Officials talk - Part Two

Well well well I had expected to be lambasted for daring to suggest a level of favouritism and officials actually deciding what outcome they would prefer but in general most people agree it seems.

If you haven't read the piece you can familiarise yourself here:
Are Officials simply incompetent or something worse?

You have two options, you forget about it or 'get over it' as Patrick says which is brushing it all under the carpet or you speak up about it and start to persuade public opinion towards taking the matter more seriously.

Tim makes the point that many of us are now thinking, a way needs to be found to incorporate technology at times because there is so much money in the game now that bad decisions have 'huge ramifications' for players, teams, managers, owners and supporters.

I agree with Beano111's point that the 'FA is full of has-been's' when you consider some of the England managerial appointments and Under 21 appointments as opposed to the people they have not appointed. You never hear of the selection committee being sacked!

We all except as Thetruthisouthtere says that officials 'have a difficult job' to perform and that mistakes will occur when we have a diving, sorry simulation, culture. Players these days seem incapable of standing on two feet and when brushed by a passing feather in the wind go screaming down in pain to roll over and over clutching a non existent injury.

Flipper points out that 'officials can clearly potentially get away with match fixing' and Ness Spurs concurs asking 'Are match officials in a better position to 'fix' results that players?'

They are but it is not an easy thing to do. A player for instance can always get himself sent off or booked which is all certain fixing would need. I'm not sure we have gone that far although there have been incidences of it.

Influencing the outcome of spread betting on bookings and red cards are within the officials grasp, mainly the referee though. Flipper also asks 'why are officials not punished' but surely more importantly why do they not have to answer for their decisions and publicly explain them?

Why is a manager not allowed to publicly criticise officials, why are the officials not interviewed after the game? Why is everything hidden, brushed under the carpet, why the secrecy?

Is it because bringing their impartiality or ability into question weakens their authority or because they have something to hide. Surely if we had video replays at certain times their authority would be enhanced, the players would have nothing to argue about.

Nobody criticises rugby referees or cricket umpires, their authority has not been weakened so why would it weaken football officials, what makes them so special?

If you think back to Stoke City away when Adebayor had 2 perfectly good goals disallowed, one when he was yards onside. Those dropped points cost us a Champions League place and put the club development back a few years.

The general argument is that these things even themselves out over a season, but do they? Do blatantly bad decisions even themselves out? I have serious doubt that they do and I'm convinced for smaller sides they do not. Wigan last season seemed to get bad decision after bed decision week after week.

You have to ask questions why.

Subscribe to THBN

0 Response to "Officials talk - Part Two"

Post a Comment