Standard Officiating
Assuming that given it is now the year 2011, there is no lingering anti-Celtic, Catholic, or anti-anyone, agendas in the SFA or amongst our refereeing fraternity as we started this season. Then surely refereeing standards are at such an appalling standards that the average (but intelligent) Scottish football fan must be wondering if indeed these are the referees we were meant to be desperate to keep from striking, and refrain from calling into question their integrity or competence in carrying out their job.
From the lowest level of football in Scotland to the SPL, it appears referee’s attitudes are pretty appalling. With a visible refusal to speak to players like adults, or show them respect enough to explain decisions. This basic lack of respect happens at least ten times a game in the unpressured environment of Amateur football, and appears to happen even more frequently at the top level, and is surely contradictory to the level of respect they wish to receive themselves, and indeed would be healthy in our National game. Obviously all referees are not the same, and yes I am sure there are some good ones out there but the majority I have come across certainly seem power hungry, obnoxious, pompous, and arrogant. It is the level of arrogance that I find worrying, as it seems to be cultivated at such an early level, and indeed encouraged in the refereeing fraternity. I appreciate as the adjudicator they have to assert a certain level of authority, but it shocks me that given they seem so unhappy with their current ‘treatment’, that they have not called into question, their own actions, attitudes, and how they may come across to and indeed affect the actions of those around them. This level of superiority is a major factor in the distrust and lack of respect shown to our officials.
From my own experience, often when you question decisions, referees tend to put their back up against you and give you 'nothing'. This is not to do then with an anti-Celtic, sentiment, but anti teams who wont lie down and accept decisions. Perhaps then it is clever to accept bad decisions against you, even when they happen repeatedly, but this is just not right, and isn’t right in any other sector of business.
It’s now accepted that football is big money business. Anyone involved in such would be badly managing their club, company, shareholders money, and all stakeholders if they didn’t question poor rules, officiating, and other perceived injustices. In any other 'big businesses' it is done without a seconds thought. Why is football different? Football seen by many as an old boys network, run by old-fashioned men who struggle with a more inclusive, open, and prejudice free 21st century! With these antiquated systems, committees, decision-making processes, and power hungry people who demand respect whilst not understanding either how you gain it, or indeed how you give it out, is certainly not helping the relationship between clubs, referees, and the ruling authorities.
Everyone in today’s society seems to be questioned for their actions; if we can question the Police, politicians, bankers, teachers, and councils, then what makes Referee’s so special? Players are often branded ‘a cheat’, or ‘lazy’ both questioning their integrity, alongside the routine examination of their competency as a footballer. This is fine according to our media as they are paid the money to accept these criticisms, but yet it is deemed unacceptable to question the integrity of a referee. This is surely more than strange? When 80% of Scottish grade 1 Refs failed a basic refereeing test and yet still receive the same wages as the 20% who passed, it would appear foolish to accept the competency or morals of this. Anyone who witnessed Hamilton hosting Celtic last week could testify that the match officiating was anything other than competent.
Referees will make mistakes, and like the majority of Celtic players they will do so in most matches, and I have no problem with that. Infect my personal preference is against the use of TV evidence for referees, as human error is sorely part of the appeal of sport. However I think the expectation is that those referees and officials who have been elevated to grade 1 status are those who make fewer errors and are the best they and the SFA can offer. I just think it sends out the wrong message seeing refs backed by their supervising authorities at every turn, leaving them with an arrogance of knowing they can almost officiate in any manner they see fit with they will be backed against any criticism no matter how relevant.
It appears Steven Cravan resigned due to Dougie McDonald's sheer lack of integrity. I cannot profess to know a great deal about Mr Cravan so I don’t know whether Scottish football has lost a great linesman or not, however it has certainly lost another level of integrity. That match at Tannadice earlier this season showed an incidence where a referee followed no other protocol but his own, and even afterwards wasn’t professional enough to explain the truth behind it and the process of his decision.
I do appreciate the sentiment amongst many that had Celtic been playing better and more efficient football that these decisions wouldn’t matter. And Celtic indeed should be scoring goals from open play against the bottom side and do so comprehensively enough that poor officiating couldn’t withhold the 3 points from us. But is that the point. Obviously when not at your best, decisions against you are more highlighted as they become more important in terms of the difference in taking no, one, or three points. This doesn’t mean the actual decisions or the making of them are more important. That should be important regardless of who is playing, what the score is, whereabouts in the pitch it is, or what time of the match an incident happens in; or else surely football does loose some credibility and integrity, if indeed I am allowed to say that. I suppose a counter to those who claim sour grapes on Celtic's part could be pointed toward the Dundee United episode where indeed despite the controversy, Celtic won, but felt compelled enough to question the SFA and levels of officiating.
With Lennon and Celtic’s alleged constant complaints, perhaps it wasn’t as much a surprise when Neil Lennon’s appeal to a two-match ban was rejected and automatically extended to a six-mach ban, well not as much of a surprise as it really as should have been. Does questioning a decision or judgement, with supposed reasoning, provide any justification in itself to triple an initial punishment? It just seems to reek of ' how dare they question us'!
I don’t think any football club should be censored or criticised for asking for explanations. Infact perhaps more teams should do it, as it’s a healthy way for modern organizations not only to air grievances, but to communicate and resolve issues with their members. Although sadly it now seems to be a media hotspot – ‘imagine having the temerity to question decisions/referees/the SFA’ and inturn some kind of negativity fixed to it regardless of the actual circumstance.
What seems the most worrying issue to me is; what if an official or a group of official’s integrity were in doubt? There is clearly no route for a club to go down to validate such a compliant. Imagine for example a Hearts player punches a ref after an altercation, but the altercation was of such controversy that while Hearts and Jim Jeffries do not condone the player’s actions, they are also livid with the referee for his actions leading up to it. In the forthcoming games referees and Jeffries come to several confrontations, and referees are so appalled with Hearts and their players and perhaps management behaviour that they start to discriminate against them in terms of the decisions they make. This may well happen subconsciously - on the back of the negative connotations that Hearts are being labelled with; perhaps referees are no longer refereeing their games objectively. It seems to me that committees, the SFA, and even the media, would just back the refs and find in favour against the club involved. It has been made plainly clear in the past couple of months that Scottish football do not accept questioning, official, private or otherwise, or even inference, that any kind of bias or lack of integrity could ever come from their refereeing body.
Perhaps the best option in the Celtic/SFA conflict is a speeded up process of Celtic (and Rangers) moving outwith the Scottish league. Unless new procedures, attitudes, personnel, or mentality are applied I can't see this conflict being resolved long term, without a flare up every now and then, leaving each party asking the same frustrating questions.
Would it suit both Celtic and the SPL parties to see the back of each other in the pressure cooker of the Old firm and SPL environment?
Before Celtic go anywhere, the best thing for them to do, is to win regardless of perceived bad decisions or officiating. This would certainly negate the ‘sour grape’s criticism, and would give them better standpoint to take rational and composed complaints to the footballing authorities.
"If you're good enough, the referee doesn't matter."
From the lowest level of football in Scotland to the SPL, it appears referee’s attitudes are pretty appalling. With a visible refusal to speak to players like adults, or show them respect enough to explain decisions. This basic lack of respect happens at least ten times a game in the unpressured environment of Amateur football, and appears to happen even more frequently at the top level, and is surely contradictory to the level of respect they wish to receive themselves, and indeed would be healthy in our National game. Obviously all referees are not the same, and yes I am sure there are some good ones out there but the majority I have come across certainly seem power hungry, obnoxious, pompous, and arrogant. It is the level of arrogance that I find worrying, as it seems to be cultivated at such an early level, and indeed encouraged in the refereeing fraternity. I appreciate as the adjudicator they have to assert a certain level of authority, but it shocks me that given they seem so unhappy with their current ‘treatment’, that they have not called into question, their own actions, attitudes, and how they may come across to and indeed affect the actions of those around them. This level of superiority is a major factor in the distrust and lack of respect shown to our officials.
From my own experience, often when you question decisions, referees tend to put their back up against you and give you 'nothing'. This is not to do then with an anti-Celtic, sentiment, but anti teams who wont lie down and accept decisions. Perhaps then it is clever to accept bad decisions against you, even when they happen repeatedly, but this is just not right, and isn’t right in any other sector of business.
It’s now accepted that football is big money business. Anyone involved in such would be badly managing their club, company, shareholders money, and all stakeholders if they didn’t question poor rules, officiating, and other perceived injustices. In any other 'big businesses' it is done without a seconds thought. Why is football different? Football seen by many as an old boys network, run by old-fashioned men who struggle with a more inclusive, open, and prejudice free 21st century! With these antiquated systems, committees, decision-making processes, and power hungry people who demand respect whilst not understanding either how you gain it, or indeed how you give it out, is certainly not helping the relationship between clubs, referees, and the ruling authorities.
