The Footie Thread

[Neilds]

Are people actually thinking it would be a good idea to use ex players as match officials? The same players who have spent their careers using all kinds of tricks to win fouls and cheat the officials?

 

[Piece]

When we say ex-players should be involved in VAR, I don't think we're talking about just sending Jenas or Shearer in there with no training. I'd be in favour of recently retired players, who actually have a brain in their heads, being encouraged to train as VAR assistants to help give a little context to the decisions. If they're not going to scrap it in it's current form and go back to the drawing board, that is. I'd be even more in favour of scrapping the VAR booth altogether and simply let the referee use the pitch side monitor if he wants to.

As I said above, ex-players involvement must be predicated on formal official qualifications. Only then will I feel they can add value.

It is interesting that to my knowledge there isn't one ex-player in a referring capacity. Interested to know why that is. I'd wager there is no financial incentive for them.

Until we address the respect and financial issues, it is hard to see how we can solve these apparent refereeing issues. Personally I'd like to see a cultural change at the top from players, managers and pundits towards officials. Doing this will filter down to grassroots, where I see the impact every week. If we are asking VAR, etc. to become more transparent and accountable, then lets have the same from the other side at a minimum.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Just use var for offside decisions, everything else is for the ref on the field to judge . Handball decisions are a bloody disgrace ,one time being given others not in identical scenarios.
If the ball goes out of play it's the linesman to say .
A foul on the pitch ,it's the ref to decide not be slowed down and played twenty times .the fef doesn't get that ,he gets one shot ,he's the ref he decides end of .
I have now donned my tin hat and am scampering for dense cover .

 

[Fade and Die]

Are people actually thinking it would be a good idea to use ex players as match officials? The same players who have spent their careers using all kinds of tricks to win fouls and cheat the officials?

Andy Townsend yesterday on Talksport was advocating just that. One moment he is saying there should be 2 ex pros in every VAR box, the next he is going on about all the “dark arts” that goes on in the box but saying “that’s ok, it’s part and parcel of the game”

Ex players… No thanks.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Are people actually thinking it would be a good idea to use ex players as match officials? The same players who have spent their careers using all kinds of tricks to win fouls and cheat the officials?

A fine example of this was Newcastle v Liverpool VVD sending off.

Shay Given says red card
Jamie Carragher says yellow card
Andtos Townsend says dont know.

3 ex pros with 3 different opinions.

Keep ex players out of VAR,

 

[Orikoru]

Nearly every pundit I've heard, at one point or another, have argued until they are blue in the face something should or should not have been given. They'll even throw lines like "it is a penalty in the laws of the game, but that is never a penalty"

We want VAR to make quicker decisions. Imagine having egos like that in the VAR booth arguing about a decision because they are using their footballing brain, rather than applying the written law.

Furthermore, all pundits have different opinions about big incidents, it isn't like they'll suddenly give us more consistency.

Jamie Carragher spent about 15 minutes last night arguing about the methodology VAR uses in the Jones red card at weekend, how still and slow images make it worse. He then played it in real time to say it doesn't look ad bad (it did look bad in normal speed when I saw it, and was still a potential ankle breaker). He also spent a good 5 minutes trying to explain the mentality of the player, and how he didn't set out to injure the opponent. I don't dudagrre with that, but that doesn't stop it being a red. He then said if they used his thinking, they may still give a red card, though he doesn't think it was. That 15-20 minutes is great evidence that players should be nowhere near VAR.

I've no issue that players and managers are involved with how the law is written, after all if they all abide by those rules then it is good for them to give their point of view from playing the game. Although I suspect this possibly does happen already.

Yes - those are pundits. They are paid to have strong opinions, or even to say things that are controversial or polarising. Also, many of them played 20+ years ago and the game has changed. I'm sure there are other recent ex-pros out there who don't have such emotive responses and could be auditioned and trained as assistant VAR officials.

