Perception of refereeing in European Games.

[Aliceag]

Instead of Spamming the match forums I will open and close this discussion here. I will never post about refereeing again in matchday forums, but I want to understand if I am the crazy one around here before I retire from this inglorious fight (since it seems FIFA refused the request by Brazilian league to have video-refereeing).

Questions to everyone based on what you see, your personal experience watching european football.

1) Do you perceive the refereeing being good in general? Do referees make good decisions most of the time?

2) When they make bad decisions do you perceive them as being evenly distributed and random? Or do you believe they favour richer and bigger clubs?

3) Do you believe everything should stay the same or do you find there is room for improvement? What would you do? (Video refereeing anyone?).

My goal with this is simply to understand what is the general perception of the forum users around all europe, with everyone bias, since most of us only watch the games our teams are involved.

[greenbay]

Strikers should convert 100% of sitters in the future, not just 50% like now. Defenders/Keepers should omit 100% of blatant error leading to goals conceeded in the future, not just 50% like now. Once, we are there, then we can discuss about how to have the referees make the right penalty call not 85% of the time, but 100% in the future.

[fillow]

I say video refereeing is not needed. Refs are doing great job as it is.
I occasionally watch reviews of old games (from top tournaments, international finals, my compatriot teams in key matches, tv specials and so on) and I can see that was the same (if not bigger) amount of mistakes back then. Only in modern era, we have more matches on TV, more replays, in better quality/definition, more cameras/angles, more "experts", which can give the false impression of more ref mistakes. Plus football became much faster, give refs a little break.

[_GS_]

players make mistakes because their job heavily depends on their muscles and endurance

i guess almost nobody would blame a referee if he cant spot a handball in a messy situation with lots of players in the same place, or he fails to see a millimetric offside

but when there's an obvious foul, handball, offside (which we can even spot on tv screen without slow motion replay) right before referee's (or referees') eyes but he ignores it (or awards it out of nowhere), it's very difficult to say that he's honestly doing his job

just watch the foul at the beginning. no need to waste time. seeing video's first 15 seconds is enough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwyJWK0HVRs

there's no way referees couldnt see the penalty.. he almost got his ankle broken. but they couldnt award it. because it was Old Trafford, 0-0, and the beginning of the CL MD1.. dont get me wrong, i dont look for a conspiracy behind it. this is how the system works. same happens here in Fenerbahçe matches. when you are "powerful", referees tend to make more "mistakes" in your favor. maybe if Manchester United end up like Nottingham Forest after 40 years, they wont benefit from these "mistakes" anymore

[Falco]

The difference is that each player has 11 opponents on the pitch who are paid good money to try and prevent him from doing his job. I'd like to think it's different for referees, but maybe not, the way some players carry on

[greenbay]

Sorry, can't see any clear penalty here. There is contact, yes, but it's hard to tell, if the Manchester player chopped the Istanbul player. Or if the Istanbul player just ran into the outstreched leg. But ok, unlike you, I'm not biased here. As I can't even see -like you do- that the Istanbul player almost had his ankle broken. Simple explanation: if I had my ankle almost broken, I would immediately grab my hurting ankle wincing in pain. Instead of raising both hands above my head and fiercely crying out loud for a penalty call and then stand up walking without a limp a second or two later.

[_GS_]

The difference is that each player has 11 opponents on the pitch who are paid good money to try and prevent him from doing his job. I'd like to think it's different for referees, but maybe not, the way some players carry on

also; players have lots of things to follow (ball, opposition players, offside line) while referee has only one thing to focus

[Thunder_PT]

Ref mistakes are normal, but anything we could do to make their job easier should be done. Goal line technology, for instance, was already tested at the highest level and there's no excuse to not use them (other than money, I understand not all leagues can afford it, but come on, why aren't we using this in the CL?).

Of course this only helps with goal calls, but why stop there? A chip on the ball and you can always tell if the ball crosses the any line (was it a corner, goal kick or thow in?), a chip on every player and you can instantly get an answer on whether it was offside or not (you'd just need to determine the exact moment the pass was made and a computer would tell you who's offside and who isn't without slowing the game down).

I don't always blame the referees, it's not like they're making wrong calls on purpose (though I'm not naive to say that never happens either), but these bad calls can have huge consequences. This is a game that involves a lot of money now, a bad call can mean several millions lost by a club directly and indirectly. I'll never forget the bad offside call a Dutch referee made against Vit. Guimarães in the last minute of a CL qualifier against Basel. Vit. Guimarães should have been in the GS that year and because of that call they weren't. Now, you have no idea what that qualification would have meant for them moneywise, it completely changed their future, they could have easily reached the level we saw Braga reach. If we have the technology to avoid some mistakes, it has to be used. All this resistance from UEFA just makes people suspect they want mistakes to be around so they can possibly manipulate who's benefiting from them.

