Refereeing and the Rules of the Game
Discussion
Since its introduction, VAR has dominated football discussions. While we are debating their decisions, the rules of the game need a closer look, and the referees need to stick to implementing and enforcing them. Easier said than done.
I'll kick-off with some recent examples:
Dissent.
When Brentford hosted Manchester United over the weekend, Bruno Fernandez was punished for a tackle. The referee showed him a yellow card; Fernandez laughed at him; laughed in his face as he was shown the card.
Last night I watched Everton v West Ham. An Everton player was pulled up for a foul. He immediately went to his knees and started slapping the ground clearly in disagreement with the decision. As he was having his hissy fit, the referee produced a yellow card which made Desbury-Hall (I think) explode into a display of displeasure (the commentary team mentioned that the yellow would mean he misses the next game so the frustration is understandable to a degree).
How are these two incidents not dissent? When the season starts, we hear about what rules are new - or revised - and how referees will be handling player behaviour. It lasts for a game.
Authority
When Jarred Gillet awarded Arsenal a penalty, VAR intervened. They directed him to the pitch-side monitor where they then spent a bit of time talking to him about the incident which he deemed was a penalty. Some might say he was being guided through the incident to change his decision which, if you've seen it is of course, subjective therefore not a clear and obvious error. It was an on-field decision by the match official. If VAR can sway the referee's decision like this, why have a referee at all?
Only the team captains can speak to the referee, yet the refs are talking to the players explaining what they've just blown the whistle for. This might trigger a reaction - a demonstrative and vociferous protest, even - yet the referee appears to ignore it (also goes back to the dissent debate).
My favourite referees of the past were Pierluigi Collina and Uriah Rennie both of whom took no s
t from anyone, and this was before the rulebook was tidied up. In recent times I do like Szymon Marciniak for similar reasons but he's shown signs of weakness in big games.
A discussion about referees and the rules of the game...
I'll kick-off with some recent examples:
Dissent.
When Brentford hosted Manchester United over the weekend, Bruno Fernandez was punished for a tackle. The referee showed him a yellow card; Fernandez laughed at him; laughed in his face as he was shown the card.
Last night I watched Everton v West Ham. An Everton player was pulled up for a foul. He immediately went to his knees and started slapping the ground clearly in disagreement with the decision. As he was having his hissy fit, the referee produced a yellow card which made Desbury-Hall (I think) explode into a display of displeasure (the commentary team mentioned that the yellow would mean he misses the next game so the frustration is understandable to a degree).
How are these two incidents not dissent? When the season starts, we hear about what rules are new - or revised - and how referees will be handling player behaviour. It lasts for a game.
Authority
When Jarred Gillet awarded Arsenal a penalty, VAR intervened. They directed him to the pitch-side monitor where they then spent a bit of time talking to him about the incident which he deemed was a penalty. Some might say he was being guided through the incident to change his decision which, if you've seen it is of course, subjective therefore not a clear and obvious error. It was an on-field decision by the match official. If VAR can sway the referee's decision like this, why have a referee at all?
Only the team captains can speak to the referee, yet the refs are talking to the players explaining what they've just blown the whistle for. This might trigger a reaction - a demonstrative and vociferous protest, even - yet the referee appears to ignore it (also goes back to the dissent debate).
My favourite referees of the past were Pierluigi Collina and Uriah Rennie both of whom took no s
t from anyone, and this was before the rulebook was tidied up. In recent times I do like Szymon Marciniak for similar reasons but he's shown signs of weakness in big games. A discussion about referees and the rules of the game...
Rules are never applied consistently. Even much heralded new rules that come into force every season apply for about 3 games, then fall into disuse. Are goalkeepers being punished for holding onto the ball? Brand new rule apparently to limit it to 8 seconds. Wasn’t there already a rule in place around this?
What happened to the booking the 3rd or 4th player to run over to the referee when the players react to a decision? That was a new rule two years ago. Is it ever enforced?
VAR doesn’t limit itself to clear and obvious. Sometimes it goes back a long way in the build up to a goal, sometimes it doesn’t.
