Blast from the past. I assumed D'Urso retired a while ago. His career pretty much ended of the top level when he failed to show Ferguson that rec card against us. Or this is there a second A D'Urso out there?
Got demoted to the Football League; he's the ref that sent Lambert off against Brighton in our Championship season.
A mate of mine, Sunderland fan, has a theory that because refs these days have to start in their teens in order to last long enough to get to PL, they don't get to play the game at a decent level. That means they have little or no experience of what is or isn't a real tackle or challenge. it is all theory from a book. Any polite thoughts?
Thats like suggesting that ministers should have knowledge of the subject matter their department deals with. Utter madness. You can't have people with experience of their subject making decisions. Wash your mouth out In all seriousness though I don't think you need to have played a sport at all to be able to know what is what. The standard is crap because the refs are crap. The 'young part' is true though. I asked a mate of mine who is 40 if he'd never fancied reffing at a higher level (He was reffing @ Unibond level at the time) and he said he was too old, would never get there. He was a good ref though. Better than half the chaff in the Prem. Bring back Elleray
I'd like to see a younger referee, one of s similar age to the players. On with a bit of a temper. One who may overreact if a player questions his decision. One who may get really angry, throw his toys out the pram and tell a play to go f#%$ himself. Tom, how far off the Prem are you?
The son of a friend of mine is running the line in the Football League and refereeing Conference games, I recently discovered. His assessments are looking good so I suppose he's got every chance of making it to the Prem in time.
Well, reading the Premier League thread again and the standard of some decisions yesterday, I thought I'd pop this back up. I'd be pretty pissed if I was a Foxes or Swans fan today. Shocking decisions in those games
Swansea can be pissed at Green and Henry staying on the pitch but not the dismissal of Routledge. He kicked out and I would be amazed if he won his appeal. Leicester can only be pissed at the first penalty really. The second one was harsh but they are given from time to time.
Think I'd be pretty angry if my job depended upon being able to run about and someone chopped me down like Routledge was. Yeah he reacted, but considering the 'tackle' I honestly believe he withstrained himself quite well. Did the other guy get booked? Didnt notice on MotD
agreed, however I do believe that the overall standard is worsening. That, or more wrong 'big' decisions are being made.
This is a good thread. I would be reluctant to be too critical of the performance of referees especially as the speed of the modern game is so fast that it adds pressure to making a snap decision and the makes assessing any alleged offence harder. I would have to be of the side of the referees whose job is under the constant spotlight by the media , let alone the increasingly vigilant and vocal management / coaches. What I would like to add is that it is sometimes difficult to forget that watching football is a form on entertainment. The biggest problems with refs is this respect is that the game can be disrupted by continuous stoppages or a series of poor decisions can result in team discipline slipping. I like to think that a good ref will keep a match flowing and try to adjudicate in an equitable manner. That said, I think dubious decisions to add to the interest in the game and make it a talking point. Regular TV cover makes a ref's job far harder than it was pre EPL and the increase in fitness levels / increased professionalism is probably keeping abreast of the technical improvements in the game. We sometime forget that football is about entertainment and having various talking points makes football more interesting, I think.
A chap on the TV complained that refs don't use common sense and go by the letter of the law. Is anyone surprised about that...refs know their decisions will be put under a microscope and they could even get demoted if they make too many mistakes. Therefore, you will get fewer cases of refs letting things go to keep the game moving.
I think the problem is that they don't go by the letter of the law. You see in the same game the same offence treated differently which means that they aren't going by the letter of the law. I wish they would go by the letter of the law. Even if it meant being 9 v 9 at the end of a game at least there would be the consistency there and players/managament/fans would have more idea of what is or should happen. If consistency was achieved then over a short space of time players and managers would change their play / behaviour to match more rigid officiation. If it comes down to common sense or discretion you have the problem of personality and opinion coming into it whereas I would rather it be this is the rule and it will be enforced rather than the current this is what I interpret as the rule and this is my interpretation of what I should enforce however I'll let you off this time Wrong decisions will be made, that is human error but it is the inconsistency in which they enforce the rules, not just different referees but often the same referee in the same game, that enfuriates. Some dives are waved away no yellow card. Others have a ref charging up to raise his yellows. Lots of 'second yellows' are ignored. Make it 'These are the rules and they will be enforced to the letter' and I will be happy (or happier.)
