Accountability a must for A-League referees

Arto, You make good points - implementing what I've suggested is the easy part - referees need to be empowered to take a hard-line stance. In other words, FIFA and the FFA needs to tell them "If you caution players for dissent under this directive we will back you 100%" - that may give the referees confidence to stand by their decisions. You're correct in that referees do have the power to caution players for dissent but it's the rubbery interpretation that causes difficulty with this - some refs have a zero tolerance policy while others are far more accepting. This is the problem - if FIFA draw a line in the sand and say "zero tolerance" watch the dissent dry up. Like punching in the NRL - they came out and said it would be minimum sin bin for every punch thrown and look at the result...hardly any punches thrown since that came in and if players have thrown punches, they're stupid. Retrospective action for dissent/offensive, insulting or abusive language is also a good idea. As long as there are consistencies and the problem is FIFA don't like sanctioning one rule for top level games (where mics are common) and another rule for the rest. Definitely has legs though.

@ Sleemo: +1. The big challenge will be to sticking with it - you can imagine the MASSIVE criticism refs will get if a game featured more than 1 player sent off for dissent. At present, refs actually have the power to caution a player for dissent, the problem is the refs themselves don't enforce this well enough - some refs are strict, others are lazy, and I bet sometimes things just don't get reacted to because the ref doesn't have time. The biggest challenge for the refs though is when they get surrounded by 3, 4, 5 players who are all trying to give the ref their point of view to argue against a decision - it's pretty initimidating/hard for refs to just stand their and begin to wave yellow cards in their faces for dissent. This is where the retrospective action could be used in combination with recordings from the ref's microphones - it might be a bit difficult to point out exactly who said what, but if the MRP together with the ref in question review the footage in order to identify as many players as possible and then issue yellow-/red-cards as appropriate, we might see less and less players going up to the ref to argue a decision. As you say though, it'll need to come from FIFA and the chances of that happening are less than me winning the record amount in in Lotto!!!

Your second paragraph is really what gets to the heart of the issue. There is a culture surrounding abuse and haranguing of referees in football and it needs to stop. Look at the other codes - they don't seem to have a problem with it to football's extent. In rugby, a single word of dissent from ANYBODY will land them in the bin - and what happens? - they are all quiet because they know it will be punished! Football needs to get tougher on this kind of behaviour. Why not take rugby's approach to punishment? It will need to come from FIFA but why not take a hard-line stance. It will certainly result in an avalanche of yellow and red cards in the few weeks after it comes in but that's just the problem - people currently think it is an acceptable part of the game. If you punish it heavily, and a few games end up 8 v 8, and stick with it, then maybe they'll all get the message.

@ Mitchell Grima: I agree with your suggestion that referees (& their associated body at FFA) need to be more accepting of criticism, but you're on a hiding to nothing if you think retrospective action on a decision that the referee has decided upon is the way to go - referees will become more unsure & scared to make big calls and the general standard will go DOWN, not up if we implement that. Then there's also the even more important issue of accepting the referee's decision - how can we expect players & managers to improve their current appalling behaiour towards referees when we undermine their decision-making authority??!! If the ref has made a comment about an incident in his/her report, then fine we should encourage the MRP to investigate WITH the referee's blessing. IMO, it will encourage refs to report things they are unsure of without second-guessing their initial decisions & instincts. For instance, the referee could even make a quick signal to the 4th official that something which has gotten their attention, but they are unsure of, needs to be looked at post-game and is duly noted. The game can continue as is without much interuption, but there is still the possibility of reviewing the incident afterwards, with punishment being metered out if a foul has been made as would happen during play (eg: after the game the play receives a yellow-card/red-card if appropriate for their illegal action and is forced to sit out the next game if applicable). This concept could even be used mid-game for incidents during the 1st half - the 4th official reviews any footage during half-time, with any sanctions applicable made during the break eg: a red-card for elbowing an opponent, etc. The interuption caused by using video-evidence would be minimized and wouldn't affect the immediate flow of the game as would a stoppage during play. And it might also reduce the number of controversial red-cards dished out as the card can still be issued later if the ref & MRP see fit during the match review.

