Tuesday 22nd December, 2009last year, at the end of December
Bad Ref Afternoon
I’m becoming increasingly fed up with paying my money to watch games refereed by officials so one-sided you have to wonder whether they are cheating.
There is a problem in football and Andy Utley’s comment on the BfB report on the Rotherham United game sums it up. Tired from asking the question “bias or bloody rubbish?” supporters such as Andy – and myself – are frustrated at the inaction of the game’s authorities to these Bad Ref Afternoons are voting with their wallets.
Andy’s comments about contacting the Football League about a Referee’s performance are far from unique in the BfB post bag and a good few City fans after the Oldham/Blackpool/Southend/Shrewsbury games a few years ago wrote to the football authorities to complain about what they saw as bias in the officials and all got the same response of “say what you like about the Refs but never say they are cheating.”
Not that Andy’s comments – or my thoughts on the subject – are the only voice to be heard. Chris Barlow on BfB – late on an evening – added
To talk of conspiracy between referees against BCFC due to SM’s attitude even defies my current drunken state.
Chris has a valid point too and one which Tony Pulis the Stoke manager would agree with – he would not see Referees as against City but rather suggest that Lee Probert is just not giving the right decisions. The flaw in the idea that Referees are blighted by a bias against Bradford City is that they have seemingly been for Bradford City and while aspersion are not to be cast our chairmen are no whiter than any others.
This is countered by the idea that it is rare for a team who wins a game to have a lasting memory of any referee. Think back now to the last time City got what you could call a favour from an official. It is a much harder task than recalling the last time you stomped away in anger.
There is an attitude in football that any cheating in the game is always detected and thus the suggestion of cheating is always wrong. This is often and obviously untrue. In League Two Accrington players have been banned for betting on their own team to lose while at the other end of professional football the likes of Juventus were relegated for fixing matches.
We see that cheating is commonplace – certainly more commonplace than the Football League’s terse replies to genuine concerns suggest – with the Italian example being a very high profile collection of games in which teams had favourable Referees. One wonders if any Inter supporter trooping away from a game with Juve, AC Milan et al complaining about the offside goal that the Ref “just got wrong” was told that “referee’s don’t cheat.”
The word “cheat” has a strange set of connotations in football. It is a given that players cheat all the time – when Thierry Henry did it in the World Cup play-offs the reaction was a condemnation not for the player for blatantly abusing the rules but for the officials for not spotting the abuse – and in some cases plaudits are expected when players show any honesty at all. I recall being invited to admire Cristiano Ronaldo by a work mate because he had “cut diving out of his game” as if the fact that he no longer cheated was something to be celebrated rather than the fact he had condemned.
Managers tend to avoid the “cheat” word for fear of the FA sanction it brings although Stockport County’s Jim Gannon feared it not – and fell foul of it not – when he stated that he believed that having kicked up a fuss over one Referee’s poor performance officials were penalising County as a result. Gannon was never charged by the FA and the comments fizzled out after his move to Motherwell. He was last seen in colourful debate with Hugh Dallas about the standard of Scots officials.
The manager’s secret language though contains a number of phrases the heart of which is the asserting that the Referees have shown a bias. From “FIFA will be pleased” to “You don’t get those decisions at Old Trafford” they say meaning that bias has been shown against their side but stopping short of airing the words. Stuart McCall employed some Referee code saying that a recent official would find the decision embarrassing meaning simply that the man in the middle was wrong. As a result the people of Carlisle grew angry suggesting once again that anyone who questions the officials should be made to shut up.
McCall’s comments after the Carlisle United game echoed Andy’s as the City manager added that he felt sorry for Bantams supporters who had paid to come North on a Tuesday night only to see a game ruined by an official and his decision making. Tellingly in the spat between McCall, his old mate Greg Abbott and the local Carlisle newspaper the referee of the day – Tony Bates – kept his mouth shut.
Therein is the problem – and perhaps the solution – in Refereeing. For ninety minutes a week officials issue edicts to players which ripple through to managers and to supporters but once that ninety minutes is up they walk away from the ground never to utter a word about the game again (stopping only, perhaps, to summarily judge that someone has sworn at them in the car park).
Managers talk about games, players talk about games, fans talk about games but referees will not. Indeed it is in the Laws of the Game that officials are not to use body language as signals inform supporters of the reasons for decisions so the generous Ref who points to his palm to signal handball is risking the wrath of his superiors who would have him make, but never explain, decisions.
With that in mind Bates could not mime a second tug to show all why Simon Ramsden was sent off at Carlisle and Lee Probert could not make the dive motion he obviously though the Bantams defenders were doing when the Rotherham’s Broughton’s elbows were flying around. Perhaps this is for the best. Referees already seem to be falling into Pantomime, we do not want it to be mime.
Referee do make a detailed report for the FA after every game but trying to get a look at that report is out of the question. A polite mail to the authorities, a raging demand as a consumer of the football product, a pleasing begging letter. No matter what you are not seeing why the man who ruined your trip to Cumbria did what he did. It is a policy which is supercilious to the point of an insult.
Supercilious and utterly unnecessary. It is well within possibilities that a referee could fill in his report online with the ability to add a note on every yellow card or goal given, to make general comments on the game and give reasons that on a Monday morning every fan who had spent good money going to a match could log on and read.
So if Lee Probert had made a couple of notes on his match report: “44 mins – I felt that Ramsden was injured not the contact from the player and not by an elbow” and “3-2 Rotherham – I thought the Free Kick was taken from within an acceptable area of the offence penalised” then at least supporters would have a reason for the decisions. Communication is important in increasing respect and trust. It is good to talk, I know I heard it on an advert.
Sadly though the line from officials is not that they want respect – as the campaign is titled – but rather fealty and this is a problem for football. Supporters have past being tired with this position and have moved into an action of inaction.
Me, Andy and many others are fed up with paying money (and spending a day of the weekend) watching referees that behave in the way we so often see and knowing genuine worries will be summarily dismissed out of hand by the FL simply which only serves to thumb the nose of the footballing authorities at the supporters. The outcome seems to be that more and more supporters decide against a trip to Barnet or Exeter because of the risk of one of these “bad ref afternoons”.
There are other reasons why football trips are less enjoyable now that they were ten or fifteen years ago but no matter what list one draws up the quality of refereeing is a significant reason why a fan can’t justify spending the thick end of £50 on an away trip.
The culture of secrecy that officials live under not only leaves supporters asking the “bent or bloody rubbish” question but also creates a set of conditions in which cheating referees would be allowed to prosper. Start to address the issue with refereeing by creating a feedback loop in which fans can at least find out why decisions are made and one shines a cleansing light into the world of officials.
Failure to address this issue and the game carries on turning off supporters by tiny, significant and avoidable increments.
In the current era of football-watching, part of the problem is that there are the haves and the have-nots. In our current lowly position in the league pyramid, we are definitely a have-not – our matches are not televised (save that one camera high in the back of the Midland Road) and consequently, the performances of the officials are not analysed to the nth degree by panels of pundits with the benefits of slow-motion replays etc etc.
We might think the referee has had a stinker, but unfortunately, the only person in the ground who has the ability to do anything about it is the assessor, who is in a similar position to everyone else in the ground anyway – he can only rely on what he sees first time, in real time.
The problem is often compounded (certainly as we lower league dwellers see it) when a referee has a bad game in the Premiership and so as ‘punishment’ he is given a game in the lower leagues – hence we have suffered Attwell and Probert this season. We thought they had bad games, but someone higher up thought they’d served their penance and reinstated them pretty smartish!!
Michael is right when he says that it’s harder to remember a match when you thought the referee had a good game and favoured one’s own team and that is the other side of the problem here – because we are passionate about BCFC, we naturally see the match from our own perspective. If we had been sat next to a Rotherham or Carlisle supporter in the last 2 games, would our opinions of the refs have been the same? Probably, but there would have been some healthy debate throughout and there might have been some instances of decisions that favoured us that we didn’t see!
I suppose all we are really looking for in this is consistency and some form of objective (preferably transparent)review procedure. We can then at least hope that when the referee blows his whistle for the start of the match, he has no hidden agenda and will endeavour to treat both sides in the same way.
Merry Christmas to one and all – let’s hope Santa brings us lots of goals!
Come on you Bantams!
I did not see the Rotherham game. There is a difference between a bad decision and bad refereeing. There is also a difference between those two and cheating. The famous offside goal with Leeds and West Brom was, simply , a bad decision-nothing sinister, human error. But let no one pretend that there is no cheating by referees. I always hark back to the Hereford game two Christmases ago. That was cheating by the officials-no question, and should have been investigated. The sending off of the City player some years ago against Burnley for head-butting was bad refereeing, but compounded by dishonesty when he refused to change his decision after the video proved him wrong. The worst ever examples , in my opinion, of referee cheating came in the two other football codes. Bulls at the Millennium against Leeds( probably the most disgraceful ever), and the South African referee trying to arrange Australia to beat England in the RU World Cup final.
In nearly 60 years of watching City and other football , the Hereford game was the most “bent” I have ever seen.
I know the answer to the problem, everyone does, just as everyone knows the answer to diving, arguing with and abuse of officials and other issues. But the FA will not take action, so we must continue to suffer.
Perhaps we should also address the question of players “milking the moment” – how many times do we see footie players go down in a heap after the most lightweight of challenges – all in the name of gaining advantage – I can think of one former City player who had this off to a tee – but obviously I won’t put any name to my comments.
I do not see much of an attempt by managers / directors or the games governing bodies to minimise the effect it has on the sport – for me it’s as much a huge negative for the game as any bad referee.
Would not the one solution solve the other? If a referee was – for want of a better phrase – “better” then he would go over to the lightweight player and book him for simulation. He could include it in his report and we would all know why the yellow card was dished out.
Not taking action against players who do fall at the drop of a hat is poor refereeing. The laws are clear that should a player try simulate an injury or a foul then he is booked.
I have sympathy for Referees because as a rule they have to cope with a level of cheating that deliberately tries to make the job hard but I would like the Refs to come out and say that – “I made a mistake this time booking the lad for diving but being he dives a lot anyway so it is no wonder I made a mistake” – rather than live under the blanket of secrecy.
Since my Rotherham match report started all this, I can’t avoid a few extra words.
Firstly, I think there is a vital difference between a judgement call and applying the rules in accordance with referees’ instructions. To illustrate the point, I would contrast Mr Probert’s decision to refuse the penalty for the pull on Flynn (by his theatrical actions he indicated there was no foul – one must presume he saw it as ‘six of one’) with his refusal to book Mills for the dangerous tackle from behind on Boulding or the very late and almost equally dangerous tackle on Evans. Refs will see things differently without being biased or cheating. Failure to apply the rules/directions is inexcusable. Lowering and raising the standard every few minutes, depending on whether or not you happen to be the Bradford City player with the most bookings this season, would be extremely close to a sacking offence.
Secondly, I don’t think referees cheat. I could probably think of only one game when I’ve seriously questioned that.
Thirdly, I do think some referees some of the time are biased. There are a number of possible reasons for that, including the new League refs who are so determined not to be intimidated by the big crowd at Valley Parade that they go the other way with some important decisions. I can think of several possible examples of that since we came into this league.
But, most importantly, I find the culture of secrecy totally unacceptable. We are supposed to show respect. I think we should. But the refs should do the same. They should be respectful enough not to be forced into explaining contentious decisions, albeit in a calm atmosphere, to the club and, perhaps, to the fans through the media. That might prove difficult for the ‘why I booked Bullock but didn’t book Mills’ case, but easy for the ‘why I didn’t give a penalty’ example.
I speak from long personal experience. As many BfB readers will know, I used to sit as a judge. In later years I was legally required to do something I had, in any event, done from the very beginning of my judicial career. I would explain why I was about to do something – find a defendant guilty or not guilty, pass a certain sort of sentence, etc. Legally speaking, it’s called ‘giving reasons’. I had time to do it there and then – the ref doesn’t have that time. I did it publicly, with the press present. So could the ref, if the authorities allowed or required him to do so in a post-match interview.
If the refs knew that the major decisions had to be justified, we might see some better decisions – or we might see some early retirements.
If the FA want someone to talk to the refs about unconscious bias, giving reasons and doing your best in difficult circumstances, they know where to find me!
whingeing about bad refs distracts us from the key facts.
league tables don’t lie, we are where we deserve to be in a very competitive league with a young side largely from lower leagues.
we complain about crap refs seemingly every match, and michael is right,if we were winning those matches we would not be complaining so much.
how we do depends on how we respond,not on the beaming in of alien super-refs from outer space.refs make mistakes,and so do our players,and crucially,so do our defenders at key points of most games.
when we stop conceding goals with those mistakes, or get back to scoring more,we can go on a run of 3 or 4 wins that could put us at the top of this league.
we must not lose sight of that,especially, that the difference between us and playoffs is not much,and there is a lot of matches to play yet.
so think positive,get behind the team,and remember that the other teams supporters are probably moaning about the crap ref too.
The Ref (Mr Probert) at the Rotherham game was not only inconsistant in his decisions when compared to other Refs eg the level of punishment for use of elbow and how close a free-kick should be taken from, as regards where the offence took place, he was inconsistant with his own decision making. Now, that IS a case of extreemly poor Refereeing spoiling a game and resulting in one of the Teams gaining unfair advantage. In the case of the decision made by the Ref in the Carlisle game, the game WAS spoiled by the 2nd booking of Ramsden and the resulting sending-off. However, IMO the decision by the Ref was correct.
The less players cheat, and the more the professional pundits express harsh criticism of players that do cheat, the less games there will be that get spoilt. The the Refs will also get’better’ because there will be less ‘perceived’ incidents for them to interpret incorrectly. It is one thing to have the skills needed to Referee a game but there is also an ‘Art’ to applying those skills and, therefore, a situation will never be reached whereby all Refs will be completely consistant with each other, even if incidents were exactly replicated.
My opinion is that the vast majority of referees -be they good or bad at their job- are not biased, are not cheats, but ARE undoubtedly influenced in their decision making -to a certain extent- by players and crowds. This, IMO, is due to a measure of ‘Conditioning’ which -whether we like it or not- conciously and sub-conciously interferes with our perception of ‘what really happened’. Contrary to popular belief, they are human and are subject to all the frailties and sensory processing deficiencies that we all suffer from. But the BIG difference between us and the Ref is that we don’t have thousands of supporters and a few cheating footballers deliberately trying to mislead those ‘senses’.