I think they’re right, once it starts it won’t stop. Because it shouldn’t. Not until most important decisions are made by video refs. Not with retrospective punishment and goal-line technology anyway.

——————————————
the best site all about ref errors
http://www.FairFootball.com

What you can do is work towards cutting down the number of errors without going overboard or driving the game towards inertia at points.

Wenger’s always said that football can learn a lot from rugby, in terms of refereeing, and one of those points has been picked on on here: only the captains or the player involved in the foul is allowed to approach the referee. I think this broadly works in rugby and would be good for football.

Secondly, video replays. These aren’t always spot on, and can still be contentious (think England’s try in the World Cup Final – you could still argue if his foot was over the line) but do help bring another dispassionate pair of eyes to the matter.

For example, if the ref and his assistants are unsure of the severity of the tackle, or miss an off-the-ball incident, the TV ref can signal down or be asked for his opinion. Providing this is used sensibly it shouldn’t hold up the game too much. Think of Martyn Williams’ recent sin-binning in the Six Nations. It was a cynical trip but missed by the referee, who produced the card once his colleague in the gallery had alerted him. No complaints from anyone and the players got on with the game.

Let’s face it…we all thrive on the controversy and it has been around as long as the game has.

Does that justify the wrong decisions? Do two wrongs (or more), make a right, just because it is ‘natural’? Beating your wife when she disobeyed you was controversial and had been around for a long time in society, but you can see that it is wrong.

If something is wrong, would you not remove it instead of justifying its existence through tradition?

People go on and on about consistency from referees but as long as human judgement and interpretation is relied upon in a game played with pace, where the officials can’t possibly spot everything and have to make split second decisions,then there will never be consistency.

A distinction should be made here – we need to minimize errors. If technology can help do that without slowing down the game (and it can) or damaging the spirit of the game (I’m pretty sure getting away with diving or breaking your opponent’s leg or even getting away with the ball crossing the goal line, is NOT in the ‘spirit of the game’), then let’s do it.

Unless you want to radically change things by using technology, multiple referees etc. you have to accept it.

I do, and I disagree that it would be radical – technology can be gradually and minimally introduced. Baby steps, but at least some steps.

I believe that the controversy introduced by the human factor acts as an extra dimension and creates lively and polarised/ biased debate amongst us all.

Lively and polarised/biased debate exists already in terms of analysing performances and predicting outcomes ahead of a game. They would exist even if you measured each player’s performance using detailed statistics and even if the result of a game could be predicted using statistical probabilities.

This debate stems from our emotions, not from the unnecessarily wrong decisions given on the pitch. Our emotions are attached to the game and more specifically to how we identify ourselves with teams and players – they are not going to be threatened by technology.

And no, trial by media (the way Taylor under-went after Eduardo’s injury) does not count. The trial by media spreads falsehood and often drowns out the truth.

The old adage that it balances out over a season is generally true.

Statistically speaking, it doesn’t balance out over a season but over a far longer period of time. Practically speaking, that’s a bullshit excuse. Just because everyone gets screwed over does not make it ok for them get screwed over. Getting screwed over is not a democratic or universal right, it’s something preventable.

This ‘balances out’ thing is a bit like saying: Oh, we all get tackled from behind sooner or later so if I break a leg, surely it will balance out at the end of the season when someone else breaks a leg too.

Agreed on the approaching the referee bit but I’m not sure how you control the running comments from players when the ref is in the vicinity. If you start to book people for that it gets very difficult.

Agreed, you cannot and you shouldnt control that. But I’m sure that one can set certain conditions that are acceptable to everyone?

After all its an emotional and passionate game.

That doesn’t excuse Rooney (I take his name because, as a United fan, I know I’ll have it thrown in my face sooner or later) from running up to the ref and clapping sarcastically in his face, or running up to the ref and swearing at him. Decision’s given, you know it’s not going to be reversed, showing your anger at the ref is a waste for the team and for the game.

Mobbing the ref is perhaps wrong, even for an emotional and passionate sport?

Two Referees: On 11 May 1935, one of two unique matches took place at Goodison Park as part of the George V Jubilee. Warney Cresswell, Albert Geldard, Cliff Britton and Charles Leyfield played as Everton representatives for the Football League v Wales & Ireland. The Football League side won 10-2, with Leyfield scoring a goal. This match was part of the only “two-referees” trial in English football. There were two Jubilee matches, with the first at The Hawthorns three days earlier when the Football League beat West Brom 9-6, and both were “two-referee” trial matches.

People go on and on about consistency from referees but as long as human judgement and interpretation is relied upon in a game played with pace, where the officials can’t possibly spot everything and have to make split second decisions,then there will never be consistency.

Unless you want to radically change things by using technology, multiple referees etc. you have to accept it.

I believe that the controversy introduced by the human factor acts as an extra dimension and creates lively and polarised/ biased debate amongst us all.

The old adage that it balances out over a season is generally true.

Agreed on the approaching the referee bit but I’m not sure how you control the running comments from players when the ref is in the vicinity. If you start to book people for that it gets very difficult. After all its an emotional and passionate game.