Everyone in today’s society seems to be questioned for their actions; if we can question the Police, politicians, bankers, teachers, and councils, then what makes Referee’s so special? Players are often branded ‘a cheat’, or ‘lazy’ both questioning their integrity, alongside the routine examination of their competency as a footballer. This is fine according to our media as they are paid the money to accept these criticisms, but yet it is deemed unacceptable to question the integrity of a referee. This is surely more than strange? When 80% of Scottish grade 1 Refs failed a basic refereeing test and yet still receive the same wages as the 20% who passed, it would appear foolish to accept the competency or morals of this. Anyone who witnessed Hamilton hosting Celtic last week could testify that the match officiating was anything other than competent.
Referees will make mistakes, and like the majority of Celtic players they will do so in most matches, and I have no problem with that. Infect my personal preference is against the use of TV evidence for referees, as human error is sorely part of the appeal of sport. However I think the expectation is that those referees and officials who have been elevated to grade 1 status are those who make fewer errors and are the best they and the SFA can offer. I just think it sends out the wrong message seeing refs backed by their supervising authorities at every turn, leaving them with an arrogance of knowing they can almost officiate in any manner they see fit with they will be backed against any criticism no matter how relevant.
It appears Steven Cravan resigned due to Dougie McDonald's sheer lack of integrity. I cannot profess to know a great deal about Mr Cravan so I don’t know whether Scottish football has lost a great linesman or not, however it has certainly lost another level of integrity. That match at Tannadice earlier this season showed an incidence where a referee followed no other protocol but his own, and even afterwards wasn’t professional enough to explain the truth behind it and the process of his decision.
I do appreciate the sentiment amongst many that had Celtic been playing better and more efficient football that these decisions wouldn’t matter. And Celtic indeed should be scoring goals from open play against the bottom side and do so comprehensively enough that poor officiating couldn’t withhold the 3 points from us. But is that the point. Obviously when not at your best, decisions against you are more highlighted as they become more important in terms of the difference in taking no, one, or three points. This doesn’t mean the actual decisions or the making of them are more important. That should be important regardless of who is playing, what the score is, whereabouts in the pitch it is, or what time of the match an incident happens in; or else surely football does loose some credibility and integrity, if indeed I am allowed to say that. I suppose a counter to those who claim sour grapes on Celtic's part could be pointed toward the Dundee United episode where indeed despite the controversy, Celtic won, but felt compelled enough to question the SFA and levels of officiating.
With Lennon and Celtic’s alleged constant complaints, perhaps it wasn’t as much a surprise when Neil Lennon’s appeal to a two-match ban was rejected and automatically extended to a six-mach ban, well not as much of a surprise as it really as should have been. Does questioning a decision or judgement, with supposed reasoning, provide any justification in itself to triple an initial punishment? It just seems to reek of ' how dare they question us'!
I don’t think any football club should be censored or criticised for asking for explanations. Infact perhaps more teams should do it, as it’s a healthy way for modern organizations not only to air grievances, but to communicate and resolve issues with their members. Although sadly it now seems to be a media hotspot – ‘imagine having the temerity to question decisions/referees/the SFA’ and inturn some kind of negativity fixed to it regardless of the actual circumstance.
What seems the most worrying issue to me is; what if an official or a group of official’s integrity were in doubt? There is clearly no route for a club to go down to validate such a compliant. Imagine for example a Hearts player punches a ref after an altercation, but the altercation was of such controversy that while Hearts and Jim Jeffries do not condone the player’s actions, they are also livid with the referee for his actions leading up to it. In the forthcoming games referees and Jeffries come to several confrontations, and referees are so appalled with Hearts and their players and perhaps management behaviour that they start to discriminate against them in terms of the decisions they make. This may well happen subconsciously - on the back of the negative connotations that Hearts are being labelled with; perhaps referees are no longer refereeing their games objectively. It seems to me that committees, the SFA, and even the media, would just back the refs and find in favour against the club involved. It has been made plainly clear in the past couple of months that Scottish football do not accept questioning, official, private or otherwise, or even inference, that any kind of bias or lack of integrity could ever come from their refereeing body.
Perhaps the best option in the Celtic/SFA conflict is a speeded up process of Celtic (and Rangers) moving outwith the Scottish league. Unless new procedures, attitudes, personnel, or mentality are applied I can't see this conflict being resolved long term, without a flare up every now and then, leaving each party asking the same frustrating questions.
Would it suit both Celtic and the SPL parties to see the back of each other in the pressure cooker of the Old firm and SPL environment?
Before Celtic go anywhere, the best thing for them to do, is to win regardless of perceived bad decisions or officiating. This would certainly negate the ‘sour grape’s criticism, and would give them better standpoint to take rational and composed complaints to the footballing authorities.
"If you're good enough, the referee doesn't matter."
posted by Michael__67 at 4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home