Refereeing has always been subjective within an (as much as possible) objective framework. VAR won’t change that despite what the powers claim. Even worse, it robs the fans of spontaneity and enjoyment as it attempts to rule out every goal from open play, whilst awarding as many penalties as possible for the most minor infringements.
Referees have an impossible job as one team will nearly always disagree with their decision, but they really don’t help themselves either.
What happened to the booking the 3rd or 4th player to run over to the referee when the players react to a decision? That was a new rule two years ago. Is it ever enforced?
VAR doesn’t limit itself to clear and obvious. Sometimes it goes back a long way in the build up to a goal, sometimes it doesn’t.
Refereeing has always been subjective within an (as much as possible) objective framework. VAR won’t change that despite what the powers claim. Even worse, it robs the fans of spontaneity and enjoyment as it attempts to rule out every goal from open play, whilst awarding as many penalties as possible for the most minor infringements.
Referees have an impossible job as one team will nearly always disagree with their decision, but they really don’t help themselves either.
Opapayer said:
Rules are never applied consistently. Even much heralded new rules that come into force every season apply for about 3 games, then fall into disuse. Are goalkeepers being punished for holding onto the ball? Brand new rule apparently to limit it to 8 seconds. Wasn t there already a rule in place around this?
What happened to the booking the 3rd or 4th player to run over to the referee when the players react to a decision? That was a new rule two years ago. Is it ever enforced?
VAR doesn t limit itself to clear and obvious. Sometimes it goes back a long way in the build up to a goal, sometimes it doesn t.
Refereeing has always been subjective within an (as much as possible) objective framework. VAR won t change that despite what the powers claim. Even worse, it robs the fans of spontaneity and enjoyment as it attempts to rule out every goal from open play, whilst awarding as many penalties as possible for the most minor infringements.
Referees have an impossible job as one team will nearly always disagree with their decision, but they really don t help themselves either.
Re GK rule. Why isn't that applied to throw ins and corners for the same reason?What happened to the booking the 3rd or 4th player to run over to the referee when the players react to a decision? That was a new rule two years ago. Is it ever enforced?
VAR doesn t limit itself to clear and obvious. Sometimes it goes back a long way in the build up to a goal, sometimes it doesn t.
Refereeing has always been subjective within an (as much as possible) objective framework. VAR won t change that despite what the powers claim. Even worse, it robs the fans of spontaneity and enjoyment as it attempts to rule out every goal from open play, whilst awarding as many penalties as possible for the most minor infringements.
Referees have an impossible job as one team will nearly always disagree with their decision, but they really don t help themselves either.
Glassman said:
Re GK rule. Why isn't that applied to throw ins and corners for the same reason?
Is that a rule? In any event, teams take the piss. Your team is terrible for wasting time when leading, then complaining when others do it. Newcastle are terrible for it. Arteta jumps around outside the Technical Area, right on the touchline all match and nothing is ever done about it. What he’s doing is very clever, as it reduces the width on the pitch, but it’s still against the rules but done with impunity. I’m not saying let’s discuss this, I’m just showing how very few rules are really enforced.
The discussion last season was about how little time is actually played out of the 90 minutes. It’s getting worse this season. VAR decisions seem to be more frequent, take longer and the on pitch officials are making decisions knowing that they’ll get “corrected” if they’ve made a wrong one when it’s a major decision. The refs can abdicate from their responsibility and that’s a bad thing, as they’ll stop making the lesser decisions too. Does anyone really want 10 mins of added time at the end of every half?
Opapayer said:
Is that a rule? In any event, teams take the piss. Your team is terrible for wasting time when leading, then complaining when others do it. Newcastle are terrible for it.
Arteta jumps around outside the Technical Area, right on the touchline all match and nothing is ever done about it. What he s doing is very clever, as it reduces the width on the pitch, but it s still against the rules but done with impunity. I m not saying let s discuss this, I m just showing how very few rules are really enforced.
