Respect, Honesty and the Big Bad Wolf
Much has been written about this season’s Respect Campaign but I fear that it is doomed to failure. Respect, as they say, is earned but for today’s referees what we all demand of them in return for our respect is an impossible ask and all of us who sit in judgment contribute in one way or another to this lottery. Worst of all in this whole equation is the lack of honesty from players.
Honest Brokers
To explore what I mean by honesty I refer back to two great players of former decades. Tommy Smith (The Anfield Iron) and, Ron ‘Chopper’ Harris had two key things in common. They were both known as hard men, uncompromising and committed. They were also completely honest in their approach to the game. Both played at the highest level and won top honours, while attracting the attention of the boo boys.
When Smith or Harris tackled someone they stayed tackled. Nobody showboated around these guys unless they had a death wish. Faced with a prancing series of step over’s from Ronaldo, Smith or Harris would most likely have kicked him into row six of the stand, tied his legs together and given him some serious advice on future conduct.
If Smith and Harris came together in a full blooded tackle the resulting crunch could stop traffic, while the main stand moved 3 or 4 inches on its foundations. The two would get-up with a snarl of appreciation, a begrudging pat on the back for each other and get on with it. It was important to these guys not to let their opponent think he had hurt them and feigning injury or diving to con the referee would have been about as foreign as… well an Arsenal first choice eleven.
They gave no quarter and expected none in return. Both of course incurred the wrath of referees on a regular basis but Smith was only ever sent off once. Nowadays, I suspect they’d seldom see out 90 minutes. Even with the hardest of the hard, referees had the scope to make judgments. Hard but fair was acceptable and these two were nearly always fair. They knew where they stood with the referees and vice versa. Verbal exchanges were frequent and many referees welcomed them, but above all there was RESPECT.
FIFA’s Rule Tinkering
The boundaries back then were more black and white. All FIFA has achieved by tinkering constantly with the rules is to blur the boundaries and undermine the referees judgment. It’s ironic that those demanding more respect are the ones who have undermined the referees in the first place.
It used to be that football was accepted as a physical game and referees judged challenges on their merits as opposed to having preordained judgments handed to them. The tackle from behind didn’t merit an automatic booking, indeed it was an art form. It was accepted that to jump for a header a player needs some leverage from his arms and this may occasionally mean contact with an opponent. Again, each case was taken on its merits without the instruction to send the player off.
Goalkeepers could make an honest challenge to win the ball when one on one with an opponent, with the knowledge that even if they conceded a penalty they wouldn’t also be making the long walk to the dressing room. Today’s referees are caught between trying to apply the rules to the letter of the law or applying common sense and judgment where it is appropriate (at the risk of being disciplined by their associations).They are constantly treading a fine line and the players know it. More and more the players nowadays ‘assist’ the referee with his decision making by diving and feigning injury and dishonesty has become widespread.
Technology and Expectations
It is because of the multiple cameras on every incident that decisions come under such scrutiny these days. The referee can be tried on the spot by pundits, journalists, managers and fans alike. Despite the views from every angle it’s remarkable how often there still isn’t agreement. People see what they want to see.
We all talk about consistency from referees but what exactly are the expectations? As long as it’s one guy against 10 TV cameras there’s only ever going to be one winner. It’s madness to expect that a single human being running at speed while trying to control 22 players will spot everything and get his decisions consistent, never mind correct, all the time. If you demand that then you’d better start lobbying for multiple officials on the pitch and widespread use of video replay.
The Managers
How often do top managers berate the referee when a key decision goes against them but say little when something goes in their favour? Arsene Wenger is notorious for ‘not seeing the incident’ when it goes in his teams favour but misses nothing when it goes against them. And he has plenty of company in this respect. When an ‘injustice’ has been done the manager always seems to have viewed it several times on replay before giving his post match interview, normally including a spanking for the ref. However, in the reverse situation its remarkable how many managers ‘haven’t had a chance to see the replay yet.’
Alex Ferguson’s response to the recent non-penalty against Bolton was to remind the nation that the referee ‘owed’ his team a few decisions like that!
How do you like your Wolf?
If things are to improve a start needs to be made somewhere, which brings us back to players and honesty.
