Should Referees get interviewed after games?

lefty_jakobz

I ❤️ moses
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
3,648
After that poor decision in the lead up to the goal, should referees be asked to explain decisions after a game, in the same vain as managers and players are?

The usual response is ‘no’ as the referee has a hard enough job blah blah blah, but if you look at some of the crazy decisions involving refs which could cost a team to be relegated, potentially costing a club millions, should referees not be held to more account?

Why should someone being hired to referee a match and then getting a decision or decisions wrong which might cost a club/manager/players their future be allowed to be immune to scrutiny?

The PL is lauded as the best league in the World yet the state of refereeing in this country isn’t anywhere near the top.

The refs need to be held accountable for their actions, if this proves too much then that person was clearly not fit for purpose.
 
The way they're held accountable is by having a team of people in the background who re-interpret the rules to fit the decision that was made, and then feed it back to the television coverage in order to pretend it was the right decision after all.

Literally a perfect example tonight. Doesn't matter how stupid the explanation is as the purpose is to get people moaning about the rules instead of the useless/bent referee.
 
noodlehair said:
The way they're held accountable is by having a team of people in the background who re-interpret the rules to fit the decision that was made, and then feed it back to the television coverage in order to pretend it was the right decision after all.

Literally a perfect example tonight. Doesn't matter how stupid the explanation is as the purpose is to get people moaning about the rules instead of the useless/bent referee.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly!

Last season Chris Wilder brings his Sheffield Utd team to Old Trafford, Martial pokes home after Ramsdale fumbles the ball under pressure from Maguire, no goal given. Yet when Billy Sharp fouls De Gea and allows the Sheffield player to score, goal given.

Only some time after the game the referee ‘realises’ his error and apologises in private.

Had we been in a title challenge (hard to imagine-I know!) that loss could be the difference between a title win and not.
 
I think every VAR decision should be discussed live and on air so everyone knows whats happening. The secrecy around referring decisions is ridiculous. They're too much of a protected class IMO.
 
chiz2kul said:
I think every VAR decision should be discussed live and on air so everyone knows whats happening. The secrecy around referring decisions is ridiculous. They're too much of a protected class IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

No point in grilling refs after the game if the whistle is gone the game is over and the result ain't going to change
 
They should get yellow cards and reds too depending on their mistakes.

A big mistake makes them miss their next match etc.

Consistent mistakes makes them deal with further consequences.
 
lefty_jakobz said:
After that poor decision in the lead up to the goal, should referees be asked to explain decisions after a game, in the same vain as managers and players are?

The usual response is ‘no’ as the referee has a hard enough job blah blah blah, but if you look at some of the crazy decisions involving refs which could cost a team to be relegated, potentially costing a club millions, should referees not be held to more account?

Why should someone being hired to referee a match and then getting a decision or decisions wrong which might cost a club/manager/players their future be allowed to be immune to scrutiny?

The PL is lauded as the best league in the World yet the state of refereeing in this country isn’t anywhere near the top.

The refs need to be held accountable for their actions, if this proves too much then that person was clearly not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

I think the most important thing is to have official public feedback on key decisions by the game's law makers.

Multiple comments about the game from paid pundits are suggesting it was the correct decision under the laws of the game. It clearly wasn't.

Clueless idiots will debate this all week under the false impression that these are the rules and will complain about "consistency" when the ref gets the decision right next time.

But it seems that the preference is to suggest the laws are stupid and confusing than to admit the ref made a mistake.
 
POF said:
I think the most important thing is to have official public feedback on key decisions by the game's law makers.

Multiple comments about the game from paid pundits are suggesting it was the correct decision under the laws of the game. It clearly wasn't.

Clueless idiots will debate this all week under the false impression that these are the rules and will complain about "consistency" when the ref gets the decision right next time.

But it seems that the preference is to suggest the laws are stupid and confusing than to admit the ref made a mistake.
Click to expand...

My annoyance was both Keane and Wright saying that was the correct decision based on the new laws. I have not heard about this new law all season until yesterday. So it’s taken until February for that situation to happen? It’s absolute rubbish and the usual tactic to protect referees and VAR’s poor decision. No doubt the rule book will be changed again to something that cannot be interpreted by us fans.