I hate that referees are subject to blatant abuse from players. We used to get warned at the start of the game. "Any over the top abuse directed at me and it will be a yellow. Don't say I didn't warn you, I won't stand for it." Abuse was minimal

"which means you get refs who have never dealt with Champions League / EPL / La Liga level speed, tricks and antics of the multi-million dollar egos who are in all the top International teams. " Hamish you've picked the worst possible day to suggest that refs handling the big competitions are any better than those who adjudicate in the lesser leagues of the world. I suggest you type "Andre Marriner" into Google & watch the video of the massive blunder made by a referee who has experience working regularly in the highest-profile domestic league in the world. "Referee Andre Marriner apology for Kieran Gibbs red card error" Source: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26699009

Unfortunately FIFA do not use the best referees for the World Cup. They really, really should. They call for referee representation from every Federation, which means you get refs who have never dealt with Champions League / EPL / La Liga level speed, tricks and antics of the multi-million dollar egos who are in all the top International teams. As a result, some of the refs at the WC are literally out of their league, and it does detract from some games. Unlike FIFA at least the FFA has some fair enough excuses.

Ahahaha, my god, can you imagine what happens when one linesman flags off-side and the other thinks play-on? Chaos!

There's two sides to it though Patrick - who's to say that the five best refs in the country (or five refs in the country at all for that matter) would be happy to earn $70,000 plus match fees per year to referee full time? They all work or study outside of their refereeing careers and most probably earn more than that in their day jobs. And you would need more than five referees when the top five get sent away for FIFA appointments etc. Then you have to think of the ARs, then the fourth officials, and their backups...that $350,000 (plus match fees) will blow out very quickly.

I can't understand how refs aren't full time - how hard is it to employ 5 people full time? The EPL pays a retainer of around 40k pounds (about $70,000) plus the match fee of 1000 pounds. 5 full time referees would cost $350,000. Surely each club can afford $35k a year to pay for professional referees?

I'm a bit worried. My delight when mu lose or drop points is just a bit too much. Think I'll get over it though. Seeing mu squirm in the guise of moyes is ok but what i really want for plumface to share in the credit for mu's current position. It (the team) is his baby. He built it but let it run down badly. They won by default but that only masked their considerable inadequacies. Enter Moyes. What a mug. Sheesh the old goat (Ferguson)is still there which is problematic. He should absent himself for a year but he won't. His colossal ego won't permit that but things won't change if things don't change. Who would have thought mancs could be interesting and great entertainment. We (when i say we i mean me) want moyes to stay.

I agree with your comments on the technology improvements and how they may have led to an increase in criticism of match officials. Thing is, if you need a slow-motion video replay to prove whether a decision was right or wrong and it turns out to be marginal, or debatable, it makes sense that there will be a chance the referee in real time has missed it. I read an article a few years back where a cricket commentator blamed this on the increase in criticism of umpires at the elite level - he said years ago where there was a strong LBW appeal turned down the commentators would exclaim "Gee that must have been close!" and would then forget about it, whereas now with Hawkeye and snicko and hotspot and everything they can find out whether the decision was correct or not, to the millimetre. And I think that's unfair on the men in the middle. Back to football...goal line technology will help on 99% of close ball-over-the-line scenarios, but there is always going to be that 1% that even the best technology will not be able to determine with complete accuracy. And that's not even considering other decisions that need to be made which cannot be conclusively determined by a video replay no matter how many times you look at it...you can argue about the fairness or otherwise of a tackle, whether a handball was deliberate, who got the last touch...but if you can argue it, obviously it's not clear-cut...and then there will still be debate about whether the decision was right or wrong! The NRL is a great example. Obstructions, Inglis's gee-up shepherd try in Origin a couple of years ago, Foran's alleged knock-on in a semi against the Cowboys in 2012, who grounded the ball first, did he get a pinkie on it...even the best technology cannot lead to a correct outcome in 100% of cases and given the video ref has slowed the game down, many can legitimately argue that the game is better off without it completely. People always say that referees need to use common sense, but I think common sense from those judging them is the better place to start. Referees will always make mistakes, obvious or not - just like players will. If a referee makes a mistake that anybody can see was wrong in real time without the benefit of replays, then sure, they deserve criticism. If they make an error that needs replays and slow-motion and different angles to be picked up, then they should be cut a break. Unfortunately when you're talking about supporters of teams, emotions are involved and so is the opinion of former pros who think they know everything, it's pretty difficult to achieve even this.

The difference is that each team's players are there to sometimes push the boundaries of the rules to win. The referee is the neutral observer to ensure the rules are abided by and enforced fairly. The referee will always be treated differently to the players and their howlers will always be viewed different to a player making a defensive error leading to a goal. Other than that Chris Kettlewell's comments above are a good summary.

