Opposition fans back from the game - 24/25 page 225 onwards

[Brosef Stalin]

The difference with rugby is that there is enough technology in rugby for players to trust the referee/touch judges/TMO decisions. The basis that contentious issues can be irrefutably looked at means their calls very rarely get questioned.

Football refs are getting let down by a lack of reasonable technology, and it gets completely blown out of proportion by over analysis from pundits and more vocal support from more partisan fans.

it was the exactly the same attitude when I was at school.

Basically, football is played by the working class and they are simply awful people

[Ian Royal]

The difference with rugby is that there is enough technology in rugby for players to trust the referee/touch judges/TMO decisions. The basis that contentious issues can be irrefutably looked at means their calls very rarely get questioned.

Football refs are getting let down by a lack of reasonable technology, and it gets completely blown out of proportion by over analysis from pundits and more vocal support from more partisan fans.

Respect to referees in rugby massively predates technology.

[Nameless]

Technology brings it's own problems.
If it was brought into football you would get players screaming at referees every 2 minutes to check the replay. One of many reasons why video technology simply would not work in football.

[Nameless]

What doesn't help is the 25 super slowmo replays from 6 different angles and analysis by people who don't actually know the laws but feel they are qualified to comment.

This all further erodes the referee's authority. Make a minor mistake and you receive a level of scrutiny that the players never have to experience. The ref is the fall guy that managers and players blame for their own shortcomings.

I'm not suggesting it didn't happen before saturation football coverage, far from it, but I think it's made it worse.

That and football, IMO is a far harder game to referee than most. The pace is high, the decisions often have a large subjective element to them, they happen in a whirl of activity, the number of decisions needed is high, and of course there are 22 players on the pitch actively trying to con you.

I'd argue rugby is way harder. The laws are much more complex and can be infringed in multiple places at the same time. You also have a real risk of serious injury to players if the game is not controlled properly.
In football you have a very small area of play in which infringements take place so you don't need eyes in the back of your head like you do in rugby. I've refereed football a lot, and at a local level it's not really very hard. I would hate to do it under the scrutiny of the to cameras and the idiots in the studio who pontificate without knowing what they are talking about, or ever having riffed a game themselves.

[RoyalBlue]

Baldock did not touch that keeper and that was blatant cheating.

Reason he got sent off was the yellow in first half for petty dissent. This new guidelines brought in is proving an excellent decision and numerous players are getting sent off now for second yellows because of actions earlier in the game. I think it will stamp out a lot of dissent.

On and great win yesterday.... Getting a good vibe about this team

Must have watched different highlights to me, the commentator and the Channel 5 pundits, as all of us thought he got the first booking for a foul!

IMO the new guidelines are unlikely to make much difference as most of the dissent comes in the heat of the moment, rather than considered, and frequently is the result of one or more very poor refereeing decisions - the ref for our game v Brighton being a case in point where he seemed more concerned about dealing with dissent than bad fouls or other offences on the pitch.

JVDB was still displaying dissent at times during yesterday's game so he clearly hasn't been changed by the enforcement of the new guidelines!

Other sports manage to avoid this apparently uncontrollable rage caused by incompetent officials, so why are footballers the exception who should be allowed to yell abuse because they think a throw was given the wrong way ?
I'm not sure what genetic advantage rugby players have that mean they can generally accept a decision whereas footballers have to argue about everything, even if they are clearly in the wrong.
The stupid thing is the dissent is never worthwhile. Once an official,has made a decision they don't change their minds, no matter how loudly you scream in their face. Players and managers need to realise that they are actually putting themselves at a disadvantage with their behaviour and sort it out. A clampdown by officials is simply a sign that there is a huge lack of leadership and common sense in the footballing world.

Of course they rarely change their minds at that point but I suspect that players, managers and fans are really trying to intimidate them in an attempt to get more decisions going their way later on in the game.

[Royal Rother]

As Nameless said - rugby is way harder to referee in terms of application of the laws of the game.

But I'm convinced they make it up as they go along.

[Nameless]

As Nameless said - rugby is way harder to referee in terms of application of the laws of the game.

But I'm convinced they make it up as they go along.

Indeed, rugby is played entirely in the minds of the referees. When they see an offence in their parallel world they whistle, everyone in the real world stops and the ref decides how to start again. No one argues because no one else knows what the ref has seen in his head.
This is different to football where the game is played in the minds of the players and spectators, none of whom sees the same thing as the ref. So when the ref blows at random everyone thinks he's mad and tells him so.

[tmesis]

The difference with rugby is that there is enough technology in rugby for players to trust the referee/touch judges/TMO decisions. The basis that contentious issues can be irrefutably looked at means their calls very rarely get questioned.

Football refs are getting let down by a lack of reasonable technology, and it gets completely blown out of proportion by over analysis from pundits .

...who more often than not don't know the rules of the game, which means you get quotes like...

"it has to be a red. He was the last man"

"That can't be a penalty. It was ball to hand"

"It has to be a handball. It deflected the shot away from the goal"

"No way is that a foul. He didn't even touch him"

Pundits seem incapable of grasping that refs have to give decisions by what the rule book says, not what Andy Townsend thinks the rule ought to be.


As for rugby, I think it's easier/less controversial normally because it's very difficult to trick a player into committing a foul, or make it look like someone has committed a foul when they haven't.

The controversy tends to come from technicalities. I remember a Irish v Harlequins game at the Madejski, which was won on the last phase of play in the game by try where a Harlequins players dropped the ball through his fingers in the corner, before dropping on the ball to score a try. Even he thought he'd knocked the ball on, and didn't really celebrate. The TV replay showed him dropping the ball, to cheers from the Irish fans, which turned to boos and the sort of shouts directed at football referees when he awarded the try. The technicality was that although he dropped the ball, he hadn't knocked it forwards, so it wasn't a knock-on. Try stands.

[Nameless]

It was even more technical than that if I remember the incident. The guy missed the ball with his hands, it hit his chest and went forward and he then fell on it. No knockon despite looking very suspicious but slow mo showed it was legal.

[wingnut]

It helps that the standard of officials in top class rugby and cricket is extremely high, but also the decision making in those is fact based whereas football is mostly opinion based which does make it more open to disagreement.

Sorry, Nameless, usually a fan of your work, but that (highlighted) is balls.

[Hoop Blah]

The treatment of referees in football, at all levels, is appalling. As much as I love the game there is no getting away from that and, as others have said, it's as much down to over analysis and a lack of understanding of the laws as it is just general behaviour and a lack of respect.

Anyone who thinks football is alone in it's over appealing, exploitation of the rules and gamesmanship really hasn't paid that much attention to other sports, cricket especially, but the respect for the referee is (the) one thing that rugby certainly does better than football.

Football is a more fluid game than most, and it probably has more personal opinion involved in it's officiating, so that does compound the cultural differences in the two sports that breeds the dissent.

[Nameless]

It helps that the standard of officials in top class rugby and cricket is extremely high, but also the decision making in those is fact based whereas football is mostly opinion based which does make it more open to disagreement.

Sorry, Nameless, usually a fan of your work, but that (highlighted) is balls.

Happy to discuss it ! Football laws revolve around the opinion of the referee, not black and white 'fact', hence why pundits are rubbish and video replays judged by a 3rd party are suspect.
Rugby is much more fact based and easier for a TMO to be involved.
There is a huge element of interpretation of the laws in rugby but I would still argue there is a conceptual difference in how the officiating works between the sports.
Just my opinion though !

[wingnut]

Balls. In both cases it's humans interpreting the rules.

[paultheroyal]

Balls. In both cases it's humans interpreting the rules.

Exactly. God knows what road nameless is going down.

Rugby as is football is governed by the laws of the game.

A referee in both sports ensures the game is carried out by the laws of said game.

I could list numerous examples... But I am off to a meeting!

[double d]

If there was ever a need for a new epic +10 pager thread then this is most definitely it

[LWJ]

This was actually quite an interesting and useful thread, before the usual tosspots moved in to compare different sports in one of HNA's finest off topic crap debates.

Could a mod remove all the shit posts to get it back on topic?

[paultheroyal]

This was actually quite an interesting and useful thread, before the usual tosspots moved in to compare different sports in one of HNA's finest off topic crap debates.

Could a mod remove all the shit posts to get it back on topic?

agreed - and even I got sucked into some of the drivel written.

Of all the team threads this is my favourite.

[Brosef Stalin]

This was actually quite an interesting and useful thread, before the usual tosspots moved in to compare different sports in one of HNA's finest off topic crap debates.

Could a mod remove all the shit posts to get it back on topic?

^^^ you can tell LWJ went to a school where they played football

[LWJ]

This was actually quite an interesting and useful thread, before the usual tosspots moved in to compare different sports in one of HNA's finest off topic crap debates.

Could a mod remove all the shit posts to get it back on topic?

^^^ you can tell LWJ went to a school where they played football

Represented Berkshire in rugby m8

[Brosef Stalin]

This was actually quite an interesting and useful thread, before the usual tosspots moved in to compare different sports in one of HNA's finest off topic crap debates.

Could a mod remove all the shit posts to get it back on topic?

^^^ you can tell LWJ went to a school where they played football

Represented Berkshire in rugby m8

Lols, i was just being a dick.

Does explain a few things, mind!