[ruicosta]

Just to put things in perspective, Portugal had a big issue regarding rigged refereeing in the 90's and 2000's. It involved prostitutes, payed vacations and even visits of referees to Club Presidents house in the night before the games.
No one was convicted due some technicality, some evidences weren't allowed (phone call recordings).
That might explain some of the most arsh comments regarding refereeing from portuguese users.

[bert.kassies]

Ref quality is quite good, in general. And certainly not biased. But they are human, and thus subject to mistakes. For me, not really a problem.

In my opinion modern football needs speed and action. And not a large sequence of slowly taken free-kicks, dead game moments, time waisting, etc. Adding technology won't speed up the game. When used very sparsely I'm not against it, but I don't expect much good from it either.

And who else should we blame, if we can't blame the ref anymore?

[Arges Pitesti]

Ref mistakes are normal, but anything we could do to make their job easier should be done. Goal line technology, for instance, was already tested at the highest level and there's no excuse to not use them (other than money, I understand not all leagues can afford it, but come on, why aren't we using this in the CL?).

Well, I think that even a modest employee like me could afford to spend for a video-ref system.

This story about the alleged high cost for a video-ref system is one of the more annoying lies that media are telling to fans in order to deceive them!

Oh my goodness, if I think that even "poor" sports associations like basketball's and volleyball's ones (even on a national level) are using the instant reviews since the last decade...

When a play is over, you can have slow-motion replays from different point of views, in less than 10 seconds! We usually see more time wasted when the ref uses his spray to mark the distances in the free kicks! Or when he tries to calm down some players while contesting a call!

It would be not only more fair but also more intruguing to give coaches the chance to contest a ref call-on-the-field, by a so-called "challenge" (like in every other sports): when a coach would think that an opposite goal was offside, it would ask the ref crew to review the goal and if there would be the clear evidence of the call-on the field being wrong, that call would be reversed.

Other than being more fair, it will be more enjoying for the fans! Imagine an home team suffering an offside goal, then the coach asking for a challenge...in one second, the whole stadium can see the evidence of the offside and then they celebrate as loud as for a goal!

[greenbay]

a chip on every player and you can instantly get an answer on whether it was offside or not (you'd just need to determine the exact moment the pass was made and a computer would tell you who's offside and who isn't without slowing the game down).

And where do you want to put this chip? Left foot? Right foot? Chest? Bottoms? Head? Knie, left or right? You need at least a dozen chips to attach to each player. I guess that CR7 will be happy to have such chips attached to his forehead and to both his knees. Maybe an injection just under the skin will do the trick.

[greenbay]

Ref quality is quite good, in general. And certainly not biased. But they are human, and thus subject to mistakes. For me, not really a problem.

They is some biase, I'd say. If I were a linesman, in doubt if there was an offside or not, I'd rather raised the flag than not. If I raise the flag, the play stops, the scene will be soon forgotten if I'm wrong. If I don't raise the flag and the ball goes in, the scene will be all over the news if I'm wrong. Same goes for home field advantage. I'm sure that there was a study, that bigger crowds lead to bigger home field advantage. Well, it's not football but the NFL, but you often see the Zebras throwing a late flag once the crowd starts booing because of the non-call. While you hardly see late flags against the home side.

And who else should we blame, if we can't blame the ref anymore?

Most important point. Football would lose a lot of its charme to me, if I cannot be mad at the refs after a game anymore. Blaming the refs for awarding Bayern Munich a ridiculous game winning penalty in the dying minutes makes football much more interesting than CR7 doing a couple of hattricks.

[Falco]

Blaming the refs for awarding Bayern Munich a ridiculous game winning penalty in the dying minutes makes football much more interesting than CR7 doing a couple of hattricks.

CR7's hattricks invariably involve ridiculous game winning penalties

[Arges Pitesti]

And who else should we blame, if we can't blame the ref anymore?

Most important point. Football would lose a lot of its charme to me, if I cannot be mad at the refs after a game anymore. Blaming the refs for awarding Bayern Munich a ridiculous game winning penalty in the dying minutes makes football much more interesting than CR7 doing a couple of hattricks.

This could be used as the proof that football is not sport.