Tommy Smith and Ron Harris played their roles with no side to them whatsoever. They were the ‘Big Bad Wolf’ and took everything that came with that. They didn’t pussy foot around. Dressing-up as Grandma to disguise themselves or pretend that they were something they were not was not on the agenda. These guys headed Little Red Riding Hood off at the first pass and made a quick meal of her. The only role for the woodcutter was collecting the remains on his way past.
Unfortunately, today there are far too many players who want to disguise themselves as Grandma and concentrate on conning people (referees, linesmen, the fans….ultimately themselves!) As a result, we lose sight of who the villain is in all of this. The players forever want the referee to be the villain, the easy fall guy when the decision isn’t to their liking. Poor rules, too little autonomy and lack of honesty make it impossible for him not to be. A ‘respect’ campaign can’t even begin to work as long as this situation prevails.
There are plenty of honest pros around today and it’s time for them AND the Manager’s Association to demand better standards of behaviour. A return to honesty is needed before the Respect Campaign can succeed.
I prefer my wolf to be up front just as Smith and Harris were. Then you know what you’re dealing with and good, bad or just plain ugly, at least there is no deception involved.
Now I can respect that.
This article is a submission for the Soccerlens 2008 Writing Competition; to participate, please read the details here. The competition is sponsored by Subside Sports (premier online store for football shirts) and Icons (official signed football jerseys).
Topics: Features, Help Football
Football News 24/7
never thought i’d see little red riding hood used as an analogy for football, but then again I am a liverpool fan so anything is possible.
Fantastic article BD. I’d say you’ve got a great shot at winning
October 25th, 2008 @ 10:47Agreed in principle Brian.
However I think the current ‘Respect the Ref’ campaign has had some effect in how players and managers treat the ref.
One reason players ‘act out’ is because they want to ensure that the ref sees all infractions – although quite often it snowballs from there and you have players ‘asking’ for the ref to blow the whistle at every opportunity.
If football can simultaneously help referees minimize errors AND impose stiff penalties for simulation and berating the ref, things can improve for the better. It’s a battered drum I’m beating but post-match video-reviews and penalties for blatant simulation should be brought into play, along with a host of other improvements to help improve refereeing standards and in turn help the game.
October 25th, 2008 @ 15:02“It’s madness to expect that a single human being running at speed while trying to control 22 players will spot everything and get his decisions consistent, never mind correct, all the time. If you demand that then you’d better start lobbying for multiple officials on the pitch and widespread use of video replay.”
Actually, no. Just video replay.
October 27th, 2008 @ 18:17You’re absolutely right. It *is* madness. So let’s all demand the video ref.
Thanks Nate!
October 28th, 2008 @ 04:56FF, that’s a fair enough comment but then we get back to the endless disagreements on when and how to use it. What’s your own opinion on this?
Glad you ask. I’ve written about it in detail on my site, I have a page there, you can’t miss it. Please go read it there. Basically, everything important should be decided by video evidence, penalties first of all, goal / no goal decisions, important off-sides (that is, if we don’t dump the off-side rule altogether, which is a proposal I heard recently and liked instantly).
October 28th, 2008 @ 22:15Anyway, they should at least make a start with goal-line technology. On this we could probably agree most of us.
October 28th, 2008 @ 22:36OK FF, I read your article. While I agree with much of it there are other arguments that come up.
For example, on offsides and penalties how do you bring the video ref into play?
Scenario 1 (Penalty): The referee sees a challenge in the box and is unsure whether it is a penalty or not. He blows the whistle and decides to go to the video ref. As he does so the ball falls at the feet of an attacker 2 yards out with an open goal. The video ref decides it was not a penalty. A: The referee has just denied a goal to the attacking team and B: How do you restart the game?
Scenario 2(Penalty): The referee sees a challenge in the box and is unsure but does not blow immediately. He allows play to continue and the ball is hoofed upfield where the opposition score. The ref gows back to the video ref for judgement on the penalty incident and it is ruled a penalty. Is the oppositions goal ruled out?
Scenario 3 (offfside): The referee blows for an offside decision as an attacking player goes through on goal but stops. The video evidence shows it was not offside. Probable goal denied and how do you restart the game?
