• Liverpool Message Board

  • Ed dw i Ed dw i Apr 4, 2006 23:29 Flag

    Media to give post match interviews to referees?

    We are all aware of some of the questionable decisions referees have made during matches.
    Managers have to face the media after a game to explain their tactics and results. Should this also apply to referees and their officials?
    This is a mechanism whereby they can explain their decisions instead of leaving it to media (and manager) speculation.
    What do you feel about this?


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I agree with mightyred, that refs are definately underpaid for what they do. In a typical match your only going to please about half the people if your lucky (usually the ones that are for the team winning). As far as instant replay, I think it shouldn't be used, or at least extrememly limited. I'm a yank, and already have to suffer with refs using instant replay every other call in American Football. Not only does it slow the game down to a snail pace, but it has also become where ref rely to much on it. I am also a ref and a coach, and everything I have been taught was that a perfect ref should not constantly be interfering with the game, football is a free flowing game and to subject it to instant replay would ruin it for the fans and the player. In reallity,how often does a ref really affect the outcome of a game, short of giving a pk or sending someone off, rarely.

      • 1 Reply to DARRENK
      • I too agree that refs are underpaid (undervalued?). To give a post match interview does not delay the game and still allows the free flow of the game. These interviews may be beneficial in modulating some of the abuse that match officials get from managers, media and players.
        If they did not see an incident well ok we can't always have eyes in the back of our heads. If someone hurls abuse at them, then they can report this to the public as the reason someone got the yellow card etc etc.
        I feel the paying fan has a right to this information and that the match officials have a right to answer in public their actions (right or wrong) before a war of words can erupt where their credibility / competancy is questioned.

    • I read somewhere a little while ago that refs get about £300 plus expenses for reffing a Premiership game. Holy crap! Refereeing Premiership football has got to be one of the most stressful positions a guy can put himself in. The hostility of the environment at times must be horrendous and it amazes me that anyone would want to do it. It's not as though the money makes it worth while after all - I mean, imagine sitting in the dressing room afterwards, knackered, hundreds of miles from home, the words ' the referee's a wanker' still ringing in your ears, knowing that you'll be seen by the whole country that evening and that you may be slated by the papers the next day, plus you have reports to write and file, plus any disciplinary meetings to attend and give evidence at, your fellow officials to organise ... and all for £300! Worst of all is that you are surrounded by prima donna players and managers who are all earning anything from five to a hundred grand a week and driving off in their Ferraris, thinking that you were a complete tosser for falling for a dive and giving a free kick which lead to their defeat.

      Lets be honest, it's a shitty job which deserves a lot more credit. I think that refs should be earning at least two grand a game for that kind of pressure and maybe then we would have the right to demand TV interviews from them and managers would be allowed to criticise them without fear of being fined for having an opinion. They should also receive the benefit of instant video analysis to assist them. Then they have a far greater chance of getting it right.

      As for Rob Styles... don't get me started!

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • It would be good to have the refs defend their decisions after a match.
        But it would be better to have video replayed first so as to take the right decision, then the refs don't need to defend their decision.
        And the issue about the money they get is not really the key to a solution. Earning 2 grands or whatever doesn't assure they will make better decisions throughout the game.

    • It is a good idea, it provides more transparency to the decisions made and maybe take that much more flak away from the officials. I like to see them explain their decisions after the game instead of having to 'consult' higher authorities first.

    • You know Ed, that wouldn't be a bad idea!

    • In a perfect world, yes, the referee should give an account of his decisions. However, I don't think somehow this is going to materialise. The referees are governed by a totally Jerassic authority, I just can't imagine they will admit making a mistake. The point is, a lot of controversial decisions can be avoided if they use instant video replay, yet, the so call decision makers refused to give in to high tech. If you ask me, I wouldn't be surprised if they have hiden agenda that we are not aware of (such as illegal betting). The scandal in Germany is just tip of the iceberg.