I was actually trained to be a ref under Ben Williams and Wilson years ago. Now I don't have any recent data, but back then, the NSL refs were paid less than 1/20th of what AFL were. There was no possible way to make any living off it, and it was basically a very time consuming hobby for the weekends. In saying that, Both Ben's trained harder than anyone else I have ever seen, and were fitter than anyone I have heard of outside of AFL (Williams was not even puffing when I almost died doing a 15.8 on an AIS beep test). They ran ref training sessions twice a week, all year round, to help out the local youngsters (me included). They went from game to game over both Saturday and Sunday offering advice and helping out young referees. These are guys who are fitter than most of the players they ref, have huge experience and do it all for next to nothing, for the love of the game. So before you criticize the quality of referees, especially guys who have represented Australia at world cups, why don't you walk down to your local league and see how hard it is ref even a decent state league game. Before you even can make a decision, you have to be able to read the game better than most players, have the fitness to get into position, and then make about close decision every 2-3minutes. These replays you are watching have multiple camera angles, slow mo, and the option to watch the incident multiple times. You have the crowd noise to filter out, You have to be able to control your breathing and emotions and make an impartial decision, within a split second, on one viewing, and not from always the best angle. So unless you want football to turn into league with 20 minutes of replays a game, and no less controversy, stop criticizing refs until you are in the position to be able to do it yourself. Both Williams and Wilson have been selected to referee knock-out matches of world cups previously and are obviously well thought of in the community. As my junior coach once told me, if you have left the game in the hands of the ref, obviously you haven't tried hard enough or trained hard enough. And if the ref makes a wrong call, then obviously you have done something stupid enough to give him the opportunity. The most respected players just get on with it.

al Football is the World Game, hence anyone around the world may have an idea to make the game better. I see no reason why Australian's are less capable than Europeans of introducing good ideas. Perhaps a fresh set of eyes is what's needed

Very good points...I think it’s obvious that mistakes have always been made by referees/umpires, in all sporting codes. It’s just that in recent years the enhancements in technology – particularly slow motion replays, high def, the large number of camera angles at grounds have made it possible for every single error to be picked up on and magnified, whereas a decade or two ago this wouldn’t have been possible. Because this is now commonplace, and previously unnoticed and unremarked small mistakes are now able to be identified some people think the referee standards are slipping. I’d argue the opposite. I think refereeing standards are just as high as they’ve ever been. It’s just that the benchmark of what we expect from referees has been raised to an unrealistically high level. So long as humans are umpiring games, we will always have human error. People need to accept this, and stop demanding perfection and infallibility.

A few comments: 1. Firstly, I must say that I don't agree with all of the decisions made by the referee in discussion here but I do think some things need to be borne in mind when working out solutions to the problems. 2. Most leagues in most sports around the world complain about their standard of refereeing. It happens every year. It's getting a bit old. Funnier still is the old "the standard of refereeing is worse than ever" - I find it hard to believe that the standard of officiating in a sporting competition gets worse and worse and worse as the years go on and never improves. The NRL has this issue every year if you read the papers. I wonder what the standard of officiating was like 20 years ago? 3. The suggestion that referees are untouchable or unaccountable is wrong. They put a lot of effort into their games and I'd wager they feel terrible when they make a big mistake. And they're assessed just as they should be, and their assessment results determine the games they get going forward. Just like players they are rewarded for good performances by more and better appointments, and punished by the reverse for bad games. 4. The Broich no-goal incident was, anywhere in the world where there is no goal-line technology or assistants, unavoidable. The AR was where he needed to be when the shot was fired in and he couldn't humanly possibly sprint 20m+ to get to the goal line to judge in less than a second. 5. Funds, professionalism and video referees will only help the problem a tiny amount. Mistakes will still happen. In UEFA there have still been mistakes made by goal line judges. Locally, look at the NRL as an example - compared to 20 years ago they have more money, more professional referees, two referees per game, a video referee...yet all we seem to read about every week is how bad the match officials are. More more more does not necessarily equal better better better.

Not to mention that players in football get a luxury that no other code affords players, in that they get to come up and scream in the referees face and mob him whenever he makes a call they don't like, or to try and influence him into making a call they do want. Can't think of any other code that permits such blatant harassment of an official. I think it's the toughest officiating gig going, of any sport.

I agree Al. The point is that even the EPL refs often seem so undermanned due to the speed of the game, the matches could do with two extra sets of eyes. 'Blindside' shirt tugging, looking at possible red cards from a different angle to support the ref,that sort of stuff. Last weekends debatable decisions could have used another opinion from the linesman. Same, same ,all over the world. Extra goal refs are being considered. Maybe there would be no need for that if there were two linesmen each side of the ground. My reference to FIFA was because I think this issue needs considering internationally, especially for the World Cup. Just an idea over a beer mate ,that's all..

where has my post gone moderators.