Managers and players are interviewed after every match having to talk about situations that occur during the 90 plus minutes and making them accountable for there actions.What about interviewing referees after the match and making them accountable for there actions.Why not give them chance to explain why they give bookings to one but not the other for the same offences.Let them explain how a player can get kicked up and down the park with no punishment for the culprits,how a goalkeeper can get assaulted in mid flight with no punishment but a player can get booked for knocking the ball 2 yards away with his hand. I think the referee would get some respect if he could explain his decisions after the game.
If they just show some consistency it would help, as you said he was booking one but not the other for similar type offences. I counted 5 cynical fouls on Malik Wilks in the first 13 minutes and not as much as a word with the offenders.
The only referee I can remember trying to justify himself was Mr Singh after our game with Huddersfield quite a few years back.it was the game when Huddersfield scored straight from a throw in and Mr Singh kept saying the ball had touched a player when it was obvious looking at replays nobody had touched the ball at all.
I remember that. Gurnham Singh that brings back memories. I remember a referee colleague of mine was a reserve official at Oakwell when he was the ref. He told me Singh was one of the most ignorant and arrogant persons he had ever met.
Credit where it's due there. He said what he saw and stuck to it. If he was wrong fair enough but at least he had the guts to stand by his decision.
They most definitely should be made accountable after a game. As things stand they are an ultra protected group who are immune from any criticism from the people whose jobs they can affect.
But nobody touched it, so what he thought he saw in real time wasn’t what happened. He could’ve simply said that, no need to even apologise as he gave what he saw at the time. To deny the footage in front of him was arrogance.
As I recall it was the head of Steve Davies he says it touched. It clearly didn't touch his head (with the benefit of replays) but he only saw it in real time so can be forgiven for the error. Some of the decisions that refs get wrong are a lot harder to forgive especially when its clear to most in the ground what happened but the one man that matters either gets it wrong or just bottles making the decision. We do seem to be on the wrong end of a lot of questionable decisions.
If they were made accountable and knew they had to explain bookings and critical decisions. It might actually focus their minds more knowing they had to justify it. They may become more human and understand the impact they ineptitude can have. They should also be independently assessed by the None refereeing fraternity. If they knew they could lose their gig and status. Again we might see the quality increase.
You can’t independently assess a referee as the FA employ the assessors who are former referees. Mistakes will always happen, but not being consistent with how you treat similar indiscretions, is the most riling factor in my book
Just to balance this a bit, games I played in were refereed by Gurnam several times in the late 80s. Unlike many others he was always willing to have a discussion (providing you approached him in the right way) and often took the heat out of a situation with a smile or a bit of humour. I found him to be a pleasant bloke and a generally good referee - got that decision against Town badly wrong though!
If I remember correctly, didn't Sky interview Mr Singh at half time of the match? It could be my mind playing tricks on me, but I'm sure I remember watching the recording at home and being astounded that they'd asked him to comment on the decision with the match still in progress. If so, he's hardly going to admit to a blatant error with the score at 1-1. That would have opened up a ridiculous can of worms.
They definitely did interview him and ask him about the decision. I think it was at full time but I'm not 100% certain.
As I said, I could easily be imagining that it was at half time. Maybe the fountain of all knowledge @JLWBigLil could confirm?!
In my humble opinion the constant griping about referees is utterly pathetic. Once in a blue moon you have a Mr Willard performance. For the rest of the time they do a good job in difficult circumstances for a fraction of the pay received by those they referee. Supporters are utterly incapable of seeing their performance in an objective way, and television pundits have mileage only in exposing their perceived mistakes. They are regularly shredded on TV through the unfair use of dozens of angles which are not available to the official on the field. I wish that the football community had the maturity to treat referees with the same respect as officials are treated in rugby or cricket. In the absence of that the petulance of football supporters is demeaning to our game, in my humble opinion.
You're right, old mate, it WAS at half time, just before the second half started. However, you're most definitely wrong when calling me the fountain of all knowledge.
I for one don't agree with the idea of having post-match interviews with referees. Once the game is concluded we should move onto the next match, not put referees under even more pressure than they already are. Interviewing referees would actually be interrogation of referees and would serve no ultimate purpose than to have them subject to even more abuse than they get now. Remember one teams sensible ref decision is sometimes the other team's appalling decision so interviewing refs would very often have one team up in arms. For what real purpose? So the job of refereeing is further undermined? Not for me. Leave them alone even if we think they've had a shocker. Let the ref assessor deal with them and give a balanced view over several games.
I spent 7 years on the FL and PL line and the only Referee who I could not get on with was Mr Singh, he attitude was as described above and before anyone including him says it, it has nothing to do with his creed or colour. He was just a detestable person who I think no one got on with and one of the main reasons why he did not progress to the PL.(Allegedly)
I thought that he did alright for the first 60/65 mins. Did his best to let the game flow etc. Seemed to lose control towards the end and then failed to give one of the most blatant penalties I've seen in a long time. Now I thought that the new rule stated that if the opposition player in anyway made his silhouette bigger and the ball hits the arm or hand then it's a penalty. Wilks shot hit both his hands! Both of them! How it was not given I'll never understand as under the new rules its 100% a pen.
