he was at) that Deek was indeed fouled? IMHO, no for me.

It could've went either way, the referee at the Villa game got his decision completely wrong and IMO should never have awarded a penalty anyway as from where he was he could not have been 100% sure.

[erskine-hibby]

Just a thought.

Given rangers financial situation and the effects of a club that size folding would have on the SPL, could it be that refs have been 'lienient' towards them in order that they qualify for the champions league and the financial rewards that brings?
OK it's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but imagine our leagues position if they weren't to win the title and go bust.

[HibbyAndy]

There's poor refereeing decisions and theres downright cheating.

Unfortunatley there's a good few cheating refs in the Scottish game today.

[JimBHibees]

Zemamma!?!?!?! ALL players would do this I'm afraid... Take off the green tinted specs...

I think that is nonsense, all players do not throw themselves down and scream to get a player booked. A small minority do it not all players.

[sunshine1875]

I was taught that for EVERY decision you need to be 100% sure that a foul has been commited. That's the way I certainly referee every game I've done so far and every game I'll do in the future.

Question, could the referee on Sunday have been 100% (from the angle he was at) that Deek was indeed fouled? IMHO, no for me.

It could've went either way, the referee at the Villa game got his decision completely wrong and IMO should never have awarded a penalty anyway as from where he was he could not have been 100% sure.

And so it should be - what I am saying is that when it is a decision for the Infirm a lower % of proof seems to be used.

How could the linesman be 100% certain there was a penalty (the non-existant penalty) in the final seconds at Tiny a few years ago. He couldn't have been. He thinks there may be something in it especially as 2,000 huns shouted, so he flags for the non-existant penalty.

Could the ref be 100% certain it was a penalty for Deeks. It looked more a penalty than it wasn't, but 100% certain, maybe not. But had it been a penalty at the other end, it would have been a penalty.

[The_Sauz]

I was taught that for EVERY decision you need to be 100% sure that a foul has been commited. That's the way I certainly referee every game I've done so far and every game I'll do in the future.

Question, could the referee on Sunday have been 100% (from the angle he was at) that Deek was indeed fouled? IMHO, no for me.

It could've went either way, the referee at the Villa game got his decision completely wrong and IMO should never have awarded a penalty anyway as from where he was he could not have been 100% sure.

How can you be 100% sure when you only have one view point on a foul! Do you stop the game to think long and hard about it?

[SidBurns]

How can you be 100% sure when you only have one view point on a foul! Do you stop the game to think long and hard about it?

That's what I'm getting at, for some decisions you can't be 100% sure therefore in my view you can't award a foul. Hence the reason if I were the ref on Sunday there being in the position I was I wouldn't have given the penalty to Deek becuase from where the ref was he couldn't IMHO be 100% sure...

For other fouls, if not all, if you are in the correct position as a ref (up with play basically) then IMO you can be 100% sure therefore can award a foul.

[Argylehibby]

[QUOTE=SidBurns;2442505]I was taught that for EVERY decision you need to be 100% sure that a foul has been commited. That's the way I certainly referee every game I've done so far and every game I'll do in the future.

Question, could the referee on Sunday have been 100% (from the angle he was at) that Deek was indeed fouled? IMHO, no for me.

QUOTE]

The probem though Sid is the obvious differences when making decisions.

Look at a few of the incidents in recent games v Rangers.

Boyds block on Zemmamma should have been a red card. Boyd stays on and scores (also scored winner in next game v St Mirren in cup replay when he'd have been banned btw)

Whittaker not booked for leaving field of play and running half the length of the pitch to celebrate with the dugout. Same ref booked Bamba at Falkirk earlier in the season for running on the pitch before leaving it at the half way line to celebrate with his manager. Refs position is irrelevant on this one surely.

Millers penalty at Ibrox when no contact was made v Deeks non penalty when contact was made. 100% sure when no contact but not 100% when there was?

A friend once described it as career refereeing. He said you wont get binned for getting it wrong in favour of the OF but you might if its against them. I think that sums it up pretty well.

Good luck by the way and I hope you reach grade 1 and do ref the Hibees in a cup final. Perhaps if it was your last game you could do a Willie Young and award your team penalties for fouls outside the box and award their opponents free kicks outside the box for fouls committed inside the box. Obviously Willie was 100% sure in his decision making that day too. :devil:

[Danderhall Hibs]

IF we had won yesterday , can you imagine the panic in SFA corridors of power now that Rangers are going to Parkhead needing a point to win the league ??

A re-run of the 1999 OF shame game would've been on the horizon me thinks...

Obviously the ref made an arse off it on Sunday but the above doesn't stand up as the reason for it - Rangers would've been able to win the league by beating Motherwell this Saturday before they go to Parkhead next week wouldn't they?