It is my opinion that VAR has been used to create drama as opposed to making sure decisions are correct. If that’s is purpose there is no point having it. Any fan would tell you was hand ball. He gained an advantage which lead to a goal. The law book should be overridden by common sense at times.
 
Bebestation said:
They should get yellow cards and reds too depending on their mistakes.

A big mistake makes them miss their next match etc.

Consistent mistakes makes them deal with further consequences.
Click to expand...

Shoukd be applied during the game as well. A red card for the ref, and the game is played without one until the end.
 
Mic on the whole game. On referees and VAR room.
Inteview after games to explain strange decisions.

I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. It is not that hard to make football transparent. To understand why they make some decisions. Is it pure incompetence or what. People are sick of this making up the rules depending on teams and games.
 
chiz2kul said:
I think every VAR decision should be discussed live and on air so everyone knows whats happening. The secrecy around referring decisions is ridiculous. They're too much of a protected class IMO.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

When it comes to game changing VAR decisions we all deserve transparency/explanations during the game, not after it.
 
The secrecy is what makes people angry. As others said, if they were open about it and played the replay to the whole stadium etc and the decision was put on the screen and we could see the face of who made the decision. I think that would help, last nights decision was shocking and they wouldn’t make such bad decisions if people could see them in the VAR studio.
 
I think most managers would agree with it. It's not only United that had faced ridiculous decisions.
They have to justify what they do. They are fairly well paid and the decisions they make could make or lose millions of pounds for clubs.
 
They should be compelled to explain their controversial decisions after the game.
 
Josep Dowling said:
My annoyance was both Keane and Wright saying that was the correct decision based on the new laws. I have not heard about this new law all season until yesterday. So it’s taken until February for that situation to happen? It’s absolute rubbish and the usual tactic to protect referees and VAR’s poor decision. No doubt the rule book will be changed again to something that cannot be interpreted by us fans.

It is my opinion that VAR has been used to create drama as opposed to making sure decisions are correct. If that’s is purpose there is no point having it. Any fan would tell you was hand ball. He gained an advantage which lead to a goal. The law book should be overridden by common sense at times.
Click to expand...

You will have heard about it. It's the rule introduced to stop goals being disallowed for the ball grazing someone's hand in the build up that had no impact on the goal being scored.

The difference in the United game is that it's the first time it's been completely misinterpreted. Then you have a commentator speaking with authority that it's within the rules, even though he's completely wrong. When nobody corrects him, everyone thinks that is the rule.
 
The correct way to introduce clarity would be for us to hear them talk through VAR decisions, as we do with the TMO in rugby.

But I suspect if we could hear what they currently say in such instances, it would further reduce confidence in them rather than instil clarity. I would guess it's often quite a garbled, confusing, unprofessional back and forth.
 
sullydnl said:
The correct way to introduce clarity would be for us to hear them talk through VAR decisions like that, as we do with the TMO in rugby.

But I suspect if we could hear what they say at the moment, it would reduce confidence in them rather than instil clarity. I would guess it's often quite a garbled, confusing, unprofessional back and forth.
Click to expand...

Football referees are too up their own arses to allow any serious degree of accountability for their decisions. Just look at how they fought VAR and watered it down to this point because it hurts their need to feel in charge.
 
POF said:
I think the most important thing is to have official public feedback on key decisions by the game's law makers.

Multiple comments about the game from paid pundits are suggesting it was the correct decision under the laws of the game. It clearly wasn't.

Clueless idiots will debate this all week under the false impression that these are the rules and will complain about "consistency" when the ref gets the decision right next time.

But it seems that the preference is to suggest the laws are stupid and confusing than to admit the ref made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Its the preference because it isn't a "mistake"...as someone esle said, it is used to create drama or manifacture a narrative in the belief this will generate more interest and therefore income.

There is no need to interview referees after a game or ask them to come out and explain decisions, because the simple solution is one adopted by nearly every other professional sport where a) the rules are applied correctly and fairly in the first place, and b) the ref has an audio device which allows you to hear the explanation for the decision as it is given.

The problem with applying either of these to football is that it requires the game to be officiated fairly and with integrity, which it isn't. Read here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42219327

Third time I've posted this link but I think it explains the problem very clearly. Imagine Clattenberg giving an interview directly after the game or connected to a mic during it, explaining to both a live audience and the players on the field that he is deliberately not sending Tottenham players off when he should because its "more entertaining" or because he "doesn't want to be blamed for sending them off"...He wouldn't be able to because this is in fact blatantly corrupt officiating. He wouldn't be able to explain his way around it either because afte rthe third or fourth time (if not the first) it would be too obvious he was talking shite.

On the other hand its very easy to say nothing and then backwards interpret the rules around the decision that has been made in order to pretend to justify it. Because people will have nothing else to go on and you can make it as confusing and vague as you want to distract attentjon away from the decision itself. how many times even just in the last few weeks have we had "the word from Stockly Park is" followed by some vague bollocks. Pundits analysing the wording of a rule on MOTD instead of analysing the actual decision, etc.

We are being expected to believe things are mistakes which at least some of the time are not.
 
Last edited:
No, it's a shit job that doesn't need to get any shitter. They will make mistakes. I think we just thank them, and unless they are actually cheating we leave them be.
 
I think no but I would like to see their thoughts on their own performance. A podcast that doesn't have a comments section or something similar.
 
If there is to be analysis, I would start with the administration. Referees are not helped by the administrators. Look at Rugby, clearly defined rules much less of the farce we encountered last night.
 
When we were in the ascendancy we got just as many weird decisions against us but we made them irrelevant by being good at what we do. We never complained about the paucity of the officiating when we won, so it's just whining and not on principle when you do it when you lose. The inherent flaws in the way the game is legislated and officiated are across the board.

Cloughy is always worth a watch.


 
NFL for years have had the head ref miked up. They explain the decision to the stadium so everyone can hear what ref has to say. Football should have done this years ago.
 
POF said:
You will have heard about it. It's the rule introduced to stop goals being disallowed for the ball grazing someone's hand in the build up that had no impact on the goal being scored.

The difference in the United game is that it's the first time it's been completely misinterpreted. Then you have a commentator speaking with authority that it's within the rules, even though he's completely wrong. When nobody corrects him, everyone thinks that is the rule.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
It’s strange that clubs don’t make a big deal about these things considering that refereeing mistakes can end up costing them millions going forward
 
noodlehair said:
Its the preference because it isn't a "mistake"...as someone esle said, it is used to create drama or manifacture a narrative in the belief this will generate more interest and therefore income.

There is no need to interview referees after a game or ask them to come out and explain decisions, because the simple solution is one adopted by nearly every other professional sport where a) the rules are applied correctly and fairly in the first place, and b) the ref has an audio device which allows you to hear the explanation for the decision as it is given.

The problem with applying either of these to football is that it requires the game to be officiated fairly and with integrity, which it isn't. Read here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42219327

Third time I've posted this link but I think it explains the problem very clearly. Imagine Clattenberg giving an interview directly after the game or connected to a mic during it, explaining to both a live audience and the players on the field that he is deliberately not sending Tottenham players off when he should because its "more entertaining" or because he "doesn't want to be blamed for sending them off"...He wouldn't be able to because this is in fact blatantly corrupt officiating. He wouldn't be able to explain his way around it either because afte rthe third or fourth time (if not the first) it would be too obvious he was talking shite.

On the other hand its very easy to say nothing and then backwards interpret the rules around the decision that has been made in order to pretend to justify it. Because people will have nothing else to go on and you can make it as confusing and vague as you want to distract attentjon away from the decision itself. how many times even just in the last few weeks have we had "the word from Stockly Park is" followed by some vague bollocks. Pundits analysing the wording of a rule on MOTD instead of analysing the actual decision, etc.

We are being expected to believe things are mistakes which at least some of the time are not.
Click to expand...

It's a fair call. Of any game on the planet, football has the fewest "neutrals". Fans, pundits, spectators and officials see what they want to see and will argue black is white if it's to the benefit of who they want to win.

But equally, even making correct decisions doesn't stop the rubbish. Throughout the Fergie era, there were blatant accusations of refs favouring United by awarding unquestionably correct penalty decisions. This was just because United got more penalties than other teams because they were the best team.

