what do you think? REFEREEING STANDARDS

[North Longford]

Just goes to show, we're not all cut out to be refs, isn't that right NL? 

Technically it should have been a penalty (assuming the player wasn't the goalkeeper - and then it that case it isn't a foul)

Thats actually interesting because my initiall thought straight away was that it would have been a penalty but I was assured that it being a technical foul it would be a 14 yard free. We had even discussed jokingly afterwards whether anyone would have the bottle to go for a goal or take the equalliser. The gent who reckoned it would be a free seemed pretty sure so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The only thing I would say is that both of us knew the whistle should have been blown. The man who had the whistle and should know a lot better than both of us did not.

b. they go around fixing games either to benefit, the GAA, certain clubs or themselves

Do you remember times before the 4th official indicated what injury time the ref was going to play.
How many games were there mad amounts of extra time played (that either being none at all or far too much) so that tight games ended in draws.
Would that have been fixing games?

And indeed witnof if you were in Longford last Sunday you would have seen a ref add on absolutely no time at the end of extra time despite twice warning the team that were leading that he was going to, or I assume thats what he was doing when he went in to their goalie and pointed at his watch.

My opinion is that if he didn't do it on purpose then he is a terrible referee. Will he not get high profile games next year as a result. Of course he will.

[cornerback]

Heres's the rule:

2.2 After a foul, play is restarted by a free kick or
a throw-in where the foul(s) occurred.
EXCEPTIONS
(i) In the case of fouls by a defending player
within the rectangles, the following shall
apply;
A penalty kick shall be awarded for an
Aggressive Foul within the large rectangle
or any foul within the small rectangle. The
penalty kick shall be taken from the
ground at the centre point of the 13m line.
A free kick from the centre of the 13m line
shall be awarded for a Technical Foul by a
defending player within the large rectangle
but outside the small rectangle.

[Rois]

I went to a qualifiers match in Carrick on Shannon in 2007, can't even remember who was playing - possibly Leitrim and Donegal?  Anyway, irrelevant.

I was sitting with the referee assessor.  The referee was getting awful abuse from the crowd, people booing him at half time, and he had to be escorted off the pitch.  You'd have thought by the reaction of people that it was the worst refereeing display ever seen.

The referee actually got very few big decisions wrong and was technically very competent.  His performance was by no means perfect, but neither was he as bad as the crowd suggested.  The assessor went into his room (which needed a security guard at the door) afterwards to tell him that he actually did a pretty good job - the poor man was so annoyed by the crowd's reaction and he was very grateful to the assessor for saying that.

It's very funny how people who have a vested interest (player, coach, supporter) perceive the rules differently from the neutral. 

[North Longford]

I see my mate was getting his big rectangles and his small rectangles mixed up.!!

[antoinse]

Rois: A prime example was to be seen in Enniskillen on Sunday when the Eunan's shot on goal was clearly wide. The linesman correctly told the referee to overrule umpire and lo and behold the Eunan's manager and selectors who were on the correct side berated the linesman for his correct call. The manger was still complaining on the Monday papers.

[Billys Boots]

It's very funny how people who have a vested interest (player, coach, supporter) perceive the rules differently from the neutral.

I have a vested interest (supporter), so I guess my opinion doesn't count.  As the daughter of a referee-assessor (if I remember correctly), Rois, you're not exactly neutral either.

NL and I are aggrieved about Coldrick's performance on Sunday not simply becuase his 'decisions' didn't go 'our way', it's because similar fouls for the opposition were ignored.  Colmcille had three foot-tackles (that I counted) called against them resulting in 0-1 for Éire Óg, Éire Óg had none of four foot-tackles (that I counted) called against them, one of which was inside their 21, which should have been 0-1 for Colmcille.  There's the game swung completely around already.  The same for pick-ups - Colmcille had 0-2 disallowed (actual points disallowed) for pick-ups, Éire Óg had no free awarded against them for pick-ups, including the one alluded to by NL above.  I could go on, but it's pointless.  My point actually is, and I'll say it again: if the assessment procedure for referees is allowing this type of refereeing performance to 'pass', then something is very, very wrong with that procedure(s).

[antoinse]

Maybe the problem is not the referee or the assessor but the committee that (as it seems likely from the comments) ignore the comments of correction by the assessors and continues to appoint referees that do not get good reports

[Rois]

I have a vested interest (supporter), so I guess my opinion doesn't count.  As the daughter of a referee-assessor (if I remember correctly), Rois, you're not exactly neutral either.

Not exactly neutral on what point exactly?  I shared my experience of a time when the referee performed much better than the supporters gave him credit for, I did not in any way discredit your opinion - sure I wasn't there, how in god's name would I know what you, the crowd or the referee assessor thought of the performance?  

Just trying to give a view from someone who's seen what an assessor does, what the form looks like, and what they're marked on.  I know nothing of the appointments committees or how they work, or even what weight they give to assessors' reports.  

I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the outcome of the assessment procedure (nothing wrong with the actual assessment procedure as I know it) allows for bad referees to be re-appointed, then there's something wrong.  

But to accuse a neutral who accompanies a neutral while they do a neutral's job of not being neutral when the very point of them trudging from Belfast to Carrick on Shannon on a Saturday night was to be neutral, well it's just absurd  

[Billys Boots]

But to accuse a neutral who accompanies a neutral while they do a neutral's job of not being neutral when the very point of them trudging from Belfast to Carrick on Shannon on a Saturday night was to be neutral, well it's just absurd

Cross-purposes (and apologies) Rois, I wasn't having a go.  You referred to those with a vested interest having a different interpretation of the rules from the neutral - i guess you're right.  I was hoping that the application of the assessment process might lead to the consistent application of the rules - I felt that you might not be entirely neutral about the assessments.  For instance, in relation to the Leitrim scenario, how can there be a gulf between the views of the assessor, and the views of the (partisan) crowd - who's missing what?  Are the crowd wholly worng?

I'm (still) annoyed that the assessment process (or rather the application of the results of the assessment process, by whosoever does so) is not resulting in the removal of referees like Coldrick and Kinneavy from the game.  It's supposed to be the point of the process, isn't it?

[milltown row]

look if we had more referees to choose from then we'd have no problems. some referees get picked more often (talking club games) is because there are not enough in the first place. if every club had 5 referees and they were constantly assessed and graded then standards would be better. Antrim had to bring in a rule last year that if a club did not have an official referee then the had to play all their club games away!!! that sorted that out. they should raise the bar now and insist on 5 referees per club. regular fitness checks and twice yearly written tests. also every 5 games should be assessed and feedback given