[The_Sauz]

That's what I'm getting at, for some decisions you can't be 100% sure therefore in my view you can't award a foul. Hence the reason if I were the ref on Sunday there being in the position I was I wouldn't have given the penalty to Deek becuase from where the ref was he couldn't IMHO be 100% sure...

For other fouls, if not all, if you are in the correct position as a ref (up with play basically) then IMO you can be 100% sure therefore can award a foul.
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7878/firefox2010042813394523.jpg
Sorry, but looking at that photo he knew it was a penalty and bottled it.
Now if he knew 100% that no contact was made, then why did he not book Deeks for diving as that would have been seen as trying to take advantage, and by the letter of the law, is a bookable offense? :agree:

[SidBurns]

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7878/firefox2010042813394523.jpg
Sorry, but looking at that photo he knew it was a penalty and bottled it.
Now if he knew 100% that no contact was made, then why did he not book Deeks for diving as that would have been seen as trying to take advantage, and by the letter of the law, is a bookable offense? :agree:

You honestly think he could've seen contact from this position???????

[SidBurns]

[QUOTE=SidBurns;2442505]I was taught that for EVERY decision you need to be 100% sure that a foul has been commited. That's the way I certainly referee every game I've done so far and every game I'll do in the future.

Question, could the referee on Sunday have been 100% (from the angle he was at) that Deek was indeed fouled? IMHO, no for me.

QUOTE]

The probem though Sid is the obvious differences when making decisions.

Look at a few of the incidents in recent games v Rangers.

Boyds block on Zemmamma should have been a red card. Boyd stays on and scores (also scored winner in next game v St Mirren in cup replay when he'd have been banned btw)

Whittaker not booked for leaving field of play and running half the length of the pitch to celebrate with the dugout. Same ref booked Bamba at Falkirk earlier in the season for running on the pitch before leaving it at the half way line to celebrate with his manager. Refs position is irrelevant on this one surely.

Millers penalty at Ibrox when no contact was made v Deeks non penalty when contact was made. 100% sure when no contact but not 100% when there was?

A friend once described it as career refereeing. He said you wont get binned for getting it wrong in favour of the OF but you might if its against them. I think that sums it up pretty well.

Good luck by the way and I hope you reach grade 1 and do ref the Hibees in a cup final. Perhaps if it was your last game you could do a Willie Young and award your team penalties for fouls outside the box and award their opponents free kicks outside the box for fouls committed inside the box. Obviously Willie was 100% sure in his decision making that day too. :devil:

It's all if's and but's... Yes different referee's might give different decision's when they shouldn't but it is all about interpretation...

I had a 19's game last week, my first one, when two players had to be separated after punches thrown. I had three choices to make, don't book, book or send them both off. By the letter of the law they both should've went but as the game had been close to boiling point for the five minutes prior with tackles flying everywhere I decided to caution both players instead. It seemed to work as the game quietened down. My thoughts, if I hadn't booked any of them then it would've boiled over further and if I had sent them both off the same, bookings IMO was the correct decision but by the laws of the game, completely incorrect...

Until live video evidence/replays are used we'll keep having these conversations, I can guarantee that 100%!!!

PS - Whats the Willie Young thing!?!?!?!

[The_Sauz]

You honestly think he could've seen contact from this position???????
If he saw no contact, then why did he not book Deeks for diving :confused:

[SidBurns]

If he saw no contact, then why did he not book Deeks for diving :confused:

Fair point...

For me either a penalty or a caution for simulating...

[dangermouse]

Zemamma!?!?!?! ALL players would do this I'm afraid... Take off the green tinted specs...

I don't think all players would do this but agree we have some at Hibs who go down very easily maybe to win a foul but I don't recall having seen a Hibs player hit the deck and feign serious injury to get an opponent booked.

Out of interest, which leagues do you referee in?

[Kaiser1962]

My view is that if football players players were not (mostly) cheating diving simulating dishonest bar stewards and actually played within the laws of the game rather than trying to bend and break them at every possible trivial opportunity that presents itself then the game would be much better. Not as much arguing though.......

[SidBurns]

I don't think all players would do this but agree we have some at Hibs who go down very easily maybe to win a foul but I don't recall having seen a Hibs player hit the deck and feign serious injury to get an opponent booked.

Out of interest, which leagues do you referee in?

I think what I said was mis-interpreted, doesn't matter now though... Some players will dive, feign injury or wave an imaginary card in order to get a player or players booked, I don't agree with it but it happens and probably always will until video evidance post-match is used to discipline the offenders.

Dangermouse, why you ask? At 50 your surely too old to still be playing!?! :wink:

[Argylehibby]

[QUOTE=Argylehibby;2442697]


PS - Whats the Willie Young thing!?!?!?!

