Kanwal Player suspended for a year

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Yeah ok fair enough.

The point I was alluding to earlier is that, unfortunately, there doesn't necessarily have to be any real reasons for "only" suspending him for a year.  But random decision making is hardly unique to CCF - most local FA's have made a large number of extremely dubious decisions, and we all know that consistency is a dirty word to FFA's judiciary/match review committee. 

I will agree that the police involvement isn't entirely relevant to CCF's decision - however if the courts found him guilty and CCF tried the old 'you can't prove it happened', THEN it'd be safe to say that there was something wrong with CCF's decision!

 

[luvsoccer]

Gus
I also do not condone any abuse of referees.
What concerns me is that the standard of refereeing has gone down. Again I do not wish to denegrate them but we all know that to get an influx of new referees FootballNSW has lowered the pass rate to, the latest I heard, 60%. 6 decisions right out of 10 do not make for a happy match. Thus the abuse starts. Even if the ref knows the laws backwards the way a game progresses depends upon how he/she applies that knowledge. As one of the better referees on the Coast used to say, people skills are important as is the unwritten law of 'common sense'. I notice you throw Laws about but how do you apply them?
Even if abuse is received, again it is up to the referee how far that goes.
I stand by the fact that less than 1 in 1,000 actuelly gets threatened or assaulted. You say I was in a different era. Maybe if current referees looked back to the way we did the job you would not have the current problems.

 

[headcase]

Capn Gus - your quote "The bit I said about the referee's word being fact is specifically in reference to judicial matters - and while you won't find that information in the LOTG, you will find it in the FIFA regulations. " is another example of you trying to bluff your way without any fact or substance. Can you quote the section in the FIFA Statutes which are the Regulations I assume you are referring to, or the section of the FIFA Disciplinary Code which you are using as basis for your statement. There is nothing in any of the articles referring to Judicial Bodies, Disciplinary procedures or even Referees and Assistants that back up your claim. The closest reference is Article 79
"1. During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee.
2. These decisions are final.
3. In certain circumstances, the jurisdiction of the judicial bodies may
apply (cf. art. 84)."
And even then if you read Article 84 it states:
"The Disciplinary Committee is responsible for:
a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match
offi cials attention;
b) rectifying obvious errors in the referees disciplinary decisions;
c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred auto-matically
by an expulsion (cf. art 18, par. 4);
d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine."
So far from saying the referee's word is fact they have provision to rectify their obvious mistakes.
And as an interesting observation, given your liking for quoting FIFA Regulations, maybe you should look at Article 49 of the Disciplinary Code "Misconduct against match officials" which states "1. Including the automatic suspension incurred in accordance with art. 18
par. 4, the overall suspension imposed on any person receiving a direct
red card shall be for:
a) at least four matches for unsporting conduct towards a match
official (subject to art. 53, 54 and 57-60);
b) at least six months for assaulting (elbowing, punching, kicking etc.)
a match official;
c) at least 12 months for spitting at a match official."
These are much lower than the suspension imposed in this case and much lower than CCFs own guidelines. The CCF Regulations - section H in relation to Judiciary and Disciplinary matters are quite extensive, especially for a local association. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with them before criticising them. If you display the same high handed approach on the field when refereeing as you have in trying to support your argument on this forum, it is no wonder you have antagonised players and others to the point of being assaulted on numerous occasions.
Like luvsoccer, I refereed for a considerable period of time, at a fairly high level as well, and was never assaulted or had to abandon a game. I do not condone any verbal or physical abuse of anyone - especially referees. Maybe some people skills, common sense and a manner on the field that commands the respect from players that a referee should have automatically, would be of benefit to everyone.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Just one teensy point of order.

I always laugh when people go on about the "laws" of the game. They are nothing of the sort, merely regulations that govern the workings/conduct etc of a sport.

They bear no relationship to THE law and, as such, there can be no correlation between Police, civil law and CCF actions.

As the FFA would have discovered if they had dug their heels in over Dannys original ban. As George Negus theorised, an action in law would have had a very good chance of success.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

luvsoccer - if you refereed yourself you would know that the theory test at the start is quite meaningless.  You don't really learn how to referee until you get out there - and even if you can recite the laws, it may take some time to fully understand the 'whys' of them.

I think the standard has definitely improved - I remember some of the people we used to have running first grade games.  But you're always going to have a broad mix of abilities.  Guess what?  It's grassroots football!  Players need to realise that the referees don't make nearly as many mistakes as players think they do, and get on with it.

If you honestly think that 1 in 1000 referees are assaulted or threatened then I'd suggest you talk to some more members - the real number is probably anywhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 40or so (difficult to estimate due to all the young kids who disappear after a year.   That would hold true for just about any association.

I find it curious that you seem to blame the referees for antagonising these situations; unfortunately, this is also the view that seems to routinely be held by judicial committees.  I think the problem is that football cultivates a culture of abuse, disrespect, and a general incapability of taking responsibility for your own actions.  The more dissent and abuse that is tolerated, the more likely it is that players will cross the line into threats and assaults - we saw that in the HAL.  The tolerance was so high that a referee assault was inevitable (when you allow players to mob and abuse referees, of course that's eventually going to lead to assault).  And I certianly believe that the amount of abuse received is increasing, and has been for some time.  Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that the incidence of assault would also increase.  It ain't rocket science!

Still, that peculiar attitude seems to hold true throughout the match - for instance, have you ever noticed that if a game gets out of hand, peopl walk away saying 'the referee lost control' instead of 'the players couldn't control themselves'?  It's a peculiar aspect of football that people immediately look to see how the referee can be blamed, instead of expecting the players to take responsibility for their actions.  A bit odd, but like it or lump it, that's the current footballing environment.

And I'm well attuned to the concept of Laws 0 and 18, my friend   Not that I'm the referee in question here, of course.

Greenpole - what's your point?  The laws of the game are called the laws of the game.  Go to the FIFA website - that's what they're called.  FIFA also call some of their regs, laws.  Laws are merely rules and regulations applied to a community - be it the football community, or the Australian community. 

I do find it quite amusing that headcase has decided to attempt to antagonise me simply because I'm a referee and I've had a few unfortunate incidents   Quite amusing, and perfectly indicative of the attitude I mentioned above.   Seriously though, as for the FIFA statute, the website has significantly changed since I saw it, and I really couldn't be bothered looking for it.  Believe me if you want, or don't - it's not going to make any difference to my day-to-day life.  The rest of your post is too ridiculous and too much of a blatantly deliberate misrepresentation of what I said to even bother with  : :

Unfortunately, it's that attitude of not making players responsible for their own actions which makes football such a joke to a lot of people, because that's the sort of attitude that gets players whinging and carrying on (I didn't touch him!), or diving, or other such rubbish. 

Everybody needs to be held responsible for their own actions - if a referee grabbed a player and threatened him I'd still be saying the same thing 

 

[Bear]

If you honestly think that 1 in 1000 referees are assaulted or threatened then I'd suggest you talk to some more members - the real number is probably anywhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 40or so (difficult to estimate due to all the young kids who disappear after a year.   That would hold true for just about any association.

I find it VERY hard to believe that, as you claim, 1 in 10 or even 1 in 40 refs are actually threatened with physical violence or assaulted. If that were true, there would be a cue at the judiciary hearing bigger than a maccas line at midday. Iv NEVER seen a ref personally threatened or had physical violence brought against him in my life, until Danny gave his famous "high 5", and iv watched a LOT of local football.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

I bet I watch a lot more than you do though   As I said, it's difficult to estimate the incidence, because the prevalence (referees in the association who have experienced it) is higher than the frequency of incidents (due to the massive number of referees who quit each season).  As a spectator/player, I've only seen one incident.  I've seen a good deal more either as a ref or an assistant.  I've also been informed of a number more that I haven't seen:

Offhand I can think of....(including my 3) ('seniors' includes premier league/Div1, and men's all age - and the 'out of area' ones are mostly at Kanga Cup in years I attended)
-referee with flag pole thrown at him (different area) - juniors
-referee with water bottle thrown at him - juniors (out of area but involving local refs)
-refereeing team followed in a car - juniors (out of area but involving local refs)
-player standing in the face of a short female referee and screaming obscenities - O35
-player threatening to bash referee - seniors
-spectators threatening to slit the throat of a referee - juniors
-player shoulder charging ref - O35
-spectator getting in referees face and pushing him after the match - seniors
-player grabbing ref and threatening him (Kanwal incident - seniors)
-Manager threatening ref - juniors (out of area but involving local refs)
-Player threatening to 'get' a referee after the match - seniors
-Player walking towards referee with fist raised (seniors) - x2
-Player pushing referee (seniors)
-Player punching referee (seniors)
-spectator grabbing, pushing and threatening the ref after the match (can't remember the age)
-Manager threatening ref (out of area)
-team threatening ref at a restaurant (out of area)
-Player grabbing card out of referees hand (seniors)
-Player getting in the face of referee, abusing and threatening him, needing restraint by teammates (O35)

The majority of those incidents have occurred in the last 4 years, and naturally don't include typical instances of players abusing or even eyeballing referees.  I vaguely recall another couple of incidents locally, but I can't recall any specifics.

So yeah, maybe I was mistaken in estimating 1 in 10 - there's probably about 1in20 refs in the local area who have experienced assault or threats, going from the above list (almost all those referees are still officiating), but when you consider the cumulative number of officials over those years, the ratio is, admittedly, much lower.  But certainly higher than 1 in 1000

There's a lot more incidents in other areas that I'm aware of - the forum I go to has a 5 page thread listing such incidents, but I haven't bothered posting those ones.  Some officials on there have suffered multiple assaults, and they are some of the nicest, most respectful, calmest guys you'd meet who don't flaunt their authority nor demand respect, and are aware of controlling their body language and personal space to minimise antagonisation to players.  Some are a bit more authoritative, but that seems to be what's required to impress the right people to move up to state league and so forth (and that doesn't justify assault, even though some people really hate authoritative referees).

Honestly I have absolutely nothing to gain by exaggerating or making up these incidents or anything else - the only point I attempted to make on this thread was that, if you're one of those who believe the sentence is too lenient, then it perhaps shouldn't be too surprising as CCF have demonstrated some extreme - even frightening (saying that the referee can't prove an assault happened is something I find incredibly disturbing) - leniency in some incidents, but have acted quite capably at other times.

How this got onto a discussion on statistics, or whether or not I use common sense or if I'm an arrogant, self-righteous punk in black I'll never know

Jeez, last time I try to make a brief statement!

 

[Bear]

Jeez, last time I try to make a brief statement!

You have hardly been trying to make a "brief statement" though, have you. Its a full blown arguement your having with people on here. Im not trying to antagonise, but mate, I think your stats are way off the mark. As somebody else posted, if these things are happening to refs now, maybe refs should take a look at their own performances, before they point the finger and angry/hungover/bad week/upset players. Maybe refs should take a step back and not hide behind their wistles and procedures.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Bear - my original aim was to make a brief, non-confrontational statement.  Somebody picks at that...and...well, come on, surely I'm not the only marinator who's gotta have the last word

How do you figure my stats are way off the mark?  I've listed a number of incidents, mostly from the last 4 years.

We currently have about 200 refs, but a large proportion inactive.  Over those 4 years we've probably lost about 150-200 refs....so you can guesstimate your own stats from that if you want   Perhaps I was still estimating a bit on the heavy side, but the point I was getting at is that it certainly occurs more often than some people think.

I'm curious - why do you seem to blame referees for being abused/assaulted?
Why is your first reaction to say 'the refs need to look at themselves', and not 'people need to learn to control themselves'?

I'm also curious - how are referees hiding behind whistles and procedures?

 

[Bear]

The same way people hide behind their keyboards. Come on, you cant tell me that some, SOME refs become 12 feet tall and invincible when they get that whistle and those cards. I actually know a few refs who infact like to ref BECAUSE they have so much power on the field.

And I didnt say they need to look at themselfs, I said MAYBE they need to look at themselfs. Refs were very well respected only just a few years ago, you tell me what has changed?

EDIT: I never even mentioned that refs should be blamed for being abused, but obviously SOMETIMES they are to blame, hence my comment of they should possibly look at themselfs first. You seem to be trying to turn my words around. Im not trying to pick a fight, or stick up for players handling/abusing refs, but you seem to give me the impression that you think refs are perfect and thus should be immune from all critisism.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Bear - not my intent to turn your words around, I may have simply overgeneralised upon some of your statements.

I'm not trying to suggest that refs are perfect and immune from criticism (actually, I can't imagine where you got that from).

As for why referee abuse has increased...there's a couple of possible reasons.  I do believe that the standard has increased - I know the education in CCFRI has increased tenfold in the last few years, and with the larger intake is a greater opportunity for taking in people with natural talents.

However, there's also a bit of a push for referees to become increasingly consistent and professional, and to apply the laws as they're written.  Yes, we still try to manage players, and yes, there is still quite a lot of room for discretion, but not always.  But this is probably reflected by society as a whole, where we all seem to be demanding greater professionalism from workers in all fields, and expect various rules and laws to be adhered to to a greater extent than ever before.