The discussion last season was about how little time is actually played out of the 90 minutes. It s getting worse this season. VAR decisions seem to be more frequent, take longer and the on pitch officials are making decisions knowing that they ll get corrected if they ve made a wrong one when it s a major decision. The refs can abdicate from their responsibility and that s a bad thing, as they ll stop making the lesser decisions too. Does anyone really want 10 mins of added time at the end of every half?
If you're using Arsenal and Arteta as an example because it's the team I support, then fine; all teams and their players are guilty of trying to gain an advantage whichever way they can. But this is about referees, and referees should be very clear about what the rules are and how they will be officiating the match with zero tolerance for anything deemed a breach of those rules. Arteta jumps around outside the Technical Area, right on the touchline all match and nothing is ever done about it. What he s doing is very clever, as it reduces the width on the pitch, but it s still against the rules but done with impunity. I m not saying let s discuss this, I m just showing how very few rules are really enforced.
The discussion last season was about how little time is actually played out of the 90 minutes. It s getting worse this season. VAR decisions seem to be more frequent, take longer and the on pitch officials are making decisions knowing that they ll get corrected if they ve made a wrong one when it s a major decision. The refs can abdicate from their responsibility and that s a bad thing, as they ll stop making the lesser decisions too. Does anyone really want 10 mins of added time at the end of every half?
As someone on the inside, I'll try and explain a few things. Firstly, the referees are genuinely expected to apply Law properly, but with a caveat that both managing expectations ("what the game expects") and managing entertainment ("try and keep 11 players on the pitch") are guiding principles.
The dissent example is a classic. Firstly it's down to individual tolerance of the referee, but if you take the two principles above you'll realise that at PL level they are far less likely to deal with it as you would want. There is also, and this might be unbelievable to some, the fact that often you can't hear what is being said or you're not looking at it to be able to recognise it. Players swear at each other all the time, it is hard to distinguish who they are speaking to as well.
I personally feel the ARs are more at fault here as they tend to get more isolated examples of clear dissent when they give a throw or foul and one player just goes at them, and they have this weakness to deal with it which borders on pathetic, but again that seems to be the expectation now.
The dissent example is a classic. Firstly it's down to individual tolerance of the referee, but if you take the two principles above you'll realise that at PL level they are far less likely to deal with it as you would want. There is also, and this might be unbelievable to some, the fact that often you can't hear what is being said or you're not looking at it to be able to recognise it. Players swear at each other all the time, it is hard to distinguish who they are speaking to as well.
I personally feel the ARs are more at fault here as they tend to get more isolated examples of clear dissent when they give a throw or foul and one player just goes at them, and they have this weakness to deal with it which borders on pathetic, but again that seems to be the expectation now.
Glassman said:
Only the team captains can speak to the referee, yet the refs are talking to the players explaining what they've just blown the whistle for. This might trigger a reaction - a demonstrative and vociferous protest, even - yet the referee appears to ignore it (also goes back to the dissent debate).
This is not a Law, unless the referee enacts it. The 'Captains Only' protocol kicks in if the referee feels the crowding of players/dissent is too muchRoofless Toothless said:
What is the point of booking players for removing their shirt when celebrating a goal? Is that really necessary?
It was brought in when players starting putting messages on undershirts and all that nonsense. It is a mandatory caution, any referee not doing it would be suspended, so until it changes players just need to keep their clothes on.Jefferson Steelflex said:
Roofless Toothless said:
What is the point of booking players for removing their shirt when celebrating a goal? Is that really necessary?
It was brought in when players starting putting messages on undershirts and all that nonsense. It is a mandatory caution, any referee not doing it would be suspended, so until it changes players just need to keep their clothes on.Jefferson Steelflex said:
As someone on the inside, I'll try and explain a few things. Firstly, the referees are genuinely expected to apply Law properly, but with a caveat that both managing expectations ("what the game expects") and managing entertainment ("try and keep 11 players on the pitch") are guiding principles.
The dissent example is a classic. Firstly it's down to individual tolerance of the referee, but if you take the two principles above you'll realise that at PL level they are far less likely to deal with it as you would want. There is also, and this might be unbelievable to some, the fact that often you can't hear what is being said or you're not looking at it to be able to recognise it. Players swear at each other all the time, it is hard to distinguish who they are speaking to as well.
