Long read but a good read https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...mol-howard-webb-andre-marriner-darren-england The article does cast doubt on his judgment- Darren England stopping for service station sushi is living a little close to the edge for me…
The amount of contact and level of force are different, right? I'll agree if you're saying the contact is somewhat "glancing" to use one of our buzzwords of late. But the level of force in the kick itself seems pretty inarguable; he was trying to clear the ball downfield so the kick was executed with the level of force that would require accomplishing that. If you're saying that the glancing contact consequently mitigates the amount of force that the defender endured, okay, totally with you there. But I still think it's a very painful kick to suffer.
I began to understand referees’ grievances with the evaluation system when I went through a report with Marriner, in which he’d been penalised for failing to caution Tottenham Hotspur’s Cristian Romero for a foul. In isolation, it was a clear yellow card, but Marriner believed he might have made the right call for the good of the match. The Spurs players “didn’t even think it was a free-kick”, he said. “I would have lost control if I’d given a yellow!” To the evaluators, this was irrelevant, and Marriner was left with a percentage accuracy of 97%, his lowest of the season. This is the Romero SFP on the opening day of the season!!!
I can't think of many evaluation systems worse than breaking a match down into a hundred distinct decisions and reviewing them in a cold room with no on-pitch audio. Yikes.
Thanks for linking the article. What an idiot, idiot, idiot organisation PGMOL are... lost in their own bizarre world of percentages, an appalling evaluation system, "no, the fans are wrong, we are the best in the world", and "we need to learn from ex-players and other sports how we can get even better", the organisation really should be closed asap. To make a more general remark: as UEFA and FIFA join them in losing the plot, I really think that in the same way to get a grasp of stuff in wider life now is mostly ignoring legacy media and instead reading excellent and dedicated Substacks, it will be readers of eg. BigSoccer and Law5 who (try to) understand real refereeing and only then after that what each organisation wants from you as a ref, who will make the next generation of top officials in next 10-15yrs.
It is f---ing nuts. And they also take advice from a former player(!!!!) who attends the match in the stadium and offers the ref advice on how they can better manage the game. They aren't even the call a spade a spade sort of former player, who would actually be useful and are more often right than stupid PGMOL people like Gallagher, Foy sort, but the extremely vetted FA official, PGMOL 'ideology' type who really offer nothing at all, have the same views on what should be a RC, etc. To repeat myself: the organisation should be closed asap.
Hmm. What decisions are included in that? Every TI/GK/CK? Even for a poor ref, those numbers are going to get pretty high as those are the majority of "decisions" even if many of them don't involve any actual deciding. Kinda sounds like a system designed to provide impressive numbers.
Section 3 seems to be everything to me--at least regarding how we perceive VAR. You have Meier stating that referees become more complacent and prone to dodge big decisions, because they have an insurance policy. Then you have Rosetti pointing out, with one example, that if you use VAR to call everything correctly per the Laws you get matches with 7 penalties and 3 red cards. No one in England wants what Rosetti is saying could be an eventuality, so they set the bar very high for VAR intervention (save offside, which results in fewer goals ironically). So they intervene less, thereby reducing the safety net or insurance policy that referees think they have in the EPL. The problem is really that simple. The solution, however, is an entirely different matter. Because Darren England is right about how subjective officiating in our sport can (and maybe should?) be. But you can't have a high degree of subjectivity if you want to have VAR. And that potentially leads to the world Rosetti warns about, which makes it all one very vicious cycle that mirrors our discussions here since 2016 or so.
I think they are suggesting that to be a top official in the mid-term future, you should take a deep dive into referee discussion boards to learn what "really" matters (to whom? by what measure? unclear) so you become a well-rounded and effective referee and then you can tailor those skills to whatever your professional organization desires from its officials. Or something
Obviously I'm not at extremely high level trainings or anything, it's usually USSF regional level webinars, a few that have revolved around mass confrontation management. They really don't go over referee assaults, but in the excerpts we have discussed, generally at the youth and adult amateur level the trainer says that match termination is probably the best result to do. People doing trainings, the referee assignors for these leagues, even refs I have spoken to who have been in matches where they personally were assaulted or a crew member was assaulted and they chose to continue the match who almost universally regret doing so even if the "threat' never returned. The referee assignors that I know in particular take referee assaults extremely seriously and tend to suggest termination So you mention security liaisons and a consultation decision with them. If not outright match termination, would it ever be an accepted practice to temporarily postpone a match to make a phone call with offsite or conference with on-site league rep or security to see what their opinion is? Or would the ref be expected to make the decision on their own and do all of this on a post-game report?
It’s funny to see that England referee article. I went over to Reddit to see what they say about it. It’s always the same thing, endless trashing of referees calling them corrupt etc but then when anything comes out or happens that shows any sort of humanizing of referees like kavanaugh getting assaulted, the article from England, even PRO inside video review, suddenly people show compassion for referees
To this first part above, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to lean toward termination if the assault is part of a larger chaos. Look, non-professional clubs and settings are exactly that: not professional. Once a certain threshold gets crossed, particularly at the amateur level, it is difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube, so to speak. The idea that order can be restored from chaos and further threats eliminated isn't always going to be true, particularly if the assault is the culmination of an increasingly heated environment and/or one team is left more agrieved than the other going forward. Plus, clubs/teams have a lot less ability and infrastructure to guarantee safety/security; maybe even less desire, too. But I think a lot of this has to do with the connotation of "assault" and what and how we punish it. The stuff that makes YouTube videos and prompts court cases? Yeah, terminate. But maybe part of the disconnect here is that I think there's far too much "assault" that isn't properly punished. If a referee gets petulantly shoved after awarding a penalty, that's assault and it needs to be a red card. But if everyone (or most everyone) recognizes what the player did and it's not causing a larger scene, there's no reason to terminate the match--the other 21 players did nothing wrong and you handled the 1 person who did. So that's my main point here. If the people you've spoken to regret continuing because they were rattled and they were trying to finish a game that just shouldn't be finished, I would believe they probably continued in a chaotic situation or environment. But if we're talking simply (for lack of a better term) getting pushed or manhandled by one player and that player is dealt with appropriately... I can't quite understand "regret" in continuing. It's our job to officiate a match and dismissing players who commit violent conduct is part of that job. For almost any serious competition, the procedures for something like this will be laid out in the Referee Handbook or League Manual. So, it will vary. Some competitions don't want or instruct against terminating the match without consultation with a very specific individual--so the "temporarily postpone to consult" route would actually be required and not just "acceptable." Are there competitions where it would be acceptable or expected that a referee make a decision to terminate on his own without any consultation? Yes, but it would be rare or lower-level professional. I also would say the actual decision probably shouldn't be communicated to the teams until everyone is off the pitch. Better to tell two locker rooms "we aren't going back out" than to try to take everyone off by saying "we're leaving AND not coming back out." But again, all this will vary by type and level of competition.
I disagree with the displeasure you're expressing towards this type of evaluation. I certainly don't think that "scientific" match situations analysis should be the entirety of referee evaluation, but it has a role to play. The evaluation system should be designed in such a way so as to reward referees who are able to make decisions without being biased, e.g. by the home crowd, by particularly whiny players or managers, by embellishments, by media reaction. (It frustrates me to no end when referees like Clattenburg outright admit to biasing themselves by such factors, treating it as a feature instead of a bug). As opposed to a more subjective in-person approach, the "cold room with no on-pitch audio" provides assessors the ability to judge a referee's calls on their own merit, without subjecting the assessor to the same biases. I argue that the main problem Premier League refereeing is that they're not insular enough. It seems like everyone in positions of power there cares what the pundits or former footballers have to say. The problem is, those pundits bring their own biases to a huge extent! There's no semblance of logic or consistency in their analysis, and they're generally much more likely to change their mind based upon what team or player is affected rather than any facts of an incident itself. Trying to please these people will never do any good. When Darren England says that VARs don't know whether something is clear and obvious "until you leave the building" or when he dreams of a "magic ask-the-audience button", I can't help but think that this implies an uncomfortably close coupling between the whims of the (illogical, short-sighted, biased) public media and the evaluation of decisions at PGMOL. This is not to say that cold scientific analysis is the only measure of referee success, subjective factors must also be considered. There's room for both types of analysis to coexist.
I completely agree there's room for both types of analysis! But PGMOL utilizes only one of them, which I think is a shame. We all know the mark of a truly great official is match management - scoring 100% on every small technical decision but failing to manage match temperature or pressure is a failing grade in my book.
If anyone thinks they're going to be come a top official by absorbing the unfiltered ranting of anonymous people online that's a hell of a take
There's a lot of that on these boards, true, but there's also a lot of good stuff on here - wading through the muck and picking out the diamonds is a crucial skill in any profession. Regarding officiating in the EPL (the point of this thread, I think), it's a mess and the official party line is more often than not that everything is going well, with just a few minor deviations here and there. With all that, it's probably not a bad idea to look at alternative perspectives.
I realize that living on the internet means we all have the cultural memories of gnats. But before VAR people also fucking hated refereeing and thought all the officials were terrible and ruining the game.— Mike L. Goodman (@TheM_L_G) March 23, 2023 I was wrong about VAR I thought it would be way more helpful. Honestly I still think there are things it would be helpful for (not getting away with elbowing a guy on the other side of the pitch/blatant flops) but it's clear it can't be trusted not to ruin the game right now.— Joel Wertheimer (@Wertwhile) March 23, 2023 I'm grateful for the candor and I said so on Twitter. I also said I've come to the BIgSoccer Ref Forum for years to better understand how referees see the game. I didn't say (not directly at any rate) that journalists and commentators should have been doing the same. I also said it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle And that is still true — even if most people think my comments are part of the muck and even if the rule changes that have been made to adapt them to VAR have compromised the way referees think about their decisions, such is the pernicious influence of VAR on the game
Matchweek 29 Man City - Liverpool Referee: Simon Hooper. Assistants: Adrian Holmes, Simon Long. Fourth official: Graham Scott. VAR: John Brooks. Assistant VAR: Matthew Wilkes. Bournemouth - Fulham Referee: Peter Bankes. Assistants: Eddie Smart, Nick Greenhalgh. Fourth official: Geoff Eltringham. VAR: Paul Tierney. Assistant VAR: Sian Massey-Ellis. Arsenal - Leeds Referee: Darren England. Assistants: Dan Cook, Nick Hopton. Fourth official: Jarred Gillett. VAR: Craig Pawson. Assistant VAR: Marc Perry. Brighton - Brentford Referee: Michael Oliver. Assistants: Stuart Burt, James Mainwaring. Fourth official: Leigh Doughty. VAR: Stuart Attwell. Assistant VAR: Mark Scholes. Crystal Palace - Leicester Referee: Tim Robinson. Assistants: Adam Nunn, Scott Ledger. Fourth official: Robert Jones. VAR: Michael Salisbury. Assistant VAR: Ian Hussin. Nottingham Forest - Wolves Referee: Chris Kavanagh. Assistants: Simon Bennett, Dan Robathan. Fourth official: Matt Donohue. VAR: Neil Swarbrick. Assistant VAR: Timothy Wood. Chelsea - Aston Villa Referee: Andy Madley. Assistants: Harry Lennard, Steven Meredith. Fourth official: Dean Whitestone. VAR: Tony Harrington. Assistant VAR: Gary Beswick. West Ham - Southampton Referee: Paul Tierney. Assistants: Constantine Hatzidakis, Neil Davies. Fourth official: Anthony Taylor. VAR: Peter Bankes. Assistant VAR: Simon Bennett. Newcastle - Man Utd Referee: Stuart Attwell. Assistants: Lee Betts, Darren Cann. Fourth official: Michael Salisbury. VAR: Andy Madley. Assistant VAR: Harry Lennard. Everton - Tottenham Referee: David Coote. Assistants: Timothy Wood, Mark Scholes. Fourth official: Graham Scott. VAR: Michael Oliver. Assistant VAR: Eddie Smart. Bournemouth - Brighton Referee: Darren Bond. Assistants: Darren Cann, Nick Hopton. Fourth official: Andy Madley. VAR: Darren England. Assistant VAR: Adrian Holmes. Leeds - Nottingham Forest Referee: Robert Jones. Assistants: Ian Hussin, Wade Smith. Fourth official: Michael Salisbury. VAR: Stuart Attwell. Assistant VAR: Richard West. Leicester - Aston Villa Referee: Graham Scott. Assistants: Steven Meredith, Samuel Lewis. Fourth official: Peter Bankes. VAR: Neil Swarbrick. Assistant VAR: Dan Robathan. Chelsea - Liverpool Referee: Anthony Taylor. Assistants: Gary Beswick, Dan Cook. Fourth official: Andre Marriner. VAR: Chris Kavanagh. Assistant VAR: Nick Greenhalgh. Man Utd - Brentford Referee: John Brooks. Assistants: Matthew Wilkes, Eddie Smart. Fourth official: Darren England. VAR: Robert Jones. Assistant VAR: Natalie Aspinall. West Ham - Newcastle Referee: Craig Pawson. Assistants: Marc Perry, Scott Ledger. Fourth official: Chris Kavanagh. VAR: David Coote. Assistant VAR: Derek Eaton.
"Big" matches: Liverpool - Man City (Community Shield): Pawson Chelsea - Tottenham: Taylor Man Utd - Liverpool: Oliver Everton - Liverpool: Taylor Man Utd - Arsenal: Tierney Arsenal - Tottenham: Taylor Man City - Man Utd: Oliver Arsenal - Liverpool: Oliver Liverpool - Man City: Taylor Man Utd - Tottenham: Hooper Chelsea - Arsenal: Oliver Liverpool - Tottenham: A. Madley Arsenal - Newcastle: A. Madley Man Utd - Man City: Attwell Tottenham - Arsenal: Pawson Arsenal - Man Utd: Taylor Liverpool - Chelsea: Oliver Man City - Arsenal (FA Cup): Tierney Liverpool - Everton: Hooper Arsenal - Man City: Taylor Man Utd - Newcastle (EFL Cup): Coote Leeds - Southampton: Bankes Tottenham - Chelsea: Attwell Man City - Newcastle: Hooper Liverpool - Man Utd: A. Madley Man City - Liverpool: Hooper West Ham - Southampton: Tierney Newcastle - Man Utd: Attwell Chelsea - Liverpool: Taylor Distribution of these matches in the EPL: Taylor: 7 Oliver: 5 Hooper: 4 Attwell: 3 A. Madley: 3 Tierney: 2 Bankes: 1 Pawson: 1
Hooper is excellent at vociferously explaining to players why he doesn’t give otherwise obvious yellow cards. I guess it’s a step up from the deer in the headlights standards of a few others in his cohort, at least.