A&H

Why tolerate it?

DB

Referee, Observer, Mentor, Player
Level 5 Referee
https://www.premierleague.com/news/65240

I've got something that is bothering me, I'd appreciate some feedback from the the Level 4's and above if that's okay.

I've attached a document straight from the Premier League website which focuses on the abuse towards referees.

Now, in my games if someone shows dissent towards me, I will sanction them according to the severity of their actions.

I've been to various games this season as an assistant and as a spectator and I've seen a ridiculous amount of abuse given to the officials from the players and the technical areas with little or no action from the referee. It is no secret that the higher you go up, the more tolerant you must become. For example, if I was called something that I found offensive in one of my games, I would be sending the player for an early shower or removing the person from the technical area. But, senior referees say that if you're going to send someone off for that, you will not go far at all.

Why is that? This is what I'm struggling to get my head around. Why do you allow players in the SWPL and above to talk to you like utter crap and take little or no action? I'm struggling to understand why it is tolerated more the higher you go? The guidelines in my photo, aswell as the Lotg make it clear that dissent won't be tolerated. The Respect & Behaviour meetings which I was part of in the summer said that abuse will be dealt with by the refeees, dissent will be dealt with... but it's not happening.

Surely if at that level and above referees actually started cautioning and sending players off for offinabus, it would reduce the amount of abuse you will be subjected to? Yes, it wouldn't happen over night but in the long run, they will soon get it into their heads that they mustn't do what they do to officials and that they won't get away with it.

This is why I won't go far as a referee, I won't tolerate anyone talking to me in a rude or an aggressive manner. I'm not just going to take it because I have to. I don't speak to them in an aggressive or a rude manner, I certainly don't expect the, to do the same.

Now, I am quite good at recognising when people are frustrated. Usually, their outburst immediately follows a blow of the whistle; a wrong decision (in their opinion) and I can accept that within a second, they may react. I deal with that. But when players run half way across the pitch to confront you, or they have a pop moments after the whistle is blown (they've had time to think), why is it accepted and why do referees feel they have to "just deal with it and accept it".

I fully understand the concept of club marks. I think if they weren't a factor in the promotion ladder, particularly at level 4, then the players and technical area wouldn't get away with half of what they do.

I'm just trying to understand why you are expected to take it on the chin the higher up you go.
 
The Referee Store
Short answer.....money.

Once you enter the arena where players are being paid to play...the clubs don't want their players sent off and suspended for what they view has trivial offences, dissent, OFFINABUS, because they are simply "part of the game"........

Of course this is perpetuated by the acceptance of referees climbing the greasy pole of promotion who meekly accept the status quo and tolerate the abuse in the name of progression. Of course, the main fault lies with the FA for allowing this situation to exist......if they instructed their observers to have a zero tolerance approach towards referees who failed to deal with these offences firmly, then the referees would have no choice but to comply in order to get good observations......remove club marks totally from any promotion scheme, so the referee doesn't have to worry about what they are going to score them......then maybe things might move in a positive direction.

But it will never happen.
 
They are my thoughts also Padders. And that is why I will never get above a level 4.
 
The problem is at the higher levels it is very cut throat. If you're performing just average you won't go anywhere, start making controversial decisions and you'll get demoted. I know of one level 3 who was a good referee but took a zero tolerance approach to dissent and language, he got demoted to level 4 and then again to 5 the year after. That wasn't because of his refereeing ability, but rather he was upsetting everyone. It's easier at level 5 as you can't be demoted.

And it isn't just club marks, observers also operate on the "no surprises" mantra, so if they see a player sent off for something that only the referee heard they aren't always going to be supportive. Especially if that referee has developed a reputation, and even more especially if his approach causes any kind of problems with match control.
 
The problem is at the higher levels it is very cut throat. If you're performing just average you won't go anywhere, start making controversial decisions and you'll get demoted. I know of one level 3 who was a good referee but took a zero tolerance approach to dissent and language, he got demoted to level 4 and then again to 5 the year after. That wasn't because of his refereeing ability, but rather he was upsetting everyone. It's easier at level 5 as you can't be demoted.

And it isn't just club marks, observers also operate on the "no surprises" mantra, so if they see a player sent off for something that only the referee heard they aren't always going to be supportive. Especially if that referee has developed a reputation, and even more especially if his approach causes any kind of problems with match control.

But if the observers were instructed to support the referee's zero tolerance approach rather than mark them down for it.........see how that could work?
 
But if the observers were instructed to support the referee's zero tolerance approach rather than mark them down for it.........see how that could work?

Probably, but it won't happen. Money rules, TV coverage rules, and if a crackdown led to loads of red cards the FA and PGMOL would be told in no uncertain terms to sort it out.

Plus at lower levels (2, 3 and 4) club marks still play a big part in whether a referee is promoted, stays where he is or demoted. So it would need all referees to do it collectively, otherwise those small number doing it would be sticking their heads above the parapet to have it well and truly shot off.
 
Probably, but it won't happen. Money rules, TV coverage rules, and if a crackdown led to loads of red cards the FA and PGMOL would be told in no uncertain terms to sort it out.

Plus at lower levels (2, 3 and 4) club marks still play a big part in whether a referee is promoted, stays where he is or demoted. So it would need all referees to do it collectively, otherwise those small number doing it would be sticking their heads above the parapet to have it well and truly shot off.

Which is why club marks should be abolished!
 
To be fair, a majority of refs at L7, L6 and L5 are too cowardly to sanction diisent and OFFINABUS and they have f*k all to lose!

Bit condescending that Duesex :confused:,.... It actually looks like levels above those mentioned its actually in the 'Expected to ignore' actions 'Or Else' section.... If i'm a crap ref for acting on it then at least i'll sleep at night that i'm doing my job properly...
 
Bit condescending that Duesex :confused:,.... It actually looks like levels above those mentioned its actually in the 'Expected to ignore' actions 'Or Else' section.... If i'm a crap ref for acting on it then at least i'll sleep at night that i'm doing my job properly...
He actually makes a good point because they see the TV boys and girls tolerate it, so they follow suit.
 
Which is why club marks should be abolished!

I agree with this in principle but it's not realistic. Leagues have to have some sense of which referees are completely hopeless and which can cope. In the absence of any money for observers club marks are the least worst option.

I dismissed the home team player/manager yesterday. There is no question at all that he deserved both his yellows. I doubt I'll get good marks from that team. Whatever.
 
Don't know about anyone else, but I think club marks should be scrapped. If you have a fairly confident game, but one of the sides aren't happy with your decisions, but they were the right ones. You're going to get lower marks aren't you? To me, I just don't think they're fair.
 
I agree with this in principle but it's not realistic. Leagues have to have some sense of which referees are completely hopeless and which can cope. In the absence of any money for observers club marks are the least worst option.

I dismissed the home team player/manager yesterday. There is no question at all that he deserved both his yellows. I doubt I'll get good marks from that team. Whatever.

Why is it not realistic? Clubs give an arbitrary number that may or may not relate to performance, and what about the crap refs that get a higher mark than they deserve because the club can't be bothered to write the report necessary for marks blow sixty?
 
To me, I just don't think they're fair.

You're right. They're not fair. If you can think of a better way of assessing referees' performances that doesn't involve spending any money the grassroots footballing fraternity are all ears.
 
So we percivere with a completely bent system that encourages referees to completely ignore its 150 year old bible or else the paymasters will take the hump... Boo Hoo

We then punish good, honest, referees that choose to follow the letter of the law.... Wow.... We've really got that one right haven't we!!!
 
How about each Premier League club has to "donate" £1m each season towards Grassroots development......that would give a £20m+ pot each season that could be used towards funding more observers etc.
 
I agree with you SF but there's no point in complaining about it unless we can come up with a better system (that also costs nothing).
 
I've mentioned before that the way club marks are currently scored I disagree with. Clubs should be required to score across a number of different areas, which then give a total, rather than just one arbitrary number. Not to the same level as an observer would break the performance down, but maybe half a dozen headline sections each scored out of 10 - e.g. match control, communication, positioning...
 
Back
Top