Allegedly Willie was a Hearts fan and was awarded the cup final between Hearts and Rangers as his final senior game. He awarded Hearts a penalty in the first few minutes when the foul was clearly outside the box and went on to deny Rangers one, giving a free kick on the edge of the box, when McCoist was well inside. If I recall correctly the Rangers one was in the last few minutes with the score 2-1 to Hearts and them being well and truly under the cosh but they held on as we all know and will never be allowed to forget. The implication of course being his career was at an end anyway so he didnt have to fret too much about consequences. It could of course all be complete b*****ks but makes a good story!

[givescotlandfreedom]

[QUOTE=SidBurns;2442505]
Whittaker not booked for leaving field of play and running half the length of the pitch to celebrate with the dugout. Same ref booked Bamba at Falkirk earlier in the season for running on the pitch before leaving it at the half way line to celebrate with his manager. Refs position is irrelevant on this one surely.



As well as that Lafferty also provoked the fans in the west stand, pointing, laughing and mouthing off into the stand. No booking.

[SidBurns]

[QUOTE=Argylehibby;2442697]

As well as that Lafferty also provoked the fans in the west stand, pointing, laughing and mouthing off into the stand. No booking.

There is no law regarding this. As long as the player stays on the field of play he cannot really be cautioned/sent-off. Yes afterwards the SFA could pull him up but the referee can't really do anything. You can only be cautioned for the following acts:-


Unsporting Behaviour
Failure to Respect the Required Distance at a Free or Corner Kick
Dissent by Word or Action (to the Referee)
Leaving the Field of Play without Permission
Entering the Field of Play without Permission
Delaying the Restart of Play
Persistent Fouling

[Saorsa]

You honestly think he could've seen contact from this position???????He would have seen it at the other end and if you think that he wouldnae have given that had it happened at the other end you're kidding yersel on.

[SidBurns]

He would have seen it at the other end and if you think that he wouldnae have given that had it happened at the other end you're kidding yersel on.

Maybe he would've, we will never know...

I still think my point is valid though, if it had been at the other end and was given we still could've scored three goals to win the game... It's all if's and but's...

[dangermouse]

I think what I said was mis-interpreted, doesn't matter now though... Some players will dive, feign injury or wave an imaginary card in order to get a player or players booked, I don't agree with it but it happens and probably always will until video evidance post-match is used to discipline the offenders.

Dangermouse, why you ask? At 50 your surely too old to still be playing!?! :wink:

At 50 I'm still playing 5's, 7's and 11 aside! You may have guessed from my avatar I'm involved in youth football. We may have met.

[Kaiser1962]

He would have seen it at the other end and if you think that he wouldnae have given that had it happened at the other end you're kidding yersel on.

Well they did give the huns offside at on two occassions when they were clean through when they were onside. Was watching through my fingers by this time so there could have been more howlers.

[sunshine1875]

Thought I would dig out an old post.............I should maybe keep it close at hand every time we play the Infirm.

It is really beginning to switch me of the SPL. Sunday's game another example of a ref making decisions that will minimise the flak aimed at him.

In both the McGregor and Laugherty incidents, there was no need to book/send-off the Hibs player - I think most football fans, even the decent Rangers fans would agree with that. Yet the ref thinks that he has to even things up by dishing equal punishment to both teams. I had a rangers fan saying to me "I didn't know it was a sending off to kick the ball" (McBride's incident). And how could the ref and the two assistants who were both on the pitch AND the fourth official, who was yards away, fail to spot Weir's attack on the Hibs player.

It is hard enough competing with the Infirm with their larger income and fan base - does it really need referee bias too?


What are we going to do about them? Yesterday's games against the Infirm were perfect examples of how our referees are biased towards the Infirm.

I honestly believe that a referee has to be 100% certain that a foul has been committed by the Infirm in the key areas of the pitch (i.e. around and in the box) and at key times in matches (i.e. just as the Infirm are about to win the title) before he gives the opposition the foul. Whereas he only needs to be 40-50% certain before he awards a foul to the Infirm under similar situations.

Obviously, we can analyse slow-motion footage from games from ten different angles to decide whether a foul has been committed or not. What I am talking about is that split-second decision that the ref has to make a decision, then I believe he follows the above criteria. I am certain that had the Riodan or Nish situation occured at Ipox the Rangers would have got the penalty/goal.

This has been going on for years - the big decisions always go the Infirm's way. I have heard comments like "but the ref is Celtic minded so why would he favour Rangers" Because he doesn't want the spend 10 days being ridiculed in the press and having thugs threaten his wife and kids. Whereas, yesterday's Ref is forgotten by many except us Hibees.

It doesn't just happen to Hibs. What about that non-existant penalty to Rangers in the last minute at Tiny a few years ago or the League Cup semi when Ferguson controlled the ball with his hand before scoring. Would Hertz have gotten these decisions. No!

This has been going on for years - so what can we (all clubs) do to demand a fairer playing field. They have more fans, hence more income - they surely don't need bias from referees too!:grr::grr: