Standard of Refs

[David McKeown]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

[Milltown Row2]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

[David McKeown]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

[Tony Baloney]

Sure McCooey refs give nothing to the N. Antrim culchies.

[David McKeown]

I see almost ironically that Forrest have lodged a complaint today that the VAR official for todays game was a Luton fan and didn't give them three penalties as a result

[Milltown Row2]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

[Milltown Row2]

Sure McCooey refs give nothing to the N. Antrim culchies.

It's difficult to give this a smart arse response due to the paranoid schizophrenia around some parish's

[David McKeown]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

[Milltown Row2]

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

Yeah he's a mad tramere fan, but still ref'd them, albeit far less.

I know you're not questioning someone's integrity and feel some by location or work or whatever may have that bitta doubt before blowing the whistle or not blowing it.

At intercounty level they are (believe it or not lol) scrutinised from an application of rules all the way down to how their umpires look!

Would be disastrous for a ref to ruin his/hers name by being bias

Ref's at either football or hurling at intercounty level come championship are picked early doors for Sam/Liam all games are ref'd from that selection. I'm sure all considerations are taken but I'd not be privy to how that's done in fairness

[tyrone08]

Goldrick has to be one of the worst refs about

[bennydorano]

Honest to f**k Tyrone ones are never done yapping about refs, every single game, read back through the game comments today, 90% yapping about the ref.

[Armagh18]

Horrible shower altogether. Massive advantage Donegal with that extra time. Jimmy be licking his lips.

[Dreadnought]

Goldrick has to be one of the worst refs about

Yet won you the match after you fell apart 2nd half. You'd think you'd be grateful to him

[tyrone08]

Honest to f**k Tyrone ones are never done yapping about refs, every single game, read back through the game comments today, 90% yapping about the ref.

Bbc questioned hampsey black card questioned the high challenges, questioned the potential black card for mckerarn, questioned the time keeping. Does that sound like he had a good performance

[imtommygunn]

He was awful. I think he was as bad for one team as the other.