Shrimpsvoices

It seems like almost every week we are subject to atrocious refereeing where the bigger teams get all the 50-50 decisions and where very questionable decisions are awarded against us. This culminated in last night's referee Mark Edwards seeming determined to get Derby a win. His biased officiating was a disgrace and his overall performance would have been poor even in a local park game. What does his assessor say to him after a game like that? It can't be constructive and helpful but only highly critical of a shabby unprofessional performance. Where are we going wrong? How are we recruiting referees? It cannot be on performance, if it was last night's referee would be nowhere near the Football League. We are producing officials who in their biased refereeing are deciding who goes up and who goes down. This cannot be healthy for the beautiful game. Also while I am on a rant how on earth does the elderly assistant keep his place on the league list? He is unable to keep up with play and he is unable to judge whether a player is offside or not. It's time for a massive clearout and an end to the refereeing clique where promotion comes not on ability but for other reasons.

In fairness he was excellent in the first 45 BUT diabolical in the second 45.

Did anybody else notice how the Derby Manager had a long word with him as they went off at half time.....

Not suggesting that anything was said to influence the ref in the second period but hope the brown envelope was easy to open....

Ripley always managed to get in his ear at every opportunity so it wasn't just their manager. He had a very good chat with him when Gibbo was getting treatment.

fulwoodshrimp wrote:It seems like almost every week we are subject to atrocious refereeing where the bigger teams get all the 50-50 decisions and where very questionable decisions are awarded against us...

...It's time for a massive clearout and an end to the refereeing clique where promotion comes not on ability but for other reasons.

I think it is a simple issue, that there are not enough referees, full stop. The 'career' progression isn't helpful and the abuse refs get, especially when they start, is horrific. Even at League One level, as we saw (for example) at Accrington, where about eight players surrounded the referee to get our player sent off. In rugby & hockey, players don't abuse the officials, as they will be 'sin-binned'. If football used the same approach, we may find more people choosing to become refs, which, in turn, would raise the standards generally.

I don't know what last night's ref had to drink at half-time, but he needs to lay off it! He had a good first half, but an awful second half.

I suspect the ref changed in the second half because Derby were struggling to get back in the game and needed his help! I noticed he booked Ripley after he got into the ref's ear after the equalising goal that came after a foul by a Derby player. I am beginning to think there is some kind of corruption in the game as the big boys seem to get all the 50-50 decisions.

I believe that Ref-ing is only a part time job and most refs will have other full time jobs/careers. I also understand they're self employed and the money isn't that good. It's no wonder that there's a shortage. Not sure what the answer is, as you can hardly have 100-150 or so full time refs (without other jobs) who only "work" a few hours per week but pay them a full time wage.

Why did he book Ripley? I know it's a bit dramatic for the keeper to run to the other half of the pitch to speak to the ref but with Love not playing he did have the captains armband on and its always been my understanding that the captains have special permission to speak to the refs.

Agree with what has been said though, there just aren't many good refs because there is almost no incentive for anyone to want to do it.

vvm wrote:Why did he book Ripley? I know it's a bit dramatic for the keeper to run to the other half of the pitch to speak to the ref but with Love not playing he did have the captains armband on and its always been my understanding that the captains have special permission to speak to the refs.

Agree with what has been said though, there just aren't many good refs because there is almost no incentive for anyone to want to do it.

I expect it is a case of what Ripley said to him!

black morse wrote:

vvm wrote:Why did he book Ripley? I know it's a bit dramatic for the keeper to run to the other half of the pitch to speak to the ref but with Love not playing he did have the captains armband on and its always been my understanding that the captains have special permission to speak to the refs.

Agree with what has been said though, there just aren't many good refs because there is almost no incentive for anyone to want to do it.

I expect it is a case of what Ripley said to him!

I did wonder about this at the time. If he booked Ripley for 'talking to him', he perhaps forgot he was the captain? If it was 'foul and abusive language', then it should have been a straight red card? Is there something in between the two, that deserved a yellow?

Keith wrote:

black morse wrote:

vvm wrote:Why did he book Ripley? I know it's a bit dramatic for the keeper to run to the other half of the pitch to speak to the ref but with Love not playing he did have the captains armband on and its always been my understanding that the captains have special permission to speak to the refs.

Agree with what has been said though, there just aren't many good refs because there is almost no incentive for anyone to want to do it.

I expect it is a case of what Ripley said to him!

I did wonder about this at the time. If he booked Ripley for 'talking to him', he perhaps forgot he was the captain? If it was 'foul and abusive language', then it should have been a straight red card? Is there something in between the two, that deserved a yellow?

I wasn't really concentrating on Ripley until I saw the yellow, but got the impression that the ref was pretty quick to give it, almost as soon as Ripley got to him, so suspect something was said by Ripley as he approached the ref. I certainly can't remember there being much talking/time between Ripley and the ref before the yellow. I did wonder if the ref had forgotten Ripley had the armband? Or perhaps Ripley had stopped short of being "foul and abusive" but still beyond normal/acceptable language - there's always going to be grey areas.