Scenario 4: As above but the ref decides to let the move go initially. The attacking player is blatantly brought down by the keeper for a clear penalty. The ref goes back to the video ref on the offside decision and it is shown be offside. The penalty decision is reversed and does the keeper get away with his violent intervention?
All of the above have logical answers but all would be equally, if not more, controversial than the situation we have today and everyone will disagree on the format.
Also consider that if a ref/linesman get all (or most) of their video calls wrong they will be subjected to even more abuse and players/managers are likely to use this as amunition for berating other decisions and the referees performance overall.
It’s fine to say let’s start with goal line technology but this is minor and doesn’t even begin to address the main controversy.
Also, I feel you’re wrong to berate those who want to maintain things as they are, After all, its the controversial decisions that feed millions of lines on these Blogs and in the media in general. We thrive on them and all teams get ther ups and downs in this respect.
Thanks for engaging in the debate but I think its a complex issue.
My own view is to leave as is. I don’t have a closed mind to video but someone needs to come up with a formula that works and I’ve yet to see one.
October 29th, 2008 @ 12:07Thanks.
But – are you sure you read it ? Because right from the start, it says: “Play is never stopped (until an offense is found), video review is done simultaneously by an off-field ref, or rather team of refs, assisted by the best possible real-time / replay video evidence. When offenses are determined, they signal to the field ref to stop play. … The field ref never makes decisions, but rather communicates his opinion to the team of video refs; they make the decisions.”
While this may be too radical to begin with, certainly in and around the penalty area this is how it should be done, right from the start. Thus, the ref *never* blows the whistle for a penalty. So your scenario 1 is without object.
Scenario 2 is a real problem. But, and I quote again from my site: “For one thing, this won’t happen very often. I imagine there will be much fewer such cases than there are now wrongly awarded or un-awarded penalties. But when they happen, I’d suggest (as a starting point, I’m not sure it is the best way) that if play hasn’t stopped until the goal was scored, it be disallowed, if it has stopped and resumed, then the goal will count since it is practically another run of play. In any case, even when a goal is disallowed as above, the minutes played count for the total time of play.”
The idea is that such things are too rare to be a serious reason against the video ref. When they happen, they just have to be dealt with in a consistent way. Either always allow goals, or always disallow them, or do as I said above (which I think would be best). Any of these options is fine with me.
Scenario 3 – again, invalid under my proposal. As I said, I also think the off-side rule should be seriously changed. Either give them up completely, or call an off-side only when the action results in something important, such as a goal, a penalty, or a dangerous free kick.
Scenario 4 – right, no problem here, off-side. Again, as for the punishment of the keeper, it should be dealt with in a consistent way. IMO he should be yellow-carded at least.
> All of the above have logical answers but all would be equally, if not more, controversial than the situation we have today and everyone will disagree on the format.
I disagree. There can be nothing more controversial that how things are today. If a reasonable rule is enacted, given some time most people will be OK with it I guess.
> Also consider that if a ref/linesman get all (or most) of their video calls wrong they will be subjected to even more abuse and players/managers are likely to use this as amunition for berating other decisions and the referees performance overall.
Wrong again. Under my proposal, field refs won’t make controversial decisions at all. And ideally, with time, they won’t decide anything at all, they’ll just say their opinion to the panel of video refs. Which hopefully will be right in the vast majority of cases. So we should reasonably expect the field refs to be relieved of most if not all of today’s abuse. Which is normal, since they also won’t any more have to make decisions that, as you said yourself, are madness to be expected from them in the first place.
Anyway, it’s really hard to think field refs could possibly be put in a worse position than they are today, since their wrong decisions are almost instantly seen on TV by everybody, and, worse of all, they still stick. This is probably the most absurd and angering part of all this nonsense. This is what needs to go away, obviously.
> It’s fine to say let’s start with goal line technology but this is minor and doesn’t even begin to address the main controversy.
It does begin. And it would be a step in the right direction. You know, the first step is always the hardest so it’s OK if it’s small. Others can then follow.
> Also, I feel you’re wrong to berate those who want to maintain things as they are, After all, its the controversial decisions that feed millions of lines on these Blogs and in the media in general. We thrive on them and all teams get ther ups and downs in this respect.
OK, here I *strongly* disagree. This is the human face nonsense. The decision making should be as accurate as possible, period. Those media pundits who now, as you say, thrive on the current situation will just have to find another line of work or another theme to thrive on. Sorry but this is the only reasonable way to look at it.
October 29th, 2008 @ 18:45About the “all teams get ther ups and downs in this respect” idea: this is also completely wrong, and also dangerous. For the best example, I ask you to please go again to my site and read the page about the last World Cup. You’ll see that Italy wouldn’t be champions now with correct reffing. It’s a strong statement to make, I know, and I might be wrong but I’m sure enough of it to make it nevertheless. And, while I didn’t analyze league football in detail, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it turned out that, more often than not, the national champions would be different were it not for ref errors. Trust me, I do have a bit of experience on the matter.
October 29th, 2008 @ 19:11FF, I do believe that I may have read the wrong article. The first one I saw was: ‘The football referee errors problem.’ which I assumed was the one…..now if you had inserted a link then I would have had no problem!
I agree with some of your points and not others. Overall, too radical for my liking though.
October 30th, 2008 @ 05:18FF, regarding post 9, the whole premise of what you suggest is flawed. Have you heard of the Butterfly Effect and Chaos Theory?
Simply put, if you interfere with an event within a system everything that follows thereafter will be altered. So to suggest that in a game if one team has a goal disallowed (for good reason) and another decision goes in their opponents favour (correctly) and that the outcome of the game would therefore have ben different, assumes that, the changed decisions aside, all else would have remained the same.
This of course is not true. The game restarts from a different place. Psychology, tactics, substitutions etc. etc. are influernced by the event and, of course, we can never predict what the outcome would have been in a different scenario.
As for: “Trust me, I do have a bit of experience on the matter.”
This is not a science and is not about fact but opinion. Expereince, as you put it, does not come into it. Anyone who follows the game will have an opinion on this issue equally as valid as anyone elses.
But as you feel strongly about it and have some good points to make why not submit an article on the subject or even enter the competition?
October 30th, 2008 @ 12:07> now if you had inserted a link then I would have had no problem!
You’re right, sorry. Bad habit I guess, this is how I did it so far and had no problem, probably because I was talking to people who were more familiar with my site. So, the correct page is
http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm
Have you read it ? Because you said that you have yet to hear a realistic proposal on the matter. Me OTOH, I have yet to hear valid objections to my proposal. So if you have them, I’d really like to know them.
> regarding post 9, the whole premise of what you suggest is flawed. … Simply put, if you interfere with an event within a system everything that follows thereafter will be altered. So to suggest that … the outcome of the game would therefore have been different, assumes that, the changed decisions aside, all else would have remained the same.
Here we go again. If you knew how many times I had this argument.
What you say is correct, of course, and it’s also featured prominently on the home page of the site. And I quote: “Of course, this is not 100% right, it cannot be. Nobody can know what would have happened had the referee decided correctly. In fact, there are cases when one can even say that the result corrected this way is very unlikely to have happened. But we believe 2 things: that our end results are fairer than the official ones; and that our correction scheme is inherently right, that is it goes as far as it can based on what we know.”
So, nothing is very sure, however I believe in most cases the corrected results and rankings are more credible than the official ones. This is especially true for the WCup 2006, when Germany had a clear penalty denied in the semi against Italy, in minute 83 or something. Of course, they might have missed it, or Italy might have scored back. But you and I both know that none of these is very likely, so the result to be reasonably expected is that Germany would have won, so Italy could never have been champs. It’s as simple as that, so this is why I said I’m pretty confident of it.
But I didn’t mean to go into details here about my site. I just wanted to correct your statement that all teams have their ups and downs with respect of ref errors. Which is true, actually, but is misleading. Because it suggests that in the end nobody gains or looses very much from it, which is completely wrong. You cannot know this. The final rankings may be seriously altered, which I’ve seen happen in many tournaments I’ve analyzed. This is what I meant about having experience.
About submitting an article, I don’t know. You mean, about my video ref proposal ? I don’t think so. It’s not the way something like this should be discussed. It’s not something to be read and enjoyed by many, it’s a technical proposal to be reviewed and discussed by the appropriate people.
October 30th, 2008 @ 12:54