Is it time for RoboRef? (Referees - incompetent or just followling orders?)

Member Name: The Duke

Product:	Referees - incompetent or just followling orders?
Date:	02/03/02 (48 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Better referring

Disadvantages: Not implemented yet

I don't know if it will make any difference to my point of view, but before I get started on referees, I'd like to point out that I'm a Liverpool supporter. I don't think this will colour my judgement in any way, but it's best to get these things out in the open.

Referees have been in the sporting headlines for the last few seasons, and in the lead up to the World Cup it's not going to change. On a weekly basis, there are at least half a dozen incidents that require Andy Gray or Ally McCoist to view from four different camera angles and zoom levels to try and prove whether the referee was right or wrong.

First of all, we must look at the cause of this heightened awareness of refereeing decisions. I think there are two main causes, both of which I suppose are linked: money and television.

First of all, I'll look at television. Increasing levels of technology mean that there are now more cameras at top level football matches, meaning more angles of coverage and less chance of an incident being missed. Also, slow motion replays are a lot smoother and can be slowed right down showing every single detail of a tackle or goal. With the advent of digital technology, extreme close ups of hand balls, elbows to the face etc. are now possible and after the match has ended we have the good old pundits poring over every detail.

Secondly, we have the money. With the amount of money on offer these days for prizes, wages etc. the game has become a business rather than a sport. This also means that everything that takes place on the pitch has an effect on shirt sales, stick market prices and the like. Refereeing decisions fall under this banner, and a mistakenly given goal or erroneous sending off could mean the difference in tens of thousands of pounds to a football club.

So, are we, the public, making a mountain out of a molehill? Are referees really that bad or are we being fooled into a point of view simply
because TV coverage offers us a closer look at decisions? If referees are really that bad, what can be done to help them do their job? Is it the fault of the referees, or should we be blaming the FA, UEFA or even FIFA?

Generally, I think referees do a decent job given the fact that each year there are rule changes to enforce, and no guidelines of how to go about it. Despite the fact that the game has gotten faster with fewer stoppages over the last 10 years or so, the referees do a great job of getting most of their decisions correct. There's never going to be a time when referees perform to 100% over the course of an entire season because they are only human and football is a complex game. This will also mean that each referee has his or her own style of refereeing and why one referee will award a decision one way, but another referee wouldn't necessarily do the same thing.

However, we see at the start of every season, referees laying down the law according to the FA, UEFA or whomever. They act like automatons and adhere to the very letter of the law. However, six weeks in, and they've changed their tune to act in a more responsible manner, and apply the law in accordance with the incident at hand (i.e. use common sense). What this means however is that the holy grail of consistency goes out the window. Personally, I don't blame the referees for this; it's just a settling in period for them (after all, referees don't really have a pre-season to speak of).

There are three main problems with referees as I see it - one is the lack of consistency between incidents in a game. A tackle that goes unpunished in the first half could result in a booking in the second half even if the player involved hasn't made a tackle in the whole match. The second is missing important decisions and the third is explained below.

I can think of maybe four solutions to the problem of missing important decisions, but none of them
are entirely foolproof.

1) Four linesmen (sorry - Assistant Referees) with one referee. All are hooked up to a cordless communication system so that the referee doesn't have to resort to a waving flag to be made aware of an incident.

2) Two Assistant Referees and two referees. One Assistant and one referee in each half of the pitch thus enabling referees to be more on top of the action instead of 30 metres behind it when the game is played at a frantic pace.

3) The "Traditional" TV referee. What do I mean? I'm referring to the referee who sits with replays at their fingertips and is able to clarify actions when called upon like in cricket, or they way they used to do in the American Football some years ago.

4) A different TV referee. Like above, a referee sits with piped TV coverage from a multitude of angles, and they're wired direct to the man in the middle and if they see something, they can view it from a few angles, get replays etc. and keep the referee informed all while the game goes on. The game isn't stopped, nor is the second referee asked - he simply referees via TV.

So, four ways the referee situation might be improved. I'll not say "solved" because as I said above, you'll never get referees being 100% correct for the whole season. One thing I'd like to see referees make an effort on is when they've plainly got something wrong and it's pointed out to them at the time. Offhand I can think of three distinct cases from recent matches:

Alan Shearer/Ray Parlour. During the Arsenal Newcastle match, Parlour was given a second yellow card for a "tackle" on Alan Shearer resulting in him being sent off, despite Shearer standing inches from the referee plainly saying "he didn't touch me". The referee still sent Parlour off. Newcastle won the game. Thierry Henry got a bit angry at the final whistle and the FA will probably give him a
two-match ban.

Teddy Sheringham/Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink. During a recent match between Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur (Worthington Cup, I think) these two players squared up to each other on the pitch. Mario Melchiot, who was standing directly behind Hasselbaink, reached over his shoulder and slapped Teddy in the face. Jimmy Floyd was sent off, despite Sheringham saying that he wasn't the culprit.

Giovanni Van Bronckhorst. In a recent match against Liverpool was in possession of the ball, and stumbled on the edge of Liverpool's box. He fell, but quickly regained his feet and continued playing without looking for a penalty or free kick. Despite obviously not trying to cheat, the referee decided to show the Arsenal player the red card.

In each of these cases, the result has been a player wrongly sent off, and although all three cases are different, they've probably had an effect on the result of the match in some shape or form. While the innocent players may (but not necessarily so) get these red cards overturned at a later date, the result of a football match cannot be changed.

In effect, this is the only part of the referee that I really dislike. However, I think that the people at UEFA and FIFA should be coming up with ways to help the referee make less mistakes and he can get on with providing us with a good football to talk about down at the pub, rather than a series of unnecessary errors.

In my opinion, making referees professionals hasn't really helped matters any because the same mistakes are still being made this season that were last. If you watch one of the archive matches they sometimes show on Sky telly of matches from around 1990, you could be convinced that you're watching an entirely different sport given the number of major rule changes since then, so why are the referees still operating in the same manner that they've been doing for years and years?

It's about the gover
ning bodies did something to help out the referees at top level.

Summary: