Referee inconsistency....

Why is it that referees tend to be extremely leniant with decisions in, or around the 18yrd box??
IE: what would normally be given a free kick in the middle of the pitch, would never be given a penalty if it were in the box??

I believe theres alot of inconsistency when it comes to decisions......anyone one agree/disagree??

Why is it that referees tend to be extremely leniant with decisions in, or around the 18yrd box??
IE: what would normally be given a free kick in the middle of the pitch, would never be given a penalty if it were in the box??

I believe theres alot of inconsistency when it comes to decisions......anyone one agree/disagree??

Agree: Have to blame the governing bodies for constantly changing the rules, the ball, etc and making the rules too complicated for instant decision-making and leaving some things open to discretion and interpretation.

I wouldn't say the inconsistencies are so much based on where on the pitch the foul occured, but there are definitely inconsistencies in that what's a penalty in one game isn't the next game.

The key problem seems to be that a ref is often unable to judge on the spot whether a player has dived or not. One way to deal with this is video replays for every penalty decision, but I feel this would slow down the game too much. What I would propose, and I can't understand why the authorities haven't done it already, is to bring in proper penalties for anyone proven after the game to have dived, something like a five match ban. This would soon cut out the diving in the game, and would make it a lot easier for refs to award or decline decisions.

Eddie i totally agree with a video replay if it should be a penalty or not....
However, i think depending on where the contest is on the pitch, the decision varies greatly...
I remember in the most recent World Cup Final between France and Italy....France would get given the most soft free kicks around the middle of the pitch, but a tougher challenge which is a no doubt foul, would not be given if it was around the 18yrd box- maybe the referee's new the it was scoring range for Zinedine Zidane....i dont know...but i found that game a clear stand out in my memory where the referee inconsistencies do occur on the pitch....
Also, yes, penalty decisions need alot more consistency across the board....

i think that its good that you dont get those soft frre kicks around the 18 yard box, as you would in the middle of the pitch. this would cause too many free kicks, and hense ruin a good game in cases

I disagree there...the rules should be the same regardless where the freek kick ocurred. Nothing is more fustrating that seeing that...

I disagree there...the rules should be the same regardless where the freek kick ocurred. Nothing is more fustrating that seeing that...

Na i just personaly like a flowing game with little stopages, if that means different desisions for different areas, so be it

Na i just personaly like a flowing game with little stopages, if that means different desisions for different areas, so be it

I find your point of view bizarre. 

Where do you draw the line? What's a "soft" foul that can be overlooked?

Have you given any regard for how the rules would need to be re-written to accommodate this? What fouls are not fouls if they are committed in such and such a place... etc? You'll need to define the place(s) where fouls are not fouls. You'll need to clarify the fouls that would qualify for this rule. The ref would then not only have to consider if there was a foul, then if it was a "soft foul", and also check to see if it is in the area of the pitch that qualifies...by which time the ball has gone up the other end of the pitch and put in the net...

The rules should be simpler and easier to follow and, more importantly, easy to apply. Your scenario would be a nightmare to implement.

Simple rules mean simple decisions which would be less subject to error and inconsistency.

i didnt say to rewrite the rules, i just dont like a game littered with free-kicks, thats all

I didnt say to rewrite the rules, I just dont like a game littered with free-kicks, thats all

Nobody does. But a foul's a foul. No matter where it's made.

O yea i agree, but i said it all wrong i think, i believe that refs give away too many soft free-kicks basically and if they give a free for a nudge in the penalty area its far worse than a free on the halfway line, i want referees to show more leniansy to fouls basically

O yea I agree, but I said it all wrong I think, I believe that refs give away too many soft free-kicks basically and if they give a free for a nudge in the penalty area its far worse than a free on the halfway line, I want referees to show more leniansy to fouls basically

Well said mate. Understand where you're coming from now.

There is indeed some ridiculous fouls given for hardly anything in the middle of the park these days. It's more of a case for refs being consistant all over the pitch, other than letting valid fouls go if they're commited in a certain area of the pitch though.

Another bad this is that it seems harder to set the 2nd yellow card tha the 1st i hate that aswell, if a tackle is yellow cardable offence, then its a yellow card weather you are on your 1st yellow or none at all

Another bad this is that it seems harder to set the 2nd yellow card tha the 1st i hate that aswell, if a tackle is yellow cardable offence, then its a yellow card weather you are on your 1st yellow or none at all

Agreed. Refs can be trigger happy with the first yellow and make a rod for their back. They are generally reluctant to send players off, which can then mean, as you point out, the second yellow can be harder to come by.

if they give a free for a nudge in the penalty area its far worse than a free on the halfway line

If they give a free kick for a nudge in the penalty area they shouldn't be refereeing full stop, it should be a penalty.

If they give a free kick for a nudge in the penalty area they shouldn't be refereeing full stop, it should be a penalty.

good point eddie, you no what i mean though, what does everyone else think of the yellow card situation i have brought up

Another thing is when they award a pen or free kick which might not have been given,they tend to even things up and give the other team a similar decision.

Another thing is when they award a pen or free kick which might not have been given,they tend to even things up and give the other team a similar decision.

yea i was going to say that also but didnt want to bring up too many points, i 100% agree with you though, the ref should not be influenced by anything.

yea I was going to say that also but didnt want to bring up too many points, I 100% agree with you though, the ref should not be influenced by anything.

Totally agree....they shouldnt be influenced, or they shouldnt feel obligated to 'even things up'- especially for a soft free-kick....it ruins the mood of the game. The decisions and rulling should be black and white, and in times of uncertainty they should do a video review with a third referee (just like they do in cricket, and the third referee for a decision in rugby)....that way it allows for no error in any penalty decisions, however, it can be a time consuming process.....but they can give a time limit like 30 seconds to come up with a decision based on the video replay.

Totally agree....they shouldnt be influenced, or they shouldnt feel obligated to 'even things up'- especially for a soft free-kick....it ruins the mood of the game. The decisions and rulling should be black and white, and in times of uncertainty they should do a video review with a third referee (just like they do in cricket, and the third referee for a decision in rugby)....that way it allows for no error in any penalty decisions, however, it can be a time consuming process.....but they can give a time limit like 30 seconds to come up with a decision based on the video replay.

A time limit on video decisions would definitely be a good idea. The main objection to video refereeing is that the game would lose it's flow, but is there any decision these days that doesn't have at least 30 seconds of arguing by the team the decision's gone against?

Even if there is someone looking at replays, most of us can tell using the 1st reply if it is, or is not a goal, that takes less than 30 seconds, so yes, this is an excellent idea (but only for goals, and maybe penalties but that is all)

Maybe for goals and penalties....offside is a real tough one as the play continues, as you couldnt stop the game to allow for third referee's decision, and then restart play where the ball was stopped. The only way around this would be to allow play to go on, and then after the goal has been scored/missed you could call upon a third referee....but that would just ruin the game a hell of a lot

Maybe for goals and penalties....offside is a real tough one as the play continues, as you couldnt stop the game to allow for third referee's decision, and then restart play where the ball was stopped. The only way around this would be to allow play to go on, and then after the goal has been scored/missed you could call upon a third referee....but that would just ruin the game a hell of a lot

Don't agree it would ruin the game, Scouser - I think it is a good idea. If there isn't a goal, it won't matter, but after a 'goal', they could double-check. There could be a "challenge", as they have in the NFL, but only so many and in certain circumstances, like off-side instead of a goal.

Yeah, similar to tennis how each player has 3 chances to ask for a video review if they are unhappy with the umpires decision....

sorry have to disagree, Refs have a hard job, they need to pick under the pressure from the players and the crowd, however i would be for this idea of the challenges, but it would slow the game down which is a huge problem

it would slow the game down which is a huge problem

As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure how much it would actually slow the game down when you take into account the amount of time players spend whinging about a decision before play resumes. It's quite often a couple of minutes after a contentious decision, especially if it's Chelsea on the receiving end of it.

Possibly there should be a video ref in constatnt touch with the real ref, if he see's something then he can allert teh attention of the real ref, who would award what ever is deemed appropriate

As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure how much it would actually slow the game down when you take into account the amount of time players spend whinging about a decision before play resumes. It's quite often a couple of minutes after a contentious decision, especially if it's Chelsea on the receiving end of it.

Quite so. Also, these decisions won't take long, and they won't be necessary that often.

Started to realise all the sports that have something like this now: American Football, rugby, tennis, even cricket has the 3rd umpire for run-outs.

Time is often part of the reason the refs get the decisions wrong in the first place. A few extra minutes a game to prevent storms of protest and controversy afterwards would be well worth it.

I'm not sure if it could be done or has ever even been proposed before but what about having a Ref in each half of the pitch? You'd still have the linesmen who ruled when the ball goes out of play and offsides but for the major decisions like penalty claims we'd have a Ref pretty much right on the spot. Instead of having to catch up with the play, when it's been bombed forward, for example or even a quick counter attack having a Ref in each half, I think would eliminate the need to go to a video ref, which like said before would slow up the game and stop the flow of the game.

I don't think it will happen, it's only a suggestion to get rid of Referees inconsistency....anyone got any thoughts?

I think the first game of the season should have 38 refs, and then after every game they should nominate two refs to be up for eviction. The public can vote by phone or text (calls cost 60p per minute from a BT landline, not all calls will be successful but all calls will be charged) as to which ref should be evicted. Over the course of the season we would whittle the numbers down so eventually on the last day of the season we will have just the 'Ref Idol' in charge.

No-one will be able to argue his decisions as they will have voted for him. Simple when you think about it

I'm not sure if it could be done or has ever even been proposed before but what about having a Ref in each half of the pitch? You'd still have the linesmen who ruled when the ball goes out of play and offsides but for the major decisions like penalty claims we'd have a Ref pretty much right on the spot. Instead of having to catch up with the play, when it's been bombed forward, for example or even a quick counter attack having a Ref in each half, I think would eliminate the need to go to a video ref, which like said before would slow up the game and stop the flow of the game.

I don't think it will happen, it's only a suggestion to get rid of Referees inconsistency....anyone got any thoughts?

Nah. More confusion. Who controls what? What about playing advantage in the middle of the pitch? More scope for inconsistency: one ref calls a foul and the other doesn't for the same thing. Technology would be a much better way to go.

As for EddieC's idea, presumably the cost of the call will go to EddieC's Private Enterprises Inc?

Nah. More confusion. Who controls what? What about playing advantage in the middle of the pitch? More scope for inconsistency: one ref calls a foul and the other doesn't for the same thing. Technology would be a much better way to go.

Good thinking Jammy, I never really put much thought into it, just threw it up as a suggestion. Thanks for shooting me down

Good thinking Jammy, I never really put much thought into it, just threw it up as a suggestion. Thanks for shooting me down

Pleasure. Now, where's my spare ammo clip...

Pleasure. Now, where's my spare ammo clip...

I beleive you used it to pay to eliminate Rob Styles

I beleive you used it to pay to eliminate Rob Styles

Not me...and with an ammo clip?

Must have been hollow-point with a gold jacket, otherwise that's a very cheap deal.   

Mind you, I suppose that would be one way to concentrate the ref's mind. Make all other distractions meaningless.

I think the first game of the season should have 38 refs, and then after every game they should nominate two refs to be up for eviction. The public can vote by phone or text (calls cost 60p per minute from a BT landline, not all calls will be successful but all calls will be charged) as to which ref should be evicted. Over the course of the season we would whittle the numbers down so eventually on the last day of the season we will have just the 'Ref Idol' in charge.

No-one will be able to argue his decisions as they will have voted for him. Simple when you think about it