Obviously we have been on the receiving end of some poor decision by match officials in the past. I do believe this is mostly down to incompetence rather than corruption, but then again there may be some exceptions (I think we all know who that may be ). But given the standard can be very poor in Scotland, how much do referees pay for poor decisions that cost victory or result in defeat? Last season the matches given to THAT assistant referee after the refusal of Sparky's 'goal' seemed to result in a spell in the lower leagues. The links to the articles below suggest the SFA does attempt to take action, albeit behind closed doors. On the other hand, if Charlie Richmond (one of the poorest refs I've ever seen, anyone remember a 2-1 win against Motherwell at ER where Fletch scored the winner and he issued 11 yellow cards against the opposition? If memory serves even we were booing him because of it) is to be believed there is no accountability and it's all about being a favourite of the SFA (Again, I think we know who may fall into this bracket). I think what I'd like to see is more openness from the SFA regarding the issue. For example, I've looked online for the referees match ratings but can't find them. I think this, along with referees explaining contentious decisions would really help. I can't think of any other job where you could perform terribly and not face the consequences eventually.
http://sportinglife.aol.co.uk/footba...es-favouritism
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/footb...ichmond-claims
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread: Referee Accountability.
-
09-01-2014 09:23 AM #1
Referee Accountability.
-
09-01-2014 09:32 AM #2
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Dùn Éideann, Alba
- Age
- 52
- Posts
- 10,863
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
09-01-2014 09:35 AM #3This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
09-01-2014 11:10 AM #4This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I've said on threads before that I don't believe the explanation by a ref, certainly immediately after a game, is worthwhile. People only want to hear what they want to hear, so any explanation is either an admission of an error "I always told you he was Sh***, and now he's admitted it" or confirmation of bias "Aye, he'd have seen if it was Hearts/The Rangers/Celtc/Arbroath" or refusal to accept the version given "I don't think should have been a red-card". Refs canny win in these circumstances. I know this absolutely to be true in the case of grassroots football.
The performance by the boy a few weeks ago was murder (Muir?) in my view, and I think that was agreed by all fans. But look at Madden in the derby. General consensus on here was that he had a great game. kickback didn't necessarily agree, and it would have been the same if it had been the other way around, lets not kid ourselves. What would the benefit be to the SFA to laud/criticise his game - it'd only have confirmed a belief in their bias in one set of fans eyes.
-
09-01-2014 11:18 AM #5
Just imagine being the ref last Thursday, 20 thousand people screaming at you for every decision, from throw ins to penalty shouts. Millions throughout the UK watching on tv with the benefit of replays and analysing your every move. He gets one look at every incident in real time and has to make a decision one way or another. Add into that mix he has to referee the way the SFA want him to like some sort of robot, these guys are under severe pressure during a match and all in all most of them do a good job. Most top refs seem to be lawyers or doctors, policemen etc why is that? do the Sfa think joe public will not question their integrity as a result of them being in these jobs. Its known as the peoples game so its about time is was opened up to allow brickies, plumbers, joiners etc the chance to reach the top level as this appears to be a barrier against them. IMO the way forward wold be to allow refs to speak after the game, and to introduce a scheme at schools and youth teams where all young players have to take the refs exam and actually have to referee at training or do younger games to get a feel as to what its like and as to how hard a job it actually is.
-
09-01-2014 01:01 PM #6
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Dùn Éideann, Alba
- Age
- 52
- Posts
- 10,863
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
09-01-2014 01:08 PM #7This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If he says "I made a mistake", you'd want him hounded out for incompetence. If he says "that's how I saw it" you'd do the same, if he says "I saw it but didn't think it warranted a red card" then he's biased. I suspect if he gave a rational explanation that was to all intents and purposes fair you wouldn't accept it. There's no point in saying anything, so saying nothing removes the fanning of conspiracy.
-
09-01-2014 01:34 PM #8
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Dùn Éideann, Alba
- Age
- 52
- Posts
- 10,863
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
As tae your other point, if he is that bad and cannae dae the job then he should be out and he shouldnae need tae be hounded out, he should be removed by those that employ him, if he isnae then there's something else wrong with the whole of SFA refereeing that needs questioning. How he got another game efter that would be unbelievable if it didnae involve the SFA. With those clowns anything is believable. He's the top ref for them, that says enough.
This being right even when being wrong and being unquestionable is a nonsense IMO. These decisions cost clubs points and money. At the very least they deserve an explanation for why there are so many poor/bad decisions.Last edited by Saorsa; 09-01-2014 at 01:45 PM.
-
09-01-2014 02:08 PM #9This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Its not "my" other point. Hibs fans more than any others have a problem with Thomson, primarily due to the final. He's had us a number of times since, largely without incident, and they are forgotten. I personally dont rate him for the reasons said, but the SFA and UEFA do. There's not a referee on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, and occasionally high profile ones.
As for being "right when wrong", I've not said that, have I? I said whatever they say will be interpreted by individuals of a like mindset to yours as evidence of incompetence/bias. I've nothing against refs explaining decisions to players or clubs privately, when the immediate post-game has calmed down. The decisions do cost clubs money, but presumably, in the grand scale, it gives the benefitting clubs points and money? As for "so many bad decisions" care to give me evidence or stats that back up the claim or is it just a bot of DDesque hyperbolic blunt anger? How many bad decisions are we talking here as being acceptable? one a game?, five a game?, 10%?, 5%. Who decides its a bad decision? You? Pundits? The players?
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks