Football 2015/16

[kaosmark2]

There could be any number of reasons why a ref that was identified as one of the better options failed to justify that selection. Most likely being that the pressure got to them, between the crowd, the in-depth TV analysis, players haranguing them. If a ref consistently performs badly the selection committee should accept (not necessarily publicly) that they made an error and pick someone else they were considering.

 

That said, Neil's ridiculing of a reward/punishment system is completely justified. I doubt motivation or understanding of the rules are problems. Reward/punishment is only a solution for bad performance if it's affected by lack of desire. More and better support for referees is the solution, whether in the form of extra officials, out-of-public training/assessment/advice/etc., changes to post-match decisions or technology (which in 90% of forms I oppose).

[eFestivals]

I think the number of terrible referring decisions could and should be reduced

so you keep on saying. What you never say is how it will happen.

Throwing a choccie as a reward doesn't improve the honest judgements made before that choccie, nor does it change honest judgements made after that choccie ... unless people only make honest judgements when a reward is involved (which they don't).

Denying a choccie as a punishment doesn't improve honest judgements either.

If the judgements are honest, the only improvement can come from better-identifying the people who should make the honest judgements - which is nothing to do with retrospective punishments, or better rewards for good judgements made.

 

It's about better identification before appointment into a pro-ref role.

[eFestivals]

There could be any number of reasons why a ref that was identified as one of the better options failed to justify that selection. Most likely being that the pressure got to them, between the crowd, the in-depth TV analysis, players haranguing them. If a ref consistently performs badly the selection committee should accept (not necessarily publicly) that they made an error and pick someone else they were considering.

 

all of those things exist at the levels below the Prem, so they shouldn't really be a factor (tho I accept that in some instances that little extra pressure might cause someone to crumble).

It's still ultimately about better initial identification tho, and not action after appointment.

 

That said, Neil's ridiculing of a reward/punishment system is completely justified. I doubt motivation or understanding of the rules are problems. Reward/punishment is only a solution for bad performance if it's affected by lack of desire. More and better support for referees is the solution, whether in the form of extra officials, out-of-public training/assessment/advice/etc., changes to post-match decisions or technology (which in 90% of forms I oppose).

Yep.

 

Making assessments about a ref's errors public will not make anything better. It would just allow fans to get on that refs back with the justification of that public assessment, which is likely to lead to worse decisions and not better ones. The ref needs to be thinking about the game, not about how the crowd will react to his decisions.

 

There's lots of theoretical ways to improve things but nothing I can see in the real world (other than video refs, which i'm 100% against). Anything which might be an improvement has an associated flaw which doesn't move things to anywhere better than what we have now.

[fred quimby]

Spot on!

There's only a better system if there's better refs for that better system ...

 

Surely a better system could improve refs and therefore make better refs

[TheGayTent]

I've asked you to demonstrate how your take on things would lead to better reffing.

Only better refs, identified as better before any cock-up can lead to better reffing.

Still not getting it are you.

A referee may be appointed as at the time of appointment he may be one of the better referees. In 3 years time he may still be one of the better referees. Equally he may now be way way down the list.

Currently, even if he's way down the list, he keeps his job at the elite level. Basically, he only gets replaced when he retires.

Why? Because it's a closed shop, with current refs kept in place by their mates the recently retired refs.

How? Because there's no visibility or accountability.

[eFestivals]

Surely a better system could improve refs and therefore make better refs

 

Yep, but rewards and punishments are not that better system unless the judgements made now are not honest.

 

Any person can only offer their honest judgement of an event. Rewards and punishments do not alter a person's honest judgement, they corrupt that judgement.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

so you think refs are making bad decisions because no one is giving them a choccie as a reward.

That's not what I'm saying and you're still not understanding how it works currently are you...

I think there are issues with how they're currently chosen. However, the biggest issue is that there's zero motivation for an individual to stay at the same level once they're in, let alone improve.

They aren't challenged, they stagnate, they become complacent.

Referees on the elite panel are basically rewarded solely on longevity. Not because they're the best referee on the elite panel.

Edited August 18, 2015 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

Yep.

Making assessments about a ref's errors public will not make anything better. It would just allow fans to get on that refs back with the justification of that public assessment, which is likely to lead to worse decisions and not better ones. The ref needs to be thinking about the game, not about how the crowd will react to his decisions.

This is the wrong way around. All of the above happens anyway.

Plus, it's actually worse now than it would be because no one has any confidence anything will change or improve.

The PGMOL won't do anything until they're answerable to anyone other than their own mates.

[eFestivals]

Still not getting it are you.

A referee may be appointed as at the time of appointment he may be one of the better referees. In 3 years time he may still be one of the better referees. Equally he may now be way way down the list.

Currently, even if he's way down the list, he keeps his job at the elite level. Basically, he only gets replaced when he retires.

Why? Because it's a closed shop, with current refs kept in place by their mates the recently retired refs.

How? Because there's no visibility or accountability.

 

You're at last presenting a better argument, tho it's a different argument.

 

Rewards and punishments do not improve honest judgement, they corrupt honest judgement.

 

Public accountability has the same corrupting effect. Refs would be reffing to to the crowds prejudices and wants and not the games happenings. Reffing is about the rules and not about democracy.

 

As I've already said at least twice, pro-reffing comes with built-in flaws - such as the need for on-going stable employment.

 

If you take away that stable employment footie will inevitably lose some some of the better refs who will decide to not become that top ref because of the precarious employment.

 

(remember, no one becomes a ref on the chance of that employment, the chances are far too remote).

 

If you take away the employment altogether then you lose the fitness and focus that was the justification for pro-refs in the first place,.

 

Whichever angle you go with, the improvement on one part comes with associated flaws that then negate that improvement.

 

You're sounding like a Jeremy Corbyn fanatic, a snipper, or a Syriza supporter TGT - who wants all the nice things but doesn't want to think things thru properly to realise that it's not possible to have just the nice parts without the associated flaws.

Edited August 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

You're at last presenting a better argument, tho it's a different argument.

No it isn't a different argument. It's the same argument.

It's just a different argument to the one you made up that I was making...and I've had to spend the last three hours pointing out that you were making up the argument that I wasn't making...

...despite the many times you said I said it...I didn't once suggest a new system whereby you or I judged a referee rather than an expert !

[eFestivals]

That's not what I'm saying and you're still not understanding how it works currently are you...

Oh look, again ... only the stupid can have a different p[oint of view to TGT, because if they have a different point of view it's because they can't/don't understand it.

 

They aren't challenged, they stagnate, they become complacent.

Referees on the elite panel are basically rewarded solely on longevity. Not because they're the best referee on the elite panel.

And if they were challenged via the punishments/rewards you advocate?

The only thing challenged is their integrity. They think about those punishments/rewards and not the game; they cease to make honest judgements.

 

You cannot make an honest judgement more honest than it already is.

 

The effort a ref might put in a different thing entirely - but it's also not a complaint that anyone makes about refs at the top level (I've never heard one, anyway).

 

The problem is that they sometimes get those honest judgements wrong in the opinion of an observer - and it's either because they didn't see enough of the incident to make the correct call, or because they judged that incident differently to how the complainee has.

(unless it's because of corruption, but no one here is saying that).

 

Last night 'wrong' decisions? Were they actually wrong? There *was* a foul, and there was a player who can be judged as not interfering. They're grey areas, judgement calls on whether the line of enough-foul-play has been crossed or not.

 

Our opinions might differ with how that ref called it, but a big part of that is down to us having the luxury of replays - as many of them as we'd like.

 

I'd say the quality of reffing is still improving, despite the errors such as last night. It happens, and they tend to even out (if not in a season, then definitely over a greater time).

[ThomThomDrum]

 

 

The threat of some form of punishment can only make their reffing better if they're currently CHOOSING to do a worse job than they might otherwise do with the threat of sanctions hanging over them.

 

Which immediately shows that idea up as one that's rather daft, unless you do think refs are choosing to do a bad job at the mo?

 

 

Not exactly. It doesnt mean they choose to make poor decisions/do a bad job in a very deliberate sense, but if there is no motivation for them to improve their performance other than personal then we are not ensuring we get the best out of the refs. Right now refs can potentially be lazy and nothing will happen to them.

 

What would happen in most industries in which talent is hired but not monitored? There is a reason why this does not happen in "most real life jobs". Would self policing insure that talent maintains at a high level of work and even improves upon itself? Nah...............plenty of folk would see a reduction in their output if they were not under proper management and monitoring. Just look at how the civil service works.

[TheGayTent]

It isn't a question of integrity it's one of competence.

The current system (which by the way is a matter of fact not opinion) is not set up in a way which encourages competency improvement. It's set up to encourage complacency and rewards nothing other than longevity.

[eFestivals]

This is the wrong way around. All of the above happens anyway.

it might happen, but it happens only because of the unavoidable environment the game is played within. It's not being contrived from on the pitch, or by a system of the game itself.

Giving the crowd undeniably-justified reasons to get at the ref isn't going to improve that ref's performance.