I personally feel the ARs are more at fault here as they tend to get more isolated examples of clear dissent when they give a throw or foul and one player just goes at them, and they have this weakness to deal with it which borders on pathetic, but again that seems to be the expectation now.
Thanks for this. The dissent example is a classic. Firstly it's down to individual tolerance of the referee, but if you take the two principles above you'll realise that at PL level they are far less likely to deal with it as you would want. There is also, and this might be unbelievable to some, the fact that often you can't hear what is being said or you're not looking at it to be able to recognise it. Players swear at each other all the time, it is hard to distinguish who they are speaking to as well.
I personally feel the ARs are more at fault here as they tend to get more isolated examples of clear dissent when they give a throw or foul and one player just goes at them, and they have this weakness to deal with it which borders on pathetic, but again that seems to be the expectation now.
Glassman said:
Only the team captains can speak to the referee, yet the refs are talking to the players explaining what they've just blown the whistle for. This might trigger a reaction - a demonstrative and vociferous protest, even - yet the referee appears to ignore it (also goes back to the dissent debate).
This is not a Law, unless the referee enacts it. The 'Captains Only' protocol kicks in if the referee feels the crowding of players/dissent is too muchWhen I managed my son's team, the standard of refereeing was quite poor especially given that they were qualified refs and we were told to abide by new rule changes.
The [very few] referees who took the time to come and speak to the teams and their captains before kick-off got the most respect and proper control of the game because they made it clear exactly how they would officiate the game. Unfortunately, these guys were few and far between.
In yesterday's CL game between Chelsea and Benfica, Joao Pedro was sent off for a second bookable offence. He was in the middle of the pitch and once he was shown the red car and directed towards the dressing room, he started a slow and long ritual-like act of rolling his socks down, then removing his shin pads; he stood back up straight and had a slow look around before going back down to untie ONE boot. He stood back up and looked around before eventually going back down to untie the other. THEN he started the slow walk off the pitch.
Chelsea were 1-0 up and there were just a couple of minutes left on the clock.
This is very much a player petulance/power demonstration, but how does a referee deal with that? He's already given him two yellows!
Delaying the restart dismissed player style.
Chelsea were 1-0 up and there were just a couple of minutes left on the clock.
This is very much a player petulance/power demonstration, but how does a referee deal with that? He's already given him two yellows!
Delaying the restart dismissed player style.
Maybe they should look at the time keeping in rugby. Ref stops the watch as appropriate and half or full time whistle goes as and when the ball goes dead after hitting 45/90 minutes. Clock is visible to all 4 sides of the ground and know exactly the time left instead of the witchcraft of added on time
Opapayer said:
Rules are never applied consistently.
Roofless Toothless said:
What is the point of booking players for removing their shirt when celebrating a goal? Is that really necessary?
And the above shows the dilemma.People want consistency. The only way to get close to achieving that is for referees to apply the letter of the law, all the time. But when the rules are applied correctly, as they were for the 2nd yellow for the Liverpool player taking off his shirt, we get asked what's the point. Why don't referees apply common sense?
I am going to take a flip look at it and take a referees standpoint...I do have sympathy for the referee in as many cases as possible, it isn't an easy job, and made even harder because players cheat, dive, simulate, and toe the line of sportsmanship often stepping somewhat over it.
It is worth looking up ex referees talking about the game as it gives a real insight. They want the game to flow, and football to be played as much as anyone. There was an ex referee talking about things like throw ins, how a player wanting to waste time will 'accidentally' walk too far up the pitch then when ushered back 'oh sorry ref I didn't realise' then shuffle back, then dry the ball off, then have two or three aborted throws etc.
Referees make mistakes we all know that, and some are better than others at spotting decisions (which is human) but I don't understand why they get so much media attention for their mistakes when in the same game I have just watched the same two or three players cheating, not making mistakes, but actively cheating and the media say nothing about it - if they do its a cheeky laugh and comments like 'he did well to win the free kick there'
The whole shirt off thing is the players fault, 100% the players problem. Keep your clothes on when you score, it really isn't that difficult.