I didn't say I want the current set of pundits to become VAR officials did I. Your entire post is a straw man argument.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

If we can have technology to decide whether a ball has crossed the goal line, we can have technology to judge offsides. In the early days, people were complaining VAR was too exact and clinical, judging offsides by the width of a toenail.This latest fiasco doesn’t even come that close,even Stevie Wonder would have seen Diaz onside.
I don’t go with the replay arguement, as things do against you and for you, but this instance is so obvious and the admission has backed this up, there has to be an automated technology run offside system put in place.
Take the human out of the equation.

 

[Orikoru]

If we can have technology to decide whether a ball has crossed the goal line, we can have technology to judge offsides. In the early days, people were complaining VAR was too exact and clinical, judging offsides by the width of a toenail.This latest fiasco doesn’t even come that close,even Stevie Wonder would have seen Diaz onside.
I don’t go with the replay arguement, as things do against you and for you, but this instance is so obvious and the admission has backed this up, there has to be an automated technology run offside system put in place.
Take the human out of the equation.

We mentioned it earlier, there was a semi-automated system at the World Cup that seemed to work very well. The only reason I can think of that the Premier League doesn't have this, is because of 'jobs for the boys' mentality and giving all the old refs like Mike Dean and Howard Webb jobs operating VAR or managing the process etc.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes - those are pundits. They are paid to have strong opinions, or even to say things that are controversial or polarising. Also, many of them played 20+ years ago and the game has changed. I'm sure there are other recent ex-pros out there who don't have such emotive responses and could be auditioned and trained as assistant VAR officials.

I didn't say I want the current set of pundits to become VAR officials did I. Your entire post is a straw man argument.

You are talking about ex-footballers. Guys who played professionally at a very high competitive level. Even the footballers that look calm are going to have very strong, emotional responses in the inside. I wouldn't be surprised if it is this element in their character that has helped them get to where they did in the game in the first place.

 

[Orikoru]

You are talking about ex-footballers. Guys who played professionally at a very high competitive level. Even the footballers that look calm are going to have very strong, emotional responses in the inside. I wouldn't be surprised if it is this element in their character that has helped them get to where they did in the game in the first place.

So every footballer has exactly the same personality then? We'll just tar them all with the same brush.

You might as well say that because Shearer and Neville were failed managers, then all ex-footballers make bad managers.

Anyway, more to the point there probably aren't many ex-pros that would even want to do it. Not the sensible ones anyway. Make more money jumping on Sky and fabricating opinions under no pressure at all.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If we can have technology to decide whether a ball has crossed the goal line, we can have technology to judge offsides. In the early days, people were complaining VAR was too exact and clinical, judging offsides by the width of a toenail.This latest fiasco doesn’t even come that close,even Stevie Wonder would have seen Diaz onside.
I don’t go with the replay arguement, as things do against you and for you, but this instance is so obvious and the admission has backed this up, there has to be an automated technology run offside system put in place.
Take the human out of the equation.

I heard Dermot Gallacher on the radio this morning. The problem was not the tech, the problem was human. It all fell down because the facts were not established first off.

The first statement should have been, the goal has been disallowed for offside. Can you check that is correct?

Get that right, everything falls into place.

Instead, what happened was that the VAR official thought the goal had been given, yes, you heard that correctly. He saw the Liverpool player was on side so he told the ref to carry on. The ref heard, check complete, no change in effect, and so kept to the onfield decision.

Human error, an error in protocol. He did say they would be reviewing procedure to make sure this did not happen again. It's something rugby does very well, set out the facts as the ref sees it before going on to the question to the VAR official. Any uncertainty can be clarified during that first discussion.

 

[Orikoru]

I heard Dermot Gallacher on the radio this morning. The problem was not the tech, the problem was human. It all fell down because the facts were not established first off.

The first statement should have been, the goal has been disallowed for offside. Can you check that is correct?

Get that right, everything falls into place.

Instead, what happened was that the VAR official thought the goal had been given, yes, you heard that correctly. He saw the Liverpool player was on side so he told the ref to carry on. The ref heard, check complete, no change in effect, and so kept to the onfield decision.

Human error, an error in protocol. He did say they would be reviewing procedure to make sure this did not happen again. It's something rugby does very well, set out the facts as the ref sees it before going on to the question to the VAR official. Any uncertainty can be clarified during that first discussion.

It makes me laugh though - are the VAR operatives not watching the game like we are? When they described what happened, as above, it just made me think the guy was asleep in his booth and only woke up when they asked him to do something. That's the only way he wouldn't know that a goal wasn't given. He should be sacked for sleeping on the job!

 

[Swango1980]

As I said above, ex-players involvement must be predicated on formal official qualifications. Only then will I feel they can add value.

It is interesting that to my knowledge there isn't one ex-player in a referring capacity. Interested to know why that is. I'd wager there is no financial incentive for them.

Until we address the respect and financial issues, it is hard to see how we can solve these apparent refereeing issues. Personally I'd like to see a cultural change at the top from players, managers and pundits towards officials. Doing this will filter down to grassroots, where I see the impact every week. If we are asking VAR, etc. to become more transparent and accountable, then lets have the same from the other side at a minimum.

I'm not sure that will be a key issue. It may be a barrier to stop the best of the best footballers, who have earned millions, from becoming a referee. There are plenty of ex-footballers who have not saved a huge fortune, and who are not in mega paid jobs after football (in fact, I believe some of them are flat broke). Yet I don't see any of them rushing to become a referee. Other reasons they won't want to do the job:

1. They've spent their lives trying not to get on the wrong side of referees, and getting frustrated when they do. I can't imagine that will ever drive any footballer to want to be a referee in the future.
2. It is simply not a respected job. Even now, when on one hand pundits are crying out for us to respect referees, many of the same pundits and fans are screaming incompetence and corruption as soon as they make a mistake (and that includes decisions based on subjective incidents they just don't agree with).
3. It is hard work. It isn't just a one or 2 day training course and off you go. And a player would start their training 10-15 years after current referees, and would also have 10-15 years less experience at doing that role in a high pressure environment.
4. The moment an ex-player makes a mistake, controversy will be even higher. Let's say Shearer decided to be a referee. He could never referee Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Southampton, Bournemouth or Portsmouth games. He couldn't referee Man Utd games, because if he makes a decision against Utd their fans will immediately accuse him of bias against Utd because or his spat with Roy Keane. I'm sure if he refereed other teams he has played against, fans will recall a semi-controversial incident with him and their club, and again accuse him of bias. Existing referees no doubt support their own clubs, and can't ref them. But it ends there really. With ex-players, who many fans will have vivid memories of, there will be all sorts of accusations flying around. I certainly wouldn't want Keown anywhere near VAR for a Man Utd game (although I think most fans might say the same)

 

[Swango1980]

I heard Dermot Gallacher on the radio this morning. The problem was not the tech, the problem was human. It all fell down because the facts were not established first off.

The first statement should have been, the goal has been disallowed for offside. Can you check that is correct?

Get that right, everything falls into place.

Instead, what happened was that the VAR official thought the goal had been given, yes, you heard that correctly. He saw the Liverpool player was on side so he told the ref to carry on. The ref heard, check complete, no change in effect, and so kept to the onfield decision.

Human error, an error in protocol. He did say they would be reviewing procedure to make sure this did not happen again. It's something rugby does very well, set out the facts as the ref sees it before going on to the question to the VAR official. Any uncertainty can be clarified during that first discussion.

To avoid any confusion at all, they should not be saying things like "correct decision", "all good" or whatever similar. That is crying out for a mistake when they have a memory blank and forget what the initial call was.

The VAR obviously correctly checked to see if it was offside or not. Once done, why can they simply not say "Diaz was onside, goal should be awarded". Therefore, it doesn't matter if the onfield officials gave it or not, the VAR clearly says the goal is the correct call.

 

[Swango1980]

So every footballer has exactly the same personality then? We'll just tar them all with the same brush.

You might as well say that because Shearer and Neville were failed managers, then all ex-footballers make bad managers.

Anyway, more to the point there probably aren't many ex-pros that would even want to do it. Not the sensible ones anyway. Make more money jumping on Sky and fabricating opinions under no pressure at all.

What percentage of footballers actually become pundits? Very few. See my list above as to why I don't think we see ex-footballers rushing to become referees

 

[Orikoru]

What percentage of footballers actually become pundits? Very few. See my list above as to why I don't think we see ex-footballers rushing to become referees

I agree with the list but only in the context of top flight players. Someone from League Two say, won't have made anything like the same money from his career, probably won't be called upon for punditry, and won't have to worry about calls of bias for or against big clubs for whom they never played for or against.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

To avoid any confusion at all, they should not be saying things like "correct decision", "all good" or whatever similar. That is crying out for a mistake when they have a memory blank and forget what the initial call was.

The VAR obviously correctly checked to see if it was offside or not. Once done, why can they simply not say "Diaz was onside, goal should be awarded". Therefore, it doesn't matter if the onfield officials gave it or not, the VAR clearly says the goal is the correct call.

Agreed, it's a protocol issue.

I think someone said a few pages ago that a ref from Rugby League was helping out, trying to make the communication side better. They need to be asking the right questions, making things clear from the outset what they are looking for. Don't let assumptions come into the equation.

Hopefully, improvements will be made following this.

 

[GB72]

They were saying on Talksport this morning that one of the biggest things was that rugby refs were miked up so as people can at least hear what they are deciding on and how the decision was reached but that the problem in football is the amount of swearing and abuse on and off the pitch that makes that almost a non starter.

 

[Piece]

I'm not sure that will be a key issue. It may be a barrier to stop the best of the best footballers, who have earned millions, from becoming a referee. There are plenty of ex-footballers who have not saved a huge fortune, and who are not in mega paid jobs after football (in fact, I believe some of them are flat broke). Yet I don't see any of them rushing to become a referee. Other reasons they won't want to do the job:

1. They've spent their lives trying not to get on the wrong side of referees, and getting frustrated when they do. I can't imagine that will ever drive any footballer to want to be a referee in the future.
2. It is simply not a respected job. Even now, when on one hand pundits are crying out for us to respect referees, many of the same pundits and fans are screaming incompetence and corruption as soon as they make a mistake (and that includes decisions based on subjective incidents they just don't agree with).
3. It is hard work. It isn't just a one or 2 day training course and off you go. And a player would start their training 10-15 years after current referees, and would also have 10-15 years less experience at doing that role in a high pressure environment.
4. The moment an ex-player makes a mistake, controversy will be even higher. Let's say Shearer decided to be a referee. He could never referee Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Southampton, Bournemouth or Portsmouth games. He couldn't referee Man Utd games, because if he makes a decision against Utd their fans will immediately accuse him of bias against Utd because or his spat with Roy Keane. I'm sure if he refereed other teams he has played against, fans will recall a semi-controversial incident with him and their club, and again accuse him of bias. Existing referees no doubt support their own clubs, and can't ref them. But it ends there really. With ex-players, who many fans will have vivid memories of, there will be all sorts of accusations flying around. I certainly wouldn't want Keown anywhere near VAR for a Man Utd game (although I think most fans might say the same)

Point 4 is an excellent one. Perhaps the strongest reason why ex-players shouldn't be involved in VAR altogether.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

They were saying on Talksport this morning that one of the biggest things was that rugby refs were miked up so as people can at least hear what they are deciding on and how the decision was reached but that the problem in football is the amount of swearing and abuse on and off the pitch that makes that almost a non starter.

Howard Webb wants it to happen but IFAB, world body, will not let them do it. The PL refs wants it to happen.

I suspect the hope is that when people, sponsors etc start hearing how the players speak to refs it may cause them to clean up their act. They also want the discussion process to be more transparent so that people can understand why decisions have been made, as works so well in rugby.