|
Post by geeko on Jan 8, 2007 15:20:28 GMT 1
How do you clarify it though? Refereeing is all about opinions.
How do you clarify what is a foul?
At the end of the day it is down to the referee's descretion. If he/she thinks the pitch is playable then it is playable. The referee must take into consideration the safety of his team, both teams on the park and that of the viewing public. It is not the referee's responsibility to babysit the pitch for future games. As long as it is safe for that 90 minutes, that is the referee's sole concern.
I also have an issue with Skip's quote "Its utter nonsense there must be some sort of accountability because is the only way the refereeing and the quality of game will improve."
To get to referee at UCL level takes a lot of hard work and commitment, a majority of it at the expense of the official. It is not a free ticket to get there. Club marks, assessments and fitness test are crieteria that need to be met to be able to referee at this level. If these aren't met you can't referee it, simple as. In a world where we are losing thousands of referees every year for one reason or another I would prefer it if you came up with some realistic solutions rather than one inane comment that has no real substance and is rather unhelpful.
|
|
trin1000
Turned Up For Training
Posts: 17
|
Post by trin1000 on Jan 8, 2007 15:27:37 GMT 1
it would certainly make sense for the rules as to what conditions would suggest an abandonment to be clearly set out in the rules, perferably by the FA, but even if it just on a local scale..... at the end of the day it has to fall to one person to make the call which should be the ref as they are impartial *cough*, i guess you just have to hope that you get a ref with a brain and that all so evasive common sense. I can only comment on the raunds game as its the one i saw that day, but even if the match wasnt abandoned on the grounds of the pitch becoming unplayable, it certainly should have been called off in the interests of player safety. I also see in the rules of the game, the ref isnt liable for any players injury let alone damage to the pitch... even if it due to their imcompetence!
|
|
|
Post by love2hateme on Jan 8, 2007 15:29:39 GMT 1
You are dead right skip, the trouble is that us refs dont all sing from the same sheet. A couple of seasons ago i had a game at bourne on boxing day, it was freezing and that morning a referee rang me to say the pitch was playable for a 1pm k.o only for me to arrive at the gound and parts of the pitch were frozen which in my veiw was not safe for players or officails to run round on, So i know what you mean and why fans/players etc... get annoyed at the different veiws given by different refs....belive me its a pain in the rear end.
|
|
|
Post by buggalugs on Jan 8, 2007 16:59:51 GMT 1
Who do you think should call the games off then? Groundsmen ? managers ? If you left it to people at the club the games would be called off when the pitch is playable and No I would not want ground persons or managers calling games off for the same reasons you gave. In December, Ford Sports' BAR MANAGER called off the fixture against Northampton Spencer. There was no running water in the club house but the pitch was playable. The following week, someone on Ford Sports' committee called the game off due to fog, which IN THEIR opinion (not a referee's) meant the game could not go ahead. Is this the kind of thing you mean?
|
|
|
Post by pyromaniac on Jan 8, 2007 19:14:45 GMT 1
I think a league referee or FA official should be responsible for calling off matches. Whilst this person may ask for the groundsman or club officials' views/opinions, in my opinion it should never be left entirely to a club official to call off the match.
Allowing club officials to call off matches can lead to them abusing their power, so to speak. It's very easy to invent (or be accused of inventing) a reason why a match cannot be played, when the real reason might be something different (eg. not having the preferred players available).
|
|
|
Post by bazzaboy on Jan 8, 2007 19:19:04 GMT 1
hi gents I have been reading up on this problem of weather a match is playable or unplayable. There is nothing in the laws of association football that is a guideline to referee's playing or not playing games due to pitch suitability. This book is the referee's bible. But in the united counties league hand book under rule 15.2 it says"the referee shall have the power to decide as to the fitness of the ground in all matches and his decision is final"it also says, "no club shall postpone a Competition match on account of the apparent state of the ground." "In the event that such circumstances prevail,clubs should comply with procedures provided for by this rule and in the document published by the FA." "Recommended procedure for the guidance of clubs and referees in determining the suitability of grounds in adverse weather conditions." So it's basically down to each individual referee's discretion as was said from the start.
|
|
|
Post by nextseason on Jan 8, 2007 19:23:47 GMT 1
I am sure that the rules state that a level 5 ref or above,are sole judges on ground fitness, i would have thought that they would also take groundsman's advice etc,also to get to that level a ref would have some experience of the situation, but it varies from person to person, it would also help if some referees were more approachable and not the gods some of them think they are.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 8, 2007 20:10:06 GMT 1
This issue as provoked a healthy debate which is good for all of us.
The overall picture I get is there appears to be little or no clarity.
Therefore I now ask the question should there be, do we need a set of guides-line to cover all known or possible eventualities?
So at least the referee can use under guidance x, for example, this game is abandoned and also club officials can say to the referee will under guideline x should this game be abandoned? Hopefully, we are all singing from the same song sheet. I know some morons will abuse it, but at least we all know where we stand which is what I'm after!
Geeko quote - To get to referee at UCL level takes a lot of hard work and commitment, a majority of it at the expense of the official. It is not a free ticket to get there. Club marks, assessments and fitness test are crieteria that need to be met to be able to referee at this level. If these aren't met you can't referee it, simple as. In a world where we are losing thousands of referees every year for one reason or another I would prefer it if you came up with some realistic solutions rather than one inane comment that has no real substance and is rather unhelpful.
Geeko.
I find this comment a little bit dramatic there are a number of reasons why we are losing referees. The main ones are the ambiguous laws of the games and interpretation and the historical abuse handed down to refs time immoral and the FA lack of balls to deal with it.
As I've already said Geeko I'm not ref bashing!
|
|
|
Post by maninthemiddle on Jan 8, 2007 20:44:39 GMT 1
OK, with all due respect to everybody who has posted on this apparently highly controversial issue, I think we are all guilty of over complicating the matter.
Three questions a referee will ask himself.....
1) Is the pitch safe to play on? e.g standing water posing a potential danger 2) Will the game be totally farcical? e.g. ball holding up too much 3) Will the spectators see the game? e.g.is it too foggy
These 3 questions will cover 99% of postponements/abandonments.
UCL rules only allow the calling off of a game by an official of level 5 or above. The Ford Sports game mentioned earlier wasn't called off by a club official, it was called off by a very experienced level 4 referee. I know this because I was the appointed match referee and I got the call from him when he was standing in the centre circle telling me he couldn't see the goals!
|
|
|
Post by buggalugs on Jan 8, 2007 21:04:01 GMT 1
The Ford Sports game mentioned earlier wasn't called off by a club official, it was called off by a very experienced level 4 referee. I know this because I was the appointed match referee and I got the call from him when he was standing in the centre circle telling me he couldn't see the goals! I stand corrected! But for the other cancellation, is their bar manager a Level 4 referee as well?
|
|
|
Post by maninthemiddle on Jan 9, 2007 21:06:44 GMT 1
Admittedly it's unlikely that the Ford Sports bar manager is a level 4 official! But when you've got no running water to the entire site, that's one of those few occasions when it falls outside the remit of the match referee to postpone the game. I would imagine the club contacted the league and took their advice. You wouldn't call a referee in to inspect the water supply!
I would suggest this situation falls in the 1% of postponements mentioned earlier in this thread.
|
|
swansong
Turned Up For Training
Posts: 27
|
Post by swansong on Jan 10, 2007 17:11:53 GMT 1
Yes, it was an interesting debate but all it told us is that it's up to the guy in the middle and however bewildering the decision may seem, however unsafe the pitch obviously is to play on and however unlikely it is you'll get to see a decent game if he says play you play. You see I was the one at the Newport v wellingborough game who was vocal about whether that game should be played. I don't care if I'm accused of sour grapes cos the guy with me (Grassroots) can testify that I was questioning the pitch before it started. I was looking forward to that game, I wanted it to be played but not in conditions that turned it into a farce! I know that the ref has no responsibility for protecting the pitch, the point is however the fact that Newports next Saturday game was cancelled in midweek due to "a waterlogged pitch" indicates what state that pitch was in during the Wellingborough game. It was unplayable! Wellingborough probably would still have beaten us on a playable pitch, we'll never know now will we? Fair play to Wellingborough, they had the ability to adapt their game to the conditions, ie you poke the ball behind defenders who can't turn without risking a broken ankle and they could've had eight but for some good goal keeping. What if they'd been playing another top team who could adapt their game like wise? Then the score would've been something like 8-6 and people would be asking questions! I could go on for ever so I'll just say it isn't good enough to say "it's the same for both sides". It would be the same for both sides on sheet ice or with razor blades on the pitch but you wouldn't do it would you?
|
|
|
Post by maninthemiddle on Jan 11, 2007 3:58:04 GMT 1
Agree with every point you make Swansong, but what you are questioning is the ability of that particular referee to apply the points mentioned above, which is an entirely new debate!
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Jan 11, 2007 15:34:10 GMT 1
I stand corrected! But for the other cancellation, is their bar manager a Level 4 referee as well? Hey buggalugs, see you woken up to have another pop at Ford Sports. If it wasn't for them you wouldn't have anything to post about. ;D
|
|
|
Post by buggalugs on Jan 11, 2007 16:06:10 GMT 1
Not really, just citing it as a specific example of what "dodgyref" was talking about
"at the end of the day its down to the referee to decide if a game should be called off not groundsmen, managers or players." I believe were his comments.
After all, the thread has managed three pages all by itself, so it couldn't really be me having a "pop".
But thanks for your comments, it takes the whole spectrum of opinion to make a forum.
|
|