But if we apply those laws in that fashion then we become criticised for not having common sense, or having a feel for the match.  If we don't apply the laws in that fashion, we're criticised for being inconsistent.  How to win?

The result of that is that there may be an increase in a somewhat authoritarian attitude amongst referees - but most referees seem to avoid crossing the fine line towards overt authoritarianism.  However, I think this whole attitude of increased knowledge of and respect for the laws may simply rub players up the wrong way - don't forget that, being in a position of authority, referees are going to be the subject of derision by default!

There may be a couple who are quite aggressive and authoritarian on the field, but they are definitely in the minority.  There are certainly a number more who may appear to be on a power trip, but often the events of a game conspire to make a referee look bad, or the players may simply not be reacting well to any other method of refereeing.  In short, I don't actually think there are as many authoritarian referees as some people think - more often than not there's a specific reason why a ref may appear that way in a certain match.  Or it may only be one minor aspect of the match that makes him stand out and others think 'he's on a power trip'.

One misconception is that if a referee gives out a lot of cards he's on a power trip, but I do think that's an unfair assessment.

But I think that we need to bear in mind that the number of players has significantly increased, so of course the number of incidents will increase.  Additionally, as I said, the tolerance level for dissent and abuse keeps getting higher and higher, and in the last few seasons we've seen an increased number of players mobbing the referee to argue (so much so that NSW have released a directive to caution ALL players who do this.  Unfortunately, this directive has been widely ignored).  When these sort of incidents increase, it's inevitable that the number of players who make that jump over the line is also going to increase.

The fact remains that a referee doesn't have to do anything wrong to be abused or assaulted - it's the player's (often incorrect) perception of a bad decision that leads to these.  Yes, there are other aspects of refereeing beyond getting a decision right or wrong, but that isn't often enough - realistically, asking somebody with minimal education to handle 22-32 (if you include the maximum number of subs - benches can be abusive too!) distinct individuals, all of whom are in a heightened state of emotion and aggression and being spurred on by a rowdy bunch of the sideline, is a massive ask - especially if there isn't any pressure on those players to be responsible for their own actions. 

 

[luvsoccer]

Gus
Have been away but just got back and caught up with the posts on this topic.
I  think I have defined your problem. For your statistics to be right you and many other referees must be very thin skinned and thus you and they consider any form of disent as being threatening. On your figures we are surely lucky to have any referees at all.
I reiterate my previous posting that I do not believe in nor condone abuse of referees. I am very much against it. I think it gets down to a definition of this so-called abuse.
What I was trying to say is that not all those who take up refereeing are suited to it. Referees must have a thick skin, not be susceptible to taking offence every time their decision is disputed by a player or spectator, have the ability to work with players and spectators to difuse any possible explosive situations. Most of those who do not have these abilities give it away in the first year or two. Those who have theses abilities go on to be good referees and have no major incidents. Then we come to the rest. They do not have the characteristics necessary to be good referees but for various reasons, delusions of power, money or just no sense to realise their failings stay with it. These are the few who cop abuse. One of the better referees on the Coast used to say that if you need to control a match with cards or similar intimidation of players you should not be refereeing. It is usually in this latter class of referee, who thankfullty are in an overall minority, that do this and the more major problems occur.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

For your statistics to be right you and many other referees must be very thin skinned and thus you and they consider any form of disent as being threatening.

Hmm?  Where do you get that idea?

Those who have theses abilities go on to be good referees and have no major incidents.

See, that's where your problem lies - again, you're blaming the referees for these incidents, instead of blaming the perpetrators.

Many incidents are completley random and out of the blue.  A referee can be highly abused and intensely despised by the crowd when he's done nothing wrong, and handled all on-field situations quite well.  Honestly, most of the complaint that comes from the sideline demonstrates a lack of understanding from those spectators.

As I said, if a referee has major incidents it can be nothing more than luck - the wrong call made 'against' the wrong person/team at the wrong time.

I remember Anders Frisk copping a coin to the head.  I suppose that's his fault, because he didn't manage the game or the spectator properly?  He's a top referee.

A referee I know (quite a good referee) awarded a penalty against a team, and next thing he knows a water bottle was flying past his head.

I once called a player offside in an U/11 semi final, only to have a spectator threaten to slit my throat.  Again, tell me how this actually indicates I'm not a good referee (whether or not I'm a good referee is irrelevant - I'm curious as to how you can derive that from the above incident), or that I don't manage situations properly?

Another referee, quite a talented official again, was followed in a car after refereeing an U/12 match.  Tell me, what did he fail to manage there?

Again, how exactly is the referee responsible for 'not managing' the situation?

One of the biggest problems in football is that there is a distinct lack of personal responsibility - attitudes like yours, that look to blame the referee when assaults occur, contribute to this situation.

Yes, a referee can manage a situation in various ways which can relax a situation, or make it worse.  Managing a situation with your voice, presence and personality are all tools at the referees disposal, and all referees engage in these.  However, to expect a referee to get it right, every single time, is simply ridiculous.  An entire panel of psychologists and behavioural experts, with a complete history of the relevant person, wouldn't be able to always correctly find the method of dealing with a situation that results in the least distress and anger - let alone a referee without this sort of education, in a split second decision, in the heat of the moment.

Then we come to the rest. They do not have the characteristics necessary to be good referees but for various reasons, delusions of power, money or just no sense to realise their failings stay with it. These are the few who cop abuse.

Mate, this is where I find it bloody hard to believe you've ever refereed a match - or even watched one.

Every single referee will cop abuse.  No matter how good you are, no matter how good at managing the players you are, you WILL cop abuse.  Guaranteed.  When you're forced to make decisions that upset people, when they're alread in a highly emotive state, you WILL cop abuse.  That is a certainty.

One of the better referees on the Coast used to say that if you need to control a match with cards or similar intimidation of players you should not be refereeing.

So I assume he didn't bother to take his cards on the field with him?
If so, then surely he's admitting that his statement is completely ridiculous?

To suggest that cards are a method of intimidation, is again, to try and suggest that players don't need to be responsible for their own actions - that once they don the playing strip, they can do whatever they like and shouldn't have to face consequences for their actions. 

Cards are partially one tool of control (one of many, that all referees utilise), and partly a measure to ensure that players remain responsible for their actions (punishment, for want of a better word). 

 

[Bear]

Here is a question for you

Are referees guilty of "picking" on players sometimes? Deliberatly looking for reasons to get players off, for whatever reason?

Yes or no, I dont want a f**king 5 page report

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

I'm not giving you a 'yes or no', but I will keep it brief for you. 

Picking on a specific player?  I can honestly say I've never seen it (not to my memory), but there are always situations that can be interpreted that way.

Trying to rile up the players in general?  I have seen a couple of referees who have had a rather aggressive manner on the field in their tone, even disrespectful, but I certainly couldn't give you a reason, if it's a deliberate action or not.  Those referees are certainly in the minority though.

'Picking on the players' is certainly one of the rarer complaints we get yelled at us though ;-)

(oh, and you think my posts here are rambling?  You should see what I make the other referees on another forum put up with   And in case you're wondering, I'm not always protecting the refs on there either!!)

 

[Bear]

Here is my last post on this thread, and it comes with advise...

Open your other eye

Thats all, im out

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

 

[marinermick]

Here is my last post on this thread, and it comes with advise...

Open your other eye

might be a bit tough if he is capn gus bloodbeard and has an eye patch

 

[From the dug out]

Referees have opinions of clubs and players, some good some bad (their only human - I think).

If a referee dislikes one or the other, sometimes they make their calls based on their own personal feelings rather than the right ruling.

Some refs deserve to get a gob full.

There are caring and corrupt polititions, good and bad police and the same goes for the black and whites.

I know some great blokes who are refs, and I know of one or two F_ _king dickheads who are on server ego trips.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

That seems to be a fairly balanced reply ;-)

I do have my opinion on certain clubs or teams (though in case you're wondering, I don't have an opinion either way on Kanwal, nor on their PL teams).  These are borne from experience (and I don't think it's entirely possible to not have any opinion at all)- if a number of referees share the same opinion of a team or club, then there's probably a reason ;-)  (I know of a few clubs/teams that have, to their credit, taken steps to change bad reputations, or poor disciplinary records)

I certainly try not to let those experiences affect the next time I referee that team/club - and most referees would be the same.  I have heard some horror stories though, as have we all.  Most of them would be pretty unfounded.  Obviously I can't speak for every referee against every match - merely the matches I've witnessed ;-)

Though yes, there are always some referees that associations could do without.  I could name some (even though some of you might like to think I'm trying to claim that referees are infallible!), but I won't.  Funnily enough, I don't think the ones I'm thinking of have been assaulted or threatened....funny old world, innit? 

Here is my last post on this thread, and it comes with advise...

Open your other eye

might be a bit tough if he is capn gus bloodbeard and has an eye patch

Arrrrr! irate: irate: