I like rugby's approach towards transparency and respect. Mic them up.
Why don't we have ref interviews?
- Thread starter clean-sheet-culkin
- Start date
Would interesting to see how much EPL officials get paid compared their rugby counterparts.
A lot more I would suspect, mind you, Rugby's rules are so complicated I don't think anyone actually understands half of them anyway
Why should they?
Because we the fans deserve answers. Thats like saying why should ETH speak to the press after being beaten 4-0. You can be sure he would rather not but he does it cos he has to.
We don't deserve answers from referees at all.
Reading this, I think you are right.
If the Ref had a mare, why get him on camera and berate him over a poor performance?
Because fans will enjoy watching the man who dared make an error against their team being embarrassed on live TV and they don't give a feck about anything else.
Completely agree it achieves nothing. People wanting ref interviews is just some sort of weird revenge fantasy, they want refs to be grilled and humiliated as punishment for their shit decisions. I just don't see how it would actually improve the decisions, I would assume refs are not shit on purpose.
If a ref doesn't give a penalty for example when he should have. What good would it do anyone to have him do an interview after the game and say "I didn't think there was enough in it", or "I thought at the time he went down too easy"? Would that solve anything? Is that going to appease the fans, or just wind everyone up even more? Maybe some will say he'll give the pen next time, but on the flip side he'll be more likely to give any pen anyone claims for because he doesn't want another grilling for not giving a pen. And now he's getting grilled about why he gave such a soft pen the next game and he gives some generic "I thought he was impeded", and no one actually gains anything from it.
Doing an interview is not going to turn back time and make him give the pen, and it's not going to stop him being a shit ref in future games. All it does is satisfy the fans' desire to see them publicly ridiculed as revenge for not giving their team a decision.
Football is a big circus. Yes, bring them in into it too.
My pretty much never-ending opinion is we should have the exact same system as we see in rugby. Live microphones on the refs, clarity on what is being checked for during VAR, stuff like that. I never really had any issue with the rugby system and would happily see it being used as the standard to which FIFA push all national associations toward.
There's no need for interviews, reports being published after with reasoning would be better in my opinion.
Would just add more flame to the potential controversy , better to leave it as is.
Still moaning about Brunos perfectly legit goal?
How am I moaning? I’m a Utd fan, I was delighted it was allowed. The PGMOL came out afterwards and said it shouldn’t be allowed, so don’t know how you can say it’s perfectly legit.
Hmm maybe because almost identical goals have been given time and time again.
I thought it's only Barcelona who interview refs?
A good example
Exactly the type of example I'm on about. There's rationale and accountability for the decision. You don't have to agree with the answer, but just hearing it humanizes the ref a little more and at least shows he's prepared to back up the position he took.
Thanks top1whoisman
The only way I can see this working is to have and independent company conduct them, if Sky.BT etc are involved it'll just become a shit-show (and still might anyway)
I've thought it for a long time that refs (and now including VAR officials) should be interviewed after games to allow them explain certain decisions. Not interrogated, nor harangued, just a calm "can you explain the decision not to award a red card to X player", and let them explain it.
I'm convinced it would lead to an improvement in refereeing standards, because refs/VARs would now be asking themselves "can I explain this decision after the match", and if they can't then it's obviously the wrong decision!
Having said that, I still don't understand the handball rule or how it's being applied! That French ref said they don't sanction when a player's arm is on the ground and the ball hits it, or they don't expect a player to jump with their arms behind their back. But then I've seen handballs awarded for those exact scenarios! It's like every ref has their own individual interpretation!
I'm convinced it would lead to an improvement in refereeing standards, because refs/VARs would now be asking themselves "can I explain this decision after the match", and if they can't then it's obviously the wrong decision!
Having said that, I still don't understand the handball rule or how it's being applied! That French ref said they don't sanction when a player's arm is on the ground and the ball hits it, or they don't expect a player to jump with their arms behind their back. But then I've seen handballs awarded for those exact scenarios! It's like every ref has their own individual interpretation!