I do think having a representative of the law makers explain the calls publicly would make a major change. If the alternative to calling out poor decisions was "the ref was right but we've implemented some moronic rules" every week, the spotlight would move to the refs really quickly.
 
Explain the decision to fans and players in real time by mic, yes. I think it gives the rugby refs a real authority that the decision is final, they're not silently making decisions and you can follow along which eliminates frustration regardless of whether you disagree. Football players would have to behave far better as the behaviour around the game and towards refs is awful and mics would highlight that. So there would be teething issues but in the long run it plays a part in refs controlling games rather than the reactive feel that we currently have where they're swept along.

What is the point of an after game interview? Just to pile on the ref? No benefit to it. It only seems to be there to ramp up a narrative around a decision. If they got the decisions right there isn't much to talk about and if it's controversial or wrong there's no benefit at all, what are they going to say..."sorry." Are you going to feel better then? The time and place for a post game debrief is with a competent refereeing association.
 
Last edited:
POF said:
It's a fair call. Of any game on the planet, football has the fewest "neutrals". Fans, pundits, spectators and officials see what they want to see and will argue black is white if it's to the benefit of who they want to win.

But equally, even making correct decisions doesn't stop the rubbish. Throughout the Fergie era, there were blatant accusations of refs favouring United by awarding unquestionably correct penalty decisions. This was just because United got more penalties than other teams because they were the best team.

I do think having a representative of the law makers explain the calls publicly would make a major change. If the alternative to calling out poor decisions was "the ref was right but we've implemented some moronic rules" every week, the spotlight would move to the refs really quickly.
Click to expand...

The problem is you can't have transparency unless there is nothing to hide, and you have Clattenberg giving you an insight into the fact that there is apparently an awful lot to hide. Imagine what goes on that he can't admit if deliberately manipulating the outcome of a title deciding game is something he is happy to tell everyone he did.

We already have a represnetative explaining the decisions. BT Sport and I think Sky both have former referees as pundits. We get explanations from VAR. The problem is when the explanation is made after the incident, it is backwards engineered and used as a deflection or defensive tactic, rather than being an honest explanation. It just facilitates bullshit. Look at last night. Feed back bullshit to the TV broadcast and the commentator states it as fact. Suddenly the debate is around a rule rather than the validity of a decision. Next week just go back to applying the rule properly again.

Whenever BT have Gallagher explain an incident before VAR has looked at it, he gives an honest explanation and then VAR will quite often make the opposite decision and he's left looking like an idiot. Then 20 minutes later a fumbled explanation emerges from VAR and he changes his stance to suit it. The only way you get around that is by asking the on field ref and VAR for the decision as it is made, but the problem then is you are forcing them to make a decision according to what the right decision is and which can be justified there and then without any backwards engineering of the rules, which assuming what Clattenberg says is true, will just not happen because our officiating is not done with a level of integrity that would make this possible.
 
No good explaining after the game, it’s too late. We should hear the VAR discussion though.

It doesn’t matter if there’s a new law or not about scoring after an accidental handball because that was not an accidental hand ball, it was clear as day.

You would never usually get away with that in your own half never mind the opponents box, it was ridiculous.
 
Abraxas said:
Explain the decision to fans and players in real time by mic, yes. I think it gives the rugby refs a real authority that the decision is final, they're not silently making decisions and you can follow along which eliminates frustration regardless of whether you disagree. Football players would have to behave far better as the behaviour around the game and towards refs is awful and mics would highlight that. So there would be teething issues but in the long run it plays a part in refs controlling games rather than the reactive feel that we currently have where they're swept along.

What is the point of an after game interview? Just to pile on the ref? No benefit to it. It only seems to be there to ramp up a narrative around a decision. If they got the decisions right there isn't much to talk about and if it's controversial or wrong there's no benefit at all, what are they going to say..."sorry." Are you going to feel better then? The time and place for a post game debrief is with a competent refereeing association.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
There above the law, no need to explain there ineptitude, and they get a fair amount of cash as a pro ref, there not School teachers shop Keepers now. It's a fecking full time job to gey things wrong. If I made that cock up I'd have had the tin tack in my job. Not them justified by a rule that shouldn't have come into it after his arm his high up in the air. Oh I'm still pissed over it. When or when is it not hand ball !!!
 
noodlehair said:
The problem is you can't have transparency unless there is nothing to hide, and you have Clattenberg giving you an insight into the fact that there is apparently an awful lot to hide. Imagine what goes on that he can't admit if deliberately manipulating the outcome of a title deciding game is something he is happy to tell everyone he did.

We already have a represnetative explaining the decisions. BT Sport and I think Sky both have former referees as pundits. We get explanations from VAR. The problem is when the explanation is made after the incident, it is backwards engineered and used as a deflection or defensive tactic, rather than being an honest explanation. It just facilitates bullshit. Look at last night. Feed back bullshit to the TV broadcast and the commentator states it as fact. Suddenly the debate is around a rule rather than the validity of a decision. Next week just go back to applying the rule properly again.

Whenever BT have Gallagher explain an incident before VAR has looked at it, he gives an honest explanation and then VAR will quite often make the opposite decision and he's left looking like an idiot. Then 20 minutes later a fumbled explanation emerges from VAR and he changes his stance to suit it. The only way you get around that is by asking the on field ref and VAR for the decision as it is made, but the problem then is you are forcing them to make a decision according to what the right decision is and which can be justified there and then without any backwards engineering of the rules, which assuming what Clattenberg says is true, will just not happen because our officiating is not done with a level of integrity that would make this possible.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is quite as corrupt as you think. Whatever people want to admit, they don't want to admit incompetence.

Whatever Clattenberg says you can take with a grain of salt. He'd rather say how cleverly he manipulated the game than admit he lost control of it by being a weak little bitch.

When I say to have a representative speak, I don't mean a TV hiring a retired referee who they can manipulate to say whatever suits their agenda.

I mean an official commentary from those that are setting these interpretations when decisions are made. Are referees implementing these rules properly or are the rules to blame? Right now, people are quoting (incorrectly) rule updates from the Premier League website and have convinced themselves that the rules state that a handball doesn't count if you assist a goal directly afterwards. This is now a widely held view in the game. It's absolutely mental.

From reading that misinterpreted rule classification, it seems IFAB set the rules. Why can't there be an IFAB representative for every major league who explains if the rules have been interpreted correctly after every round of games?

I do agree on your over arching point on integrity in football. There just isn't any. It's a game where mature well educated adults turn into 3 year olds when things go against their team.
 
If you're including the VAR officials in with the refs, yes. The on field ref only has one chance to see whatever the specific thing is. The VAR officials can watch as many replays as they want. Slow it down. Watch it from every angle imaginable, and still make absolutely shocking decisions. I blame them far more than the on field ref and linesman. They're there to help the on field ref, and still do a terrible job on a consistent basis.

I would also like the ref and VAR officials to have their mics broadcast, so everybody can hear what they're talking about.
 
CloneMC16 said:
If you're including the VAR officials in with the refs, yes. The on field ref only has one chance to see whatever the specific thing is. The VAR officials can watch as many replays as they want. Slow it down. Watch it from every angle imaginable, and still make absolutely shocking decisions. I blame them far more than the on field ref and linesman. They're there to help the on field ref, and still do a terrible job on a consistent basis.

I would also like the ref and VAR officials to have their mics broadcast, so everybody can hear what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with the open mics.
 
Look at any half time discussion in a studio about a decision and youll see the impossibility of getting the ‘right’ decision.

Getting them to come out under questioning immediately after the game would be carnage.
 
moses said:
No, it's a shit job that doesn't need to get any shitter. They will make mistakes. I think we just thank them, and unless they are actually cheating we leave them be.
Click to expand...

Sorry but there has to be more accountability of a ref doing a shit job.

This whole protect the refs at any costs bullshit is why we keep getting mistakes from refs.

Is it now that theres just no refs of a good ability left in the game? Or are they all just shit at their jobs?

As someone else suggested have them mic’d up and lets hear the reasoning behind judgment calls. Also use the bloody pitch side monitors if not sure of a decision!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.