It is worth looking up ex referees talking about the game as it gives a real insight. They want the game to flow, and football to be played as much as anyone. There was an ex referee talking about things like throw ins, how a player wanting to waste time will 'accidentally' walk too far up the pitch then when ushered back 'oh sorry ref I didn't realise' then shuffle back, then dry the ball off, then have two or three aborted throws etc.
Referees make mistakes we all know that, and some are better than others at spotting decisions (which is human) but I don't understand why they get so much media attention for their mistakes when in the same game I have just watched the same two or three players cheating, not making mistakes, but actively cheating and the media say nothing about it - if they do its a cheeky laugh and comments like 'he did well to win the free kick there'
The whole shirt off thing is the players fault, 100% the players problem. Keep your clothes on when you score, it really isn't that difficult.
coldel said:
I am going to take a flip look at it and take a referees standpoint...I do have sympathy for the referee in as many cases as possible, it isn't an easy job, and made even harder because players cheat, dive, simulate, and toe the line of sportsmanship often stepping somewhat over it.
It is worth looking up ex referees talking about the game as it gives a real insight. They want the game to flow, and football to be played as much as anyone. There was an ex referee talking about things like throw ins, how a player wanting to waste time will 'accidentally' walk too far up the pitch then when ushered back 'oh sorry ref I didn't realise' then shuffle back, then dry the ball off, then have two or three aborted throws etc.
Referees make mistakes we all know that, and some are better than others at spotting decisions (which is human) but I don't understand why they get so much media attention for their mistakes when in the same game I have just watched the same two or three players cheating, not making mistakes, but actively cheating and the media say nothing about it - if they do its a cheeky laugh and comments like 'he did well to win the free kick there'
The whole shirt off thing is the players fault, 100% the players problem. Keep your clothes on when you score, it really isn't that difficult.
Good post. It is worth looking up ex referees talking about the game as it gives a real insight. They want the game to flow, and football to be played as much as anyone. There was an ex referee talking about things like throw ins, how a player wanting to waste time will 'accidentally' walk too far up the pitch then when ushered back 'oh sorry ref I didn't realise' then shuffle back, then dry the ball off, then have two or three aborted throws etc.
Referees make mistakes we all know that, and some are better than others at spotting decisions (which is human) but I don't understand why they get so much media attention for their mistakes when in the same game I have just watched the same two or three players cheating, not making mistakes, but actively cheating and the media say nothing about it - if they do its a cheeky laugh and comments like 'he did well to win the free kick there'
The whole shirt off thing is the players fault, 100% the players problem. Keep your clothes on when you score, it really isn't that difficult.
On the referees getting more media attention. this could be helped/negated by having a firmer grip on the game in my opinion. A referee should have authority not for his role strictly speaking, but for the players who are, by and large, unruly and most of them cheat.
I can't see why refereeing can't be more like (not the same as) rugby.
Glassman said:
Good post.
On the referees getting more media attention. this could be helped/negated by having a firmer grip on the game in my opinion. A referee should have authority not for his role strictly speaking, but for the players who are, by and large, unruly and most of them cheat.
I can't see why refereeing can't be more like (not the same as) rugby.
I think football has got to that point now where we see dozens of simulations for fouls each game, if the ref just waved play on there would be up roar if they booked every one for each dive there would be the same. There is no rule change in the summer that fixes the mentality at play and how it has got to this point, not only in the PL but globally. On the referees getting more media attention. this could be helped/negated by having a firmer grip on the game in my opinion. A referee should have authority not for his role strictly speaking, but for the players who are, by and large, unruly and most of them cheat.
I can't see why refereeing can't be more like (not the same as) rugby.
From what I could see football brought in law changes to stop players committing bad fouls and potential injuries, but then players saw an opportunity to game the stricter enforcement by simulating. Its now almost impossible for a ref at full speed in the moment to see a player take a dive because they are so good at it.
If referees start booking more strictly for dissent I think it has the opposite effect of controlling a game, often you see it spiral out of control. Ultimately player behaviour lies at the core, with the players. Behave like adults, not school kids.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff