Why tolerate it?

[Paul_S]

No problem with a decision being questioned....providing it is done in the right way......"forcefully" will normally result in a caution....because "forcefully" normally involves a degree of attempted intimidation towards the referee in the forlorn hope that they will change their mind.

Your cards are a way to control players......don't be scared of using them.

Far too much is dismissed as "frustration" by referees who are too weak, too lazy or too indoctrinated to correctly identify it as dissent or OFFINABUS and actually do something about it.
Generally, ex players are some of the worst culprits.....because they did it themselves, therefore they mistakenly believe that it is acceptable and will find any excuse to call it "frustration" rather than just dealing with it properly.

In the end we're probably agreeing with each other. I would bet that my proportion of cards for dissent is high. In my last game I booked one for having a go at the assistant, another for a snarky comment after the half-time whistle and sent the manager off - 7.5 from the assessor for AoL and Match Control. I've also stopped the game more than once this season to caution and IDFK.

I guess my comment is really wrapped up in this strike business. Yes, genuine abuse is unacceptable, but the tone of that whole debate sometimes suggests that we shouldn't take any responsibility for ourselves. I mean that both in terms of using the tools that we already have available (as you say, not finding excuses), but also by accepting that it isn't a job for the thin-skinned. Another reason I can accept frustration is because I know I make mistakes!

And I brought up the rugby comparison just because it's a pet-hate of mine - if players became obedient man-babies then we really would lose something.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but if people are being surrounded with any regularity (probably more than once a game) they really are doing something wrong. I've certainly never been pushed, and as soon as someone put their hands on me they'd be off.

Only slightly. Mass confrontations of referees is becoming common at many levels below the televised The only exaggeration was the pushing - but it's only a slight exaggeration given there is a lot of manhandling at the top levels, and players firmly stopping a referee's movement.

. However, it's not realistic to expect our decisions never to be questioned - often forcefully - so if someone isn't capable of accepting that and of coming with ways to control players then they shouldn't pick up a whistle.

Well, Given that officials in many other sports don't expect their decisions to be questioned it clearly is a realistic expectation, it's just that changing the culture is in the 'too hard' basket.

Two, what the heck is 'forceful questioning'? Sounds like a euphemism for dissent. And it's those sorts of euphemisms and downplaying that lead to the situation we're in.

 

[Paul_S]

Only slightly. Mass confrontations of referees is becoming common at many levels below the televised The only exaggeration was the pushing - but it's only a slight exaggeration given there is a lot of manhandling at the top levels, and players firmly stopping a referee's movement.

Maybe we're at crossed purposes on how you'd define a mass confrontation of referees, but I genuinely don't see it that often (as a ref, assistant or going to watch local games).

Well, Given that officials in many other sports don't expect their decisions to be questioned it clearly is a realistic expectation, it's just that changing the culture is in the 'too hard' basket.

Two, what the heck is 'forceful questioning'? Sounds like a euphemism for dissent. And it's those sorts of euphemisms and downplaying that lead to the situation we're in.

Of course it happens in other sports - tennis, American football, even in a sedate sport like cricket they scream like morons trying to influence the umpire, and sledge the hell out of each other. Our sainted rugby players (peace be upon them) might not surround the referee but it seems to be accepted by fans of that sport that they punch the sh*t out of each other. Football is more popular so we see more of it, as well as being more intense so you end up with more 50/50 calls.

Forceful questioning is exactly what it says on the tin. In response to the original question, I tried to explain my approach to differentiating dissent from frustration - I was just expanding on that.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

So why do you think that the Rugby example is irrelevant? It's an example of how a culture is set.
Tennis tolerates a surprising amount, yes. Rugby League has a bit, but still no mobbing of the referee like you frequently see. Australian Rules Football, need to maintain a very, very high level of aggression and intensity in the game yet there is no dissent. Why? Because the 50m penalty is consistent. Same in ice hockey.

There is nothing unique about soccer that makes abuse an intrinsic and unavoidable part of the game. Absolutely nothing.

Your comments on viewership is simply not relevant. Just because have a higher viewership that another sport it doesn't mean every single thing about our sport is superior. If that's your logic we may as well have more abuse!!

 

[Paul_S]

So why do you think that the Rugby example is irrelevant? It's an example of how a culture is set.
Tennis tolerates a surprising amount, yes. Rugby League has a bit, but still no mobbing of the referee like you frequently see. Australian Rules Football, need to maintain a very, very high level of aggression and intensity in the game yet there is no dissent. Why? Because the 50m penalty is consistent. Same in ice hockey.

There is nothing unique about soccer that makes abuse an intrinsic and unavoidable part of the game. Absolutely nothing.

Your comments on viewership is simply not relevant. Just because have a higher viewership that another sport it doesn't mean every single thing about our sport is superior. If that's your logic we may as well have more abuse!!

Ice hockey! Are you suggesting there's no dissent in ice hockey? I mean we can trade examples (I notice you skipped over my other two) but the point is that we risk two things:

1. It gets blown out of all proportion and we lose something from the game. I'm not saying the rugby example is irrelevant - quite the opposite. I'm saying that it's something we shouldn't emulate because it's a boring, sanitised experience to attend a game and they have plenty of problems of their own. Incidentally, there is something inherent about football which rugby illustrates nicely - it's not as elitist.

2. We expect the "authorities" to protect us so much that we stop taking responsibility for ourselves. Whether by using the sanctions we already have, or by learning some match control techniques.

Edit: I wasn't suggesting that viewership justifies abuse. I was saying that there's more football on TV than there is tennis so we're more aware of it - sorry if that was unclear.

 

[Paul March]

Rugby has its fair share of referee issues. A family member reffed the egg chuckers a a decent level for many years, his tails would keep us entertained for hours.

 

[SM]

Rugby does have some issues creeping in, but the level of fines for both clubs and players is very high. Abuse of referees by clubs,players or supporters is not tolerated and occur a lot less than football. Local level league clubs even are risking major fines if their supporters abuse a ref- from what I am told by a mate who lives and loves the egg ball, they risk fines of up to £1000. They would not survive a fine like that. Referees are treated with a lot more respect (generally their level of respect for each other seems higher also, but this is just my experience) and get paid a damn sight less (expenses only). That said, rugby doesn't have as many grey areas open to interpretation in its laws as football, or such a tricky to gauge offside law, which reduces flash points.

By the way, I hate that video. So cowardly.