Demerit points for referees

I think Conor that what fanz is saying is that referee's should be accountable to HIM. Because it's already well documented that they are indeed held accountable, but just like lawyers, surgeons and pilots, it just is not in the court of ignorant public opinion. That's the abject failure of his analogy.

Cheers - I'm not a referee just not ignorant, a point difference which will probably not lead to us not seeing eye to eye.

Come on mate, we're not talking about surgeons and lawyers here, we're talking about refereeing, there is a pretty big difference. I'm still a bit confused as to how you think it is best to go about getting perfection from the referees. I don't see how making referees answer media questions will help improve their performance. You say they are not accountable, and by implication you are saying they are doing a bad job on purpose because they know there is no accountability. Can you prove this?

Mushi, although wrong again I'm sure you did your best. Keep on refereeing as you always have.

Gee I wasn't aware that lawyers, pilots, surgeons, the coffee lass or the car that runs into you were holding press conferences explaining away the errors of their day in the fantasy land of Fanz.

Yep & umpire and except for personal pride and personal discipline was never really accountable (I was when I swore once!). I knew when I had a good game and when I didn't do too well. I got sick of the politically correct catch cry 's/he (any ref/ump) is doing their best' from the ref fraternity as a justification for (but no acknowledgement of) a poor performance. I reckon sometimes my 'best' just wasn't good enough. Sometimes embarrased by my own performance I would call both teams and coaches to the centre after a game and apologise for errors I may have made (and sometimes with some justification - I was simply out of position or blinded by a player etc) but most refereeing camps (not all) frown upon this. As such I find it amusing the interpretation by contributers here with comments like 'explain every single decision', '...just because there isn't a press conference there is no accountability'. Refs know when calls are controversial, questionable or 50/50 (as they see it) and I believe they should acknowledge that. Although I conceede that the commenters here and large parts of refereeing culture disagree. So be it, let the current culture continue and next time you go to a professional that gets it wrong (your laywer, surgeon, the pilot of your plane, the lass that gets your coffee order wrong, the car that runs into you), just remember to tell them, everybody makes mistakes, its ok you did your best.

Just wondering whether you've ever been a referee, Fanz?

Spoken like a true referee!

I took from the comment here that their are rational people in the world that understand that we only focus on the very limited number of errors I’m staggered at the naivety that just because there isn’t a press conference there is no accountability.

There is accountability though. If referees have a shocker they do get dropped. How can you possibly expect them to get up and front the media and explain every single decision they make in a game? They probably won't recall half of them. Referees rarely lose teams games, even close games. Unless each team is perfect, there is no way you can solely blame the referees for a loss. They have a job, and I bet they do it to the best of their ability, and things do go wrong, just like things go wrong with the teams.

So to err is human. But what is acceptable? Is it acceptable if an official gets 100% of decisions (or non decisions) wrong? Is 50% acceptable? Is 90% acceptable? Articles show that EPL Referees get it right 92% and their assistants 99.3%. From the comments here it seems that because humans make mistakes any % is acceptable? To further the condrum if the top officials can have any acceptable error rate then is it acceptable for your weekend club game ref to get everything wrong or because the game is slower (or somehow less important) have a similiar (or greater) error rate to the 'premier' officials. To me the frustration is not really that they make mistakes but there is no acknowledgement of such; there is no post match conference for the officials where they could possibly say 'sorry in hindsight the penalty in the 23rd minute was not right, however I was partially unsighted and made the best call I could at the time' or 'I was very happy with my and my assistants performance today, even the controversial call in the 23rd minute was right as the rule clearly states... which is different to the situation in the 67th minute' but there is no accountability (hence the article above) and so any performance is 'acceptable'. To me the culture of non accountability within refereeing contributes to the error rate particularly under the premier levels (as there is no consequence nor additional motivation to get it 100% right) - another human trait - take the path of least resistance!

The referees cop enough as it is. Sometimes it is warranted but let's be fair dinkum, they are human beings, just as prone to error as anyone else. Have you ever tried refereeing a sport? It really isn't as easy as it seems. I really don't see the benefit in openly shaming poor refereeing decisions, I think that will only create an environment where they are stressed out about making the right decision, and lead to less obvious penalties not being called. There is an obsession from some fans with referees getting every decision right, and it is simply not possible. And by penalising them for making 'a shocker' you are effectively saying that they got the call wrong on purpose, and that is a rather serious allegation.

Being abused by all media and fans for days on end isn't being held accountable? Having your integrity and impartiality questioned with no substantive evidence to support those claims? wow

This is a pretty stupid read. The AFL refereeing is generally top notch and the players cotton on quickly. The Rugby Union refereeing is generally poor but goes both ways. They seem amateurish compared to the other codes. League refs are good but cop heaps from the pathetic coaches who try to shift the blame for their NFL team and their own shortcomings. The soccer refs get the most pressure because one decision (penalty, no penalty) often decides a match result. Only in union does the refereeing often ruin the game, with constant penalties. Most of refereeing criticism is from poor losers.

Why not implement a similar system for players and coaches? Then when they get a certain number the club is required to drop them or sack them for poor performance! Dropped ball: 1 demerit point. Forward pass (considering how hard it is to get a forward pass called against you these days): 2 points Penalty conceded: 4 points (with a bonus 1 point if conceded on the last tackle) Missed tackle: 2 points Being placed on report: 6 points Sin-bin: 10 points Sent off: 20 points plus an additional point for every minute of the game missed. For coaches it could be something like this... Poor strategical decision costing a try: 6 demerit points Bad selection: 5 points Not using a player on the bench: 4 points Poorly-timed interchanges: 4 points Allowing a trainer to stay on the field for the full 80 minutes: 4 points Being sacked: 20 points in deficit whenever you start your next NRL job. I'm being serious. In the context of the article anyway. My idea has just about as much merit as the idea in this article. Ridiculous.

Exactly, demerit points must be meted out within one second of each contentious ruling - without a replay i.e. similar conditions under which the referee operates. Then a further panel reviews those decisions and demerits them for the inevitable errors. And so on and so on until eventually a light goes on, and it dawns on them that referees do, have done, and will continue to make mistakes, and that lambasting them and then shuffling them around makes no difference whatever.

How childish. Why not award them a good star if they get a decision right.

"Mount a go pro to the refs head, and make the calls based on that video feed only." Another Idea would be to have something like Google glass, where the controlling referee/s can have real-time video feeds from the TV camera's or other officialdom. Or if that's too much information at once at the very least they'll be able to view replays without the need for a video official. I think that this is the way things will go once this type of technology matures. But even with all the technology and camera angles in the world, so long as there's a human factor involved, decisions will always be somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.

I think referees/umpires need to held to account, but hanging them out to dry like that is ridiculous. Omitting where they go to video replays, the on field referee has to make a split second decision based on whatever (s)he happens to see. Speaking from experience umpiring a Field Hockey game, it is so easy to miss decisions based purely on not seeing them or being wrong sided by players. Many critics of umpires/refs use a great camera angle to prove there point. Mount a go pro to the refs head, and make the calls based on that video feed only. Elite level umpires/referees have a hard job, that has no glory, and generally no win situation for them. When they are performing poorly, they should be pulled up. But a public shaming for each decision they get wrong will turn officials away from the game, or worse, video umpiring will be used for every decision