who knows..there are many young foreign players. balloteli: @#$#**

What about Robbie Savage?

Darren Fletcher is learning the Roy Keane way of confronting the ref, something i am not comfortable with when i see

What was once a "man's game", is turning out to be a game for pansies if you ask me. Just 2 decades ago, you had elbows being thrown about and tackles from behind were legal if you won the ball. Yet, teams played with less players even though the risk of injury was higher. Back in the 1965 FA Cup Final, Gerry Bryne broke is collarbone in the 3rd minute of play but stayed on the field through the 90 minutes plus extra time. Despite constantly being sent into warzones, Phil Neal once played 365 consecutive matches for Liverpool. I just get the impression that players were built of sterner stuff back then and players these days are highly protected because clubs have an obligation to look after 'investments' made by sponsors.

On the issue of referees, I'd say that the FA is being overprotective. I do not condone physical contact of course, but what's wrong with telling the ref to F*** off? These days, you get booked for so much as sneezing in his direction. In a game where decisions are often disputed due to the absence of conclusive evidence, there will be arguments but what is wrong with that? I personally used to berate refs back in the day I was actively playing in Futsal and Basketball tournaments because I see it as part of the game. Is isn't as though all of them are getting death threaths in the manner Anders Frisk did, forcing him into retirement. If you ask me, the FA should focus on getting the refs as much assistance as possible to ensure that wrong decisions are minimised. More officials, goalline technology, video replays, whatever it takes. Do you see anyone shoving the refs about in the NBA or NFL? Sure it happens, but how often and how many times are the refs at the centre of controversy compared to football?

Just to sidetrack, I was really looking forward to Collina refereeing in the EPL. Too bad he chose to retire altogether instead.

Obviously protection is essential or you will see leg breaking incident happened everywhere in the world and things like that ruin a player's career and this became worse if the player is still a youngster. Just look at the once potential striker Eduardo and one of the prominent dribbler in Europe Rosicky. They just became worse after leg breaking incidents, you can heal your physical wounds to the perfect condition but your experience will never stop haunting you. These people started to play football at the age of 3, they don't deserve this. If the players I mentioned gave no sentimental concerns to you, then you can imagine what if someone broke Torres's leg and fractured his ankle, someone broke Reina's neck and someone crash Suso's tibia into 3 parts. They will be gone forever then thats too late to ask the official to do something.

Players need to be protect and I will always stand at this point.

to be fair, the fouls in NBA is very very harsh, players are highly protected...
most contact would resolve into a foul thus u can see the high amount of free throws etc...
any attempt at the referee would be given a flagrant or instant boot...

This post has been edited by evofantasy: Jan 19 2011, 12:35 PM

The only difference between then and now is this, players get heavier punishment for say, breaking another's leg. In the end, the punishment is moot because no one goes into a tackle with the intent of breaking the other bloke's leg (well you have your exceptions, but very few). It's like the death penalty for drugs in Malaysia but yet you still have people consuming and dealing. I mean, what's worse than a death penalty? Seriously, fines that are dished out these days to players don't actually hurt him. If I earned $50,000 pounds a week, a $10,000 fine is only 5% of my montly salary. If someone earns RM$5,000, that's only RM250. Say you got it from speeding. You'd take notice but it isn't sufficient to stop you from speeding again.

Liverpool once won the league with only 14 players played the entire season, and team in general used less players than they do today. Fairplay, we play more games now but back then, players had very little protection but still managed to last the season. Were there more leg breaks then than now? I don't have the statistics but given what I said earlier about clubs not having to field 22 players, one can make an educated assumption. You use Reina and Torres to appeal to my sentimental side but I do have viewpoints that are completely unbiased believe it or not, with my thoughts in Gerrard's diving a good example. For the sake of argument, if someone had broken Reina's neck, I'd be pissed but it doesn't change the fact that Reina has broken his neck and no amount of money or red cards will change that.

I have no doubt that a player's well being is taken into consideration but one cannot at the same time deny that clubs, sponsors and agents put a lot of pressure on the FA to protect their investments. There always is a political agenda in the end. Don't get me wrong, I think that breaking a leg is a terrible and traumatic thing. I grimace at some of the pictures I see and I can only imagine what its like for another player to see it live. I can only imagine the guilt someone like Shawcross feels when breaking another's leg unintentionally. Instead of taking the obvious route of stating the players need more protection however, I'd first like to draw a comparison between then and now. Are players more reckless these days? Is it because they are more committed because of the high stakes? Are managers telling players to go in harder because they don't want to lose their jobs?

The question isn't about whether protection is necessary, it's about the extent it is implemented. By referring to players, I was a drawing a comparison to the degree to which referees will one day be deemed "untouchable".

Don't follow. The fouls in NBA are harsh? You mean the punishment?

There is a lot of contact in basketball, most often go unnoticed especially in the post but the penalties are the same. Just the other day Lamar Odom and Ron Artest were ejected along with Baron Davis and some other dude. When you raise your hands, you get ejected, just like in football.

The point I was trying to make about refs in the NBA is that they use video replays to review controversial moments, hence players don't see the need to badger him constantly. If someone punched someone else, the incident is replayed instantly to see who the offender was. In football, the refs decision stands and not until later is there a review of the incident. Players therefore bug the ref less knowing that even if he is wrong, the game won't be affected because they can fall back on television replays. In football, the game is affected and punishment meted out later does little to fix the damage that is done. This is why players harass referees in football, because his decision is final, no replay.

To get back on track, I'll say this again. I think referees are given too much protection and authority.

maybe i put it wrongly...
most contacts within the NBA are considered as a foul as opposed to soccer...
even a moving screen, touching the opponent's hand etc is a foul...
thus players are very protected protected...

and ya, one of the difference is as u put it, the video playback...
just like tennis, it helps avoid controversy as the players can 'challenge' in a more appropriate manner...
tennis provide each player with a certain amount to prevent abuse of the system etc and this is one of the best implementation of it...

True but the rules differ, and football allows more contact. In football you can body check another player, which you can't in basketball. Suffice to say, the more your rules allow contact, the higher the risk of injury.

Tell you what. If FIFA really wanted to put an end to a long list of problems, replays will solve them. Why don't you see players harass the ref during rugby games? Because they know that everything is on tape, so to speak. It will help determine if a player dived, if the ball actually crossed the line, if Vinnie Jones actually grabbed Paul Gascoigne's groin and so on. Refs also won't get stick from players and fans because their calls will be backed by 'evidence'.

well... i am a traditionalist who want football to stick with the simplistic human side of it... including referee errors.. if player error are part of the game, so do referee errors...

football should about a group of humans chasing a ball in an open space... if you need a production crew in order, to record everything, before you can start playing, it gets a lil bit too complicated for my liking...

no matter how much money is at stake, the provision of football rules should be the same from the ground of secondary schools to world cup finals...

agree completely with Duke.

it's 1 thing for refs to be protected from abuse and threats to him and his family and so on, but its another to shield him from daily banter and complains. For example look at Babel's case. What does that twitter does to Webb? is he such a girly girl that the picture makes him cry every night to sleep and has emotional issue until he cant do his job anymore, until he needs to visit a psychiatrist? FA has to step in and find Babel, as a "protection" of webb's image. This is the sort of overprotection i think is not necessary...they are starting to take the American style of suing and charging every single incident that doesnt benefit them.

Then there's Rafael's case. Ok he got sent off, maybe the second card was harsh, but its not like the team never get lenient decisions as well. I leave that out coz its part of parcel of football, some fine day u get good results other times u are unlucky. Rafael also maybe shouldnt raise his voice and all, but even if he and Rooney did, it is pure frustration. I once told off my own friend who was the linesman just because he said the ball was out of line when i was dribbling it. like Duke said, its part and parcel of the game. Refs should be able to handle it and shrug it off, and i think the suspension for the red card is a punishment enough for a player. But FA have to "protect" the ref and start charging. What, is Rafael that ugly that when he starts shouting, Mike Dean have 3 nights consecutive of Jack the Ripper nightmare? Then i cant imagine how Mancini's life is when Tevez shout at him for substituting him off the other day. It would be a totally different case if Rafael shoved or headbutted Dean, but apparently refs nowadays have fragile emotions, some bad words to them and they cant take it.

These protections give refs the license to being careless in their jobs and not have to worry the consequences. It's like the government, if they have all the protection they have then they dont have to worry about screwing up the rakyat because they know if there is an uproar, the police will step in and capture any of those retaliating. Over time, as refs finds they can get away with bad decisions over and over again, there will definitely be more and more of bad decisions going around. At the end of the day, its the receiving team's that have to suffer (relegation, suspension, losing out on title etc which costs them millions of dollars of income) while the refs continue on gleefully with their jobs without the need to improve. Refs should be a respectable figure but as of now, they are made to be feared.

Hope what i said makes sense to majority of the posters here, without any hint of club favourism whatsoever. I just think refs need to step up on their job and these strict FA stance wont help that cause.

i dont agree that players can be allowed to show any sort if intimidation towards the referee.. it can subconsciously effect his ability to be fair in his next judgment against the intimidater...

in our real lives also we generally tend to prioritize task given by a barking boss than a laid back one.. its not that we afraid... we just want to spare the annoyance...

so .. Feckk Off to a ref is a no no...

This post has been edited by aressandro10: Jan 19 2011, 06:33 PM

Mostly it's a matter of emotion. When we're on the field, coaches or players alike, we tend to get emotional. Emotions are not easily controlled. Sometimes words are uttered in the heat of the moment & may sound harsh but as long as its not racist or personal attacks, a warning will suffice.

I think one player telling the ref to piss off will influence him less than the whole stadium berating him. Unless I'm mistaken you mentioned earlier that you like the fact there are no replays, etc and there is the drama from contentious decisions. The thing is that when you allow for this, you almost welcome abuse from players or fans. This is why I feel that as humans who have emotions you cannot issue a card each time a player tells you to piss off.

well if the referee is not protected, he would be under pressure from the home side...
and if i am nt mistaken, many would prefer to keep it the way it is now with no playback, goal sensor etc

no I believe that Berbatov's dive should be a yellow card.

i believe that no referee is needed only when a decision is need to be made both will join in a sack race and see who wins it

Thing is, if the FA or FIFA want to 'protect' referees, they would introduce technology to help rather than issue a "hands off the ref" warning. Just as they 'protect' referees by saying that they do make mistakes occasionally and are infallible, they have to accept that players are the same. People speak about how subjective talking points make the game interesting, well I think players displaying emotion makes the game that much more interesting. There is a lot of money riding on games these days, from sponsors to bookies. The ref has arguable the biggest influence on the game and if they really wanted to 'protect' him, they would do all they can to ensure there is as little margin for error as possible i.e. introducing technology. If they don't intend to, the accept the consequences instead of building impositions to shield their reluctance.

First of all I appreciate & am thankful for the constructive posts (Duke et al) here. As for the inane posts they speak for themselves.
What I would like to continue is discussing why 'The FA Respect The Referees Campaign' is a 'Joke' when its continuously being derailed by supposedly knowledgable football commentators & pundits.

To wit Sky's resident 'football misogynists', Andy Gray & Richard Keys, who will not be on air for this Monday Night Football show (Bolton vs Chelsea).
Sky has seen fit to apologize for their off-air remarks whilst still in the studio and being SKY's employees. Their views can in no way shape or form be excused because they are PUBLIC FIGURES.


Here's what was quoted



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...l#ixzz1BxXyn0tY


My questions here
1. Was the Skysports pundits correct in their offside call?
2. Are the remarks truly 'football misogynistic' of these two characters.


I will start here

1. Yes it was a good call by the linesperson
2. C'mon one sexist remark maybe ignorance. Two? Directed against more than one female?

I think the ref should just sent off anyone that is disrespectful. I am sorry, but if you have kicked hooligan fans out of the stadia, why still allow players to behave like one?

Referees should be able to do their job without being constantly abused. Rugby is a much more physical game and emotions on the field are likely to be more fiery as well considering the amount of malicious intent put into every tackle. However I do not see them rugby boys berating the ref to get a decision. Only the captain/vice captain should be speaking politely to the referee. The refs job is hard enough as it is and having grown men constantly telling them to f**k off isn't going to help.