 

Plus, it's actually worse now than it would be because no one has any confidence anything will change or improve.

The PGMOL won't do anything until they're answerable to anyone other than their own mates.

I've just been digging around trying to find some pretty statistics and failed, but I did find this snippet which amused me, and which i'm sure you'll love.....

 

a 2007 academic study reached the conclusion that home teams received less favouritism from the referee when fans were separated from the pitch by an athletics track and therefore unable to exert so much psychological pressure on the person making the decisions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9379989.stm

[TheGayTent]

It already happens to an extent anyway. See cards being overturned.

Sent it to Gold and Sullivan!

[eFestivals]

Not exactly. It doesnt mean they choose to make poor decisions/do a bad job in a very deliberate sense, but if there is no motivation for them to improve their performance other than personal then we are not ensuring we get the best out of the refs. Right now refs can potentially be lazy and nothing will happen to them.

 

That sounds great as a soundbite and as that it makes perfect sense.

(I'm sure I've even heard something like that from David Brett. )

But when you start to look at application, you realise it only has a meaningful purpose if it's possible to improve a person's honesty or judgement*. Do you think it is?

 

('honesty' which is already 100% honest [any unconscious bias is something different], and 'judgement' about what is enough-foul-play or not for someone who is already exceedingly well versed in the game)

 

If we take last night, I'd say the ref made two mistakes, but honest mistakes for whatever reasons. I'm also confident that if he gave those reasons publicly those reasons would stand up to scrutiny even if from our better views we still disagree with the calls he made.

 

I don't see how any punishment/reward system, or public vilification, would improve him over those decisions.

 

It's possible that he might make a different decision in one or both cases if there were those systems, but that would be because he'd been 'got at' and not because that was his honest call. We already know what his honest call was.

 

And ... one man's and one ref's heinous crime is another person's and other ref's minor offence, and we get a balance by that too. Some people say Coq should have been sent off on Sunday via a strict application of the rules, and some say the actual fouls weren't so bad as to deserve the the rules being fully applied - and next week it'll be another player and a different set of offences.

 

If we get too analytical about things where there is not arbitrary right and wrong, these judgements calls, we focus in on one to the detriment of the rest and spoil the balance of the game.

 

Remember, the game we've come to love is the game with these flaws. They've provided us all with a day's worth of discussion/entertainment today, waaay longer than the game itself. Be careful what you wish for, as there's always unintended consequences.

 

 

What would happen in most industries in which talent is hired but not monitored? There is a reason why this does not happen in "most real life jobs". Would self policing insure that talent maintains at a high level of work and even improves upon itself? Nah...............plenty of folk would see a reduction in their output if they were not under proper management and monitoring. Just look at how the civil service works.

Whoa! There's exactly this sort of self-policing in all jobs. Your boss is responsible for his unit which he self-polices. He tells the rest of the world that all is well, no matter what the real circumstances. The real circumstances the world doesn't always find out about.

 

From that article i linked to above, it looks like Prem refs stand up pretty well overall. They've definitely improved a lot over the time I've been watching footie and I'm not seeing standards g9oing backwards now either.

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

It already happens to an extent anyway. See cards being overturned.

 

that's where a ref hasn't seen something, so it's not questioning a ref's judgement.

[TheGayTent]

that's where a ref hasn't seen something, so it's not questioning a ref's judgement.

No it isn't.

So you're wrong. Again.

[eFestivals]

No it isn't.

So you're wrong. Again.

 

tell me again that pro-refs aren't assessed for every game.

 

My apologies, I'm wrong with that.

[TheGayTent]

tell me again that pro-refs aren't assessed for every game.

My apologies, I'm wrong with that.

1) I didn't say that.

2) Accepting that you're wrong on cards being over turned then?

[eFestivals]

1) I didn't say that.

2) Accepting that you're wrong on cards being over turned then?

1. of course not.

 

2. yep, tho that's actually a ruling about not-just punishment and not a ruling about the ref's decision (tho it has that effect, of course).

[TheGayTent]

So as expected, now Soldado has gone Tottenham have made an offer for Berahino.

Not sure what to make of it really, can't see how he fits in the side really but guess he makes the squad depth greater.

[Gucci Piggy]

He'll play when it becomes apparent Harry Kane's gonna score less than 10 goals this season.

[DomDom1984]

Hey! Football!

I'm going to the Celtic game. Looking forward to it. My first trip to Parkhead.

[Gucci Piggy]

How did United and, in particular, Depay do tonight? Saw his goals and the assist and they were all beautiful, but haven't seen any more than that.