The scapegoats of football - but do they deserve it? (Referees - incompetent or just followling orders?)

Member Name: iank

Product:	Referees - incompetent or just followling orders?
Date:	24/07/02 (27 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Impartial, Knowledgeable in the Laws

Disadvantages: Not perfect

As Andy Gray goes through the replay for what seems like the millionth time, he decides that the player must have been offside by half-a-millimetre, and spends the rest of game having a go at the referee about it. OK, the referee was wrong in this instance - but is half-a-millimetre worth worrying about.

OK, this is an exaggeration, but is the sort of thing that goes on throughout the season. Analyst spend ages judging referees and any errors they make. They then spend ages insisting their technology should be used to help judge the match. This is fine if you want matches to take seven hours and be completely stop-start with the replays, but if you want to see an average, exciting game of football, you may as well keep it how it is.

Aside from offsides, however, there are several fundamental problems of the viewers or commentators judging referees. Firstly, and this may seem like a cliché, the viewers and commentators very rarely know the laws. This premise often causes a lot of debate, due to the fact that they think they know the laws. Take, for example, the Derby-Manchester Utd game last year, where a match-winner goal for Derby was disallowed. The cries came of incompetence from the referee ? Barthez, the Manchester Utd goalkeeper, did not have the ball in two hands, therefore the Derby player was perfectly entitled to challenge him. However, a quick glance at the Laws of Football would tell you that the goalkeeper is considered to be in possession on the ball if he is touching it with ANY part of his hands or arms. If you don?t believe me, take a look at the lawbook from fifa.com ? look at page 27. The referee wasn?t being incompetent, in fact he was being the opposite. Similarly with fouls ? if any part of the tackling player makes contact with the opponent before the ball it is a foul, fouls do not have be with intent ? careless is enough to reason a free kick.

Handballs are one of the most controversial issues, however. In the FA C
up Final 2001, a Liverpool player handled the ball on the line. All the commentators, Arsenal fans, players and the like scream for a penalty and then abuse the referee for incompetence. However, another look at the Law book and you discover that for handball to be awarded MUST be deliberate. It does matter where on the pitch, it must be deliberate. A question in my referee?s exam asked ?A defender standing on the goal line accidentally handles the ball, and prevents an obvious goal, sending the ball over the goal line to be side of the goal ? what is your action??. The answer is corner.

Another thing is ? what do people see? Now that must seem like a obvious question, but what do people see? ?Everything? might be your reply, maybe with a mumble of ?except for the referee who sees nothing?. But, there is an oft quoted phrase regarding this:
?A player sees what he feels,
A manager sees what he wants to see,
A spectator sees what he thinks he sees,
A referee sees what he sees.?
This is, in my opinion anyway, true in many respects. Nearly every decision you make as a referee is criticised by someone, and more often than not, both teams, each with its different viewpoint. If everyone does see everything, why do fans rarely agree on incidents ? they both saw the same thing, but they cannot agree with it. The referee only judges, and can only act on what he, or his colleagues, see.

Referees are also now viewed as an easy scapegoat ? if a team loses should the manager blame his new multi-million pound signing, or the referee. I think you know which side they choose. I think one of the best examples of this was in a football league game. The matched finished in a draw. One manager complained that the referee sent off his player, thus making it far harder for his team to win, and the other manager complained about the other team having a player sent-off as making it harder for his time, using the old cliché ?its harder playing 10 men
than it is 11?. If you imagine a game where the referee has made no wrong calls at all, been 100% perfect as the teams enter the final minute of injury time, the score 0-0. The home team manager gets out his pen, and begins to write the score of a perfect 10/10 for the club mark of the referee. As he completed writing the one, a home team player blatantly handles the ball on the goal line. The referee points to the penalty spot and send the player from the pitch. The referee is surrounded by a mass of home team players, three of whom are cautioned for dissent, and the goalkeeper is sent off violent conduct. Would the home manager finish the ten or leave it at the one. The referee has got every decision, including this one correct in the match, but I think you can guess which of the above scores he would receive. Managers, even on opposite teams sometimes join together to criticise the referee, whatever decision he makes, as due the TV pundits.

I am perfectly happy to admit that referees aren?t perfect but TV replays like in rugby or cricket would destroy the game ? football is too fast paced, and while you are looking at a replay from one goal, a penalty may be awarded in the other. Referees aren?t the ones who should moan at if you want TV replay or perfection ? they just carry out their job, impartially to the bets of their ability. I?ll leave you with one final thought : referees aren?t perfect, just like TV ? in the World Cup ?98 in France a US referee was receiving death threats and the like for his decision to award a penalty, which was ?blatantly? not a penalty. After around a week another camera spotted the foul. The death threats stopped, but a TV replay during the game would not have spotted the foul.

Summary: