The world is watching. What damage can today's newspapers do?
Apparently even Barack Obama has told aides to forget about Wikileaks and bring him the latest missives from Scottish football's very own diplomatic crisis.
The newly retired Dougie McDonald has released a statement.
Imagine that we, Scottish football, are Margaret Thatcher. Dougie McDonald is our Geoffrey Howe.
The key point - for those of us who are of the opinion that Scottish football's survival is tied up in the ability to actually play games - is that another strike will happen.
Or at least that is Dougie's opinion.
In no particular order, seven talking points from Dougie's diatribe:
1. The SFA don't come out of Dougie's parting shot all that well. The strike is due, in part, to the "the lack of support they [referees] have received from the SFA General Purposes Committee in recent years."
2. Hugh Dallas has been hard done by, a victim of "appalling treatment" by the SFA. (Making Dallas a unique victim of Celtic, the Catholic church and the Scottish football establishment. Depending on who you listen to.)
3. Aiden McGeady and Peter Houston are mentioned by name for attacking referees. "Every club" is at fault, managers, players and directors. "The only difference being the degree and tenor of the criticism and the inferences from it."
4. Media pressure has become "intolerable."
5. McDonald's actions at Tannadice have "clouded" the refereeing issue:
"Now is the time for all of Scottish football to move on.
"My decision will therefore remove that issue from the debate and ensure that the next day of action – which, in my opinion, will undoubtedly come if the football community does not have a massive change of heart – will result in media coverage being concentrated on those who engage in referee bashing and those who condone it."
6. Cynics among us might say that Dougie's statement is a touch self important. He doesn't entirely dispel that feeling by referring to himself in the third person. But he also stresses that recent events aren't just about Celtic:
"It is also important to make clear that just as this issue is not about Dougie McDonald alone, nor is it about Celtic Football Club alone."
7. Things need to change. And clubs need to pay the price (through point deductions?):
"If things are to change for the better, clubs need to ensure their employees leave referees to do their job and the SFA has to deal strongly with those clubs who find it impossible to focus on the football. The current leniency of the SFA and the system of paltry fines and ineffective bans are proven to have zero impact.
"If the clubs are genuinely concerned about relationships with referees – and hopefully they are after this momentous weekend - and they want to make changes, they should have no fear in signing up to a disciplinary system that will see more stringent penalties and ones that have more direct impact on clubs, rather than their errant employees."
So there we have it. McDonald feels the referees have established a position of strength this weekend. That may or may not be the case. Still, at least now we have a name for the strike the next time it happens: "Day of action."
I'm not sure the statement (full version at STV) moves us on at all. Not a mea culpa. A threat of more action to come. But is he speaking for himself or for all referees?
Defending Hugh Dallas doesn't do McDonald any favours. An attack on the SFA is hardly earth shattering. It seems that the only consistency you get from the SFA is that everybody finds it a ridiculous organisation.
McDonald feels hard done by. He's had his say. He's told us nothing new.
But he's right. We do need to move on. A brief resignation statement would have helped us do that more than a diatribe.
And he is also right that this is about more than him. More than Celtic. It's about our game in crisis. Our game becoming ungovernable. We need to do something about that.
It's time to talk. It's time to get this sorted.
Showing posts with label Scottish referees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish referees. Show all posts
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Referee Crisis: Dougie McDonald Retires
Well, isn't this the story that just keeps on giving. News this evening that Dougie McDonald has retired as a Category One referee.
McDonald was, of course, the referee at Tannadice for the Dundee United v Celtic match. He gave Celtic a penalty and then changed his mind. He did all that within the rules and probably made the correct decision in the end.
But then he chose to lie about. And triggered off a sequence of increasingly hysterical events that have led to this week's farce.
It was impossible to defend McDonald's position. The minute he lied to Celtic the game was up. Difficult to fight accusations of dishonesty in refereeing when a leading referee has been caught being dishonest.
Hugh Dallas and Dougie McDonald are both now gone. The pound of flesh, probably rightly, has been delivered.
Time for the SFA to reassert their own authority and make sure the refereeing system is properly modernised and the referees themselves are properly protected.
So, now we move on. Hopefully.
Sky on the story:
Controversial Scottish official Dougie McDonald has retired as a category one referee with immediate effect.
The 45-year-old announced his decision in a statement on Sunday night following the first ever Scottish football referee strike this weekend.
McDonald has come under criticism after admitting he had misled Celtic boss Neil Lennon over his decision to rescind a penalty he initially awarded to the Hoops in their league win over Dundee United in October.
McDonald was, of course, the referee at Tannadice for the Dundee United v Celtic match. He gave Celtic a penalty and then changed his mind. He did all that within the rules and probably made the correct decision in the end.
But then he chose to lie about. And triggered off a sequence of increasingly hysterical events that have led to this week's farce.
It was impossible to defend McDonald's position. The minute he lied to Celtic the game was up. Difficult to fight accusations of dishonesty in refereeing when a leading referee has been caught being dishonest.
Hugh Dallas and Dougie McDonald are both now gone. The pound of flesh, probably rightly, has been delivered.
Time for the SFA to reassert their own authority and make sure the refereeing system is properly modernised and the referees themselves are properly protected.
So, now we move on. Hopefully.
Sky on the story:
Controversial Scottish official Dougie McDonald has retired as a category one referee with immediate effect.
The 45-year-old announced his decision in a statement on Sunday night following the first ever Scottish football referee strike this weekend.
McDonald has come under criticism after admitting he had misled Celtic boss Neil Lennon over his decision to rescind a penalty he initially awarded to the Hoops in their league win over Dundee United in October.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Referee Crisis: A Sorry Saga
If you were still wondering if Scottish football had lurched into crisis confirmation came during an SFA press conference yesterday.
Our old friend George Peat, president of that august institution, denied that game was in crisis. Case closed, we’re obviously in the middle of a catastrophe when George adopts his head in the sand posture.
The referees strike - although, legally, it might be more of a refusal to work - is the culmination of a turbulent few weeks.
Along the way we’ve had some drama, some moments of farce and much sorrowful shaking of heads from people who, and here I include myself, actually, crazy as it might sound, quite like Scottish football.
This is a multi-layered saga. An emotive one as well.
And nobody comes out of it particularly well.
Let us deal with Celtic first. Dougie McDonald lying to Neil Lennon didn’t start this collision course between Celtic and officialdom.
There is no conspiracy against Celtic. They might, like every other team to have played a game of football, have been victims of incompetence. But there is no smoking gun, Hugh Dallas is not scurrying away from the grassy knoll.
If Celtic want improvements in Scottish refereeing, they have gone about it in completely the wrong way.
Back in June, Neil Lennon had this to say about how his players should make themselves, and their opinions, known to referees:
"I did it myself as a player, not to influence the ref but to let him know we weren't happy, “ the Hoops gaffer said.
"Any challenges that were a wee bit heavy, there were two or three of us around the player who did it.”
This was part of Lennon’s drive to put the fire back into the Celtic players. It also signalled something unsavoury about the Celtic management’s attitude to referees. We probably should have predicted the storms ahead.
This is not to condone refereeing mistakes against Celtic. But it goes a long way to explaining what I consider to be a widely held view that Neil Lennon is neither the victim of a wide ranging “anti-Celtic” conspiracy nor an innocent bystander in the controversies that have engulfed him in recent weeks.
For reasons that I don’t fully understand Celtic seem to have ramped up their complaints this season, tacitly endorsing the view that the Scottish football establishment is waging war against the club.
Last week Celtic chairman John Reid told shareholders that the club:
"weren't looking for special treatment for Celtic, and never claimed to be better than anyone else, we won't be treated as less than anyone else. Those days are gone,"
“Those days are gone?” Interesting choice of words for a man who made a career out of delivering his government’s message. Calculated, you might say.
Reid may have been simply pandering to his audience. But he knew that his comments would be widely reported, that they would have a greater impact than simply a chairman addressing his shareholders.
Given the swirling discontent surrounding the issue of refereeing, and the refereeing of Celtic games in particular, I’d argue that Reid was fanning the flames of a controversy that was already threatening to run out of control. I think that was irresponsible and unbecoming of the role he holds.
Reid also suggested that Dougie McDonald should resign for lying and trying to get others to lie on his behalf. He might well be right. But I’d suggest that a man who held no fewer than six cabinet positions during Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war is probably not as qualified as others to make that argument.
To paraphrase Tom Lehrer “it was at that moment that satire in Scottish football died.”
During this prolonged period of uproar, Celtic’s conduct has been misguided, tinged with paranoia and, in recent weeks, both manager and chairman have been guilty of making misguided, even inflammatory, comments.
And that has done them no favours. It’s robbed them of any sympathy they might have had for the poor decisions that they’ve been on the receiving end of. More importantly, it has muddied the waters of a debate that Scottish football needs to have.
I’ve been arguing for long enough that the SFA is not fit for purpose. That’s been crystal clear in the last few weeks.
In the Dundee United v Celtic game Dougie McDonald made a mistake. He then rectified that mistake. And he then compounded the whole saga by telling lies. In a job that demands honesty and integrity that is unforgivable.
It’s an open and shut case that nobody appears to be denying.
Yet McDonald remains as a Category One referee? How is that possible? I don’t know. The SFA new Chief Executive Stewart Regan - who is surely longing for the more sedate environs of Yorkshire cricket - launched an investigation.
But he then had to hand any decision over to the referees committee made up of McDonald’s colleagues in the refereeing world.
It seems senior SFA figures are surprised that McDonald remains in place yet are unable or unwilling to remove him. Surely now they’ve found the excuse they need to revolutionise their processes and systems.
If weekend reports that our top officials are incapable of reaching the acceptable pass mark in a standard test on the rules of the game are true then something is seriously awry in the way we train and assess match officials.
It’s here that Celtic’s ranting and raving - and Celtic’s is the more immediate example and the more media friendly one, although Hearts and Dundee United’s Peter Houston have also been guilty - is nothing more than a distraction.
By either suggesting or condoning a conspiracy Celtic detract from the more real problems of a widespread incompetence.
And, for that, the buck has to stop with the man who apparently must always be called “ref’s supremo,” Hugh Dallas.
Dallas played his own murky role in the McDonald affair. More damaging, however, is the inescapable conclusion that the SFA seem to allow him to exercise a Stalinist level of control over all issues to do with refereeing in the Scottish game.
If Dallas was the right man for the job he’d be across the airwaves right now either backing or condemning the threatened strike.
If he was the right man for the job he’d be putting mechanisms in place to make referees more accountable, the decision making process more transparent.
If he was the right man for the job we’d have fewer bad decisions to discuss and some method of demotion or suspension to deal with the worst offending officials.
But we have none of these things. So Hugh Dallas has to go and he has to take Dougie McDonald with him.
If there is a reluctance within the SFA to insist on that then it can be probably be explained as a refusal to pander to Celtic. Which leads to a cul-de-sac. If the SFA refuse to act because of the way Celtic have behaved then we’re in a rather sorry mess. A plague on both their houses.
And then we come to the latest twist. The referee’s planned strike at the weekend. The final descent into farce.
Not all our referees are irredeemably bad at their job. Many are guilty of mistakes but they are honest mistakes. Even at their worst they retain their integrity - McDonald’s moment of madness after the game at Tannadice aside.
The idea that they turn up for 90 minutes every Saturday, pocket their cash and go home is laughable.
It takes dedication to be a referee. And it takes a thick skin to put up with the abuse they receive from the moment they start out refereeing age group games. In fact it’s hard to think of another job, except perhaps politics, where realising your ambitions will bring such an increase in the amount of abuse you need to put up with. And they do all this in their spare time.
There’s something to admire in their dedication, even if you suspect that many of them probably always volunteered to be milk monitors at school.
But there is nothing admirable in the decision to strike. Their actions have generated bad press for Scottish football at a time when we are hardly the most respected of footballing nations.
They’ve also jeopardised important revenue streams for our clubs at a time when we’re not awash with cash.
And, by refusing to give interviews to fully explain their reasons, they have created a media vacuum that has been filled with speculation and gossip.
At the moment I don’t understand what the strike will achieve. It seems a strike that has little purpose, certainly no definable measure of it’s success. That’s not so much an industrial action as it is a holiday.
When it comes to the strike game they’ve shown themselves to be more Arthur Scargill than Jimmy Reid.
If referees have been subjected to sustained abuse outwith what is normal in the heat of a game, if their families feel threatened, if they have been receiving abuse at their full time workplaces, then that is wrong.
If they feel that any clubs, managers, players or officials are guilty of encouraging that atmosphere with their behaviour or comments then they need to state that and demand that the SFA takes action.
Certainly wiping out the weekend’s fixture list is not going to halt the actions of society’s nutters. And there must better ways of getting the SFA’s attention than enforcing a weekend shutdown.
Where will be when all this is over? Dougie McDonald will still be a referee. Hugh Dallas will still be presiding over his own personal fiefdom. Celtic will still be peddling their complaints. The SFA will appear even more impotent than before.
Weeks of nonsense, weeks of faults and stupidity on every side of the various arguments, will have ended in a farce that has achieved nothing.
And it’s me. And it’s you. The punters who just want to see a game, have a couple of pints while discussing how the players played and the ref reffed who will have lost out. And the rudderless ship that is modern Scottish football will have lurched ever closer to the rocks.
> What? No mention of the Hugh Dallas email? No. Not relevant. Perhaps it calls into question his judgement. It might even call into question his sense of humour. It definitely calls into question his IT skills. But it’s a human resources question for his employers rather than anything else. Others might disagree.
Our old friend George Peat, president of that august institution, denied that game was in crisis. Case closed, we’re obviously in the middle of a catastrophe when George adopts his head in the sand posture.
The referees strike - although, legally, it might be more of a refusal to work - is the culmination of a turbulent few weeks.
Along the way we’ve had some drama, some moments of farce and much sorrowful shaking of heads from people who, and here I include myself, actually, crazy as it might sound, quite like Scottish football.
This is a multi-layered saga. An emotive one as well.
And nobody comes out of it particularly well.
Let us deal with Celtic first. Dougie McDonald lying to Neil Lennon didn’t start this collision course between Celtic and officialdom.
There is no conspiracy against Celtic. They might, like every other team to have played a game of football, have been victims of incompetence. But there is no smoking gun, Hugh Dallas is not scurrying away from the grassy knoll.
If Celtic want improvements in Scottish refereeing, they have gone about it in completely the wrong way.
Back in June, Neil Lennon had this to say about how his players should make themselves, and their opinions, known to referees:
"I did it myself as a player, not to influence the ref but to let him know we weren't happy, “ the Hoops gaffer said.
"Any challenges that were a wee bit heavy, there were two or three of us around the player who did it.”
This was part of Lennon’s drive to put the fire back into the Celtic players. It also signalled something unsavoury about the Celtic management’s attitude to referees. We probably should have predicted the storms ahead.
This is not to condone refereeing mistakes against Celtic. But it goes a long way to explaining what I consider to be a widely held view that Neil Lennon is neither the victim of a wide ranging “anti-Celtic” conspiracy nor an innocent bystander in the controversies that have engulfed him in recent weeks.
For reasons that I don’t fully understand Celtic seem to have ramped up their complaints this season, tacitly endorsing the view that the Scottish football establishment is waging war against the club.
Last week Celtic chairman John Reid told shareholders that the club:
"weren't looking for special treatment for Celtic, and never claimed to be better than anyone else, we won't be treated as less than anyone else. Those days are gone,"
“Those days are gone?” Interesting choice of words for a man who made a career out of delivering his government’s message. Calculated, you might say.
Reid may have been simply pandering to his audience. But he knew that his comments would be widely reported, that they would have a greater impact than simply a chairman addressing his shareholders.
Given the swirling discontent surrounding the issue of refereeing, and the refereeing of Celtic games in particular, I’d argue that Reid was fanning the flames of a controversy that was already threatening to run out of control. I think that was irresponsible and unbecoming of the role he holds.
Reid also suggested that Dougie McDonald should resign for lying and trying to get others to lie on his behalf. He might well be right. But I’d suggest that a man who held no fewer than six cabinet positions during Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war is probably not as qualified as others to make that argument.
To paraphrase Tom Lehrer “it was at that moment that satire in Scottish football died.”
During this prolonged period of uproar, Celtic’s conduct has been misguided, tinged with paranoia and, in recent weeks, both manager and chairman have been guilty of making misguided, even inflammatory, comments.
And that has done them no favours. It’s robbed them of any sympathy they might have had for the poor decisions that they’ve been on the receiving end of. More importantly, it has muddied the waters of a debate that Scottish football needs to have.
I’ve been arguing for long enough that the SFA is not fit for purpose. That’s been crystal clear in the last few weeks.
In the Dundee United v Celtic game Dougie McDonald made a mistake. He then rectified that mistake. And he then compounded the whole saga by telling lies. In a job that demands honesty and integrity that is unforgivable.
It’s an open and shut case that nobody appears to be denying.
Yet McDonald remains as a Category One referee? How is that possible? I don’t know. The SFA new Chief Executive Stewart Regan - who is surely longing for the more sedate environs of Yorkshire cricket - launched an investigation.
But he then had to hand any decision over to the referees committee made up of McDonald’s colleagues in the refereeing world.
It seems senior SFA figures are surprised that McDonald remains in place yet are unable or unwilling to remove him. Surely now they’ve found the excuse they need to revolutionise their processes and systems.
If weekend reports that our top officials are incapable of reaching the acceptable pass mark in a standard test on the rules of the game are true then something is seriously awry in the way we train and assess match officials.
It’s here that Celtic’s ranting and raving - and Celtic’s is the more immediate example and the more media friendly one, although Hearts and Dundee United’s Peter Houston have also been guilty - is nothing more than a distraction.
By either suggesting or condoning a conspiracy Celtic detract from the more real problems of a widespread incompetence.
And, for that, the buck has to stop with the man who apparently must always be called “ref’s supremo,” Hugh Dallas.
Dallas played his own murky role in the McDonald affair. More damaging, however, is the inescapable conclusion that the SFA seem to allow him to exercise a Stalinist level of control over all issues to do with refereeing in the Scottish game.
If Dallas was the right man for the job he’d be across the airwaves right now either backing or condemning the threatened strike.
If he was the right man for the job he’d be putting mechanisms in place to make referees more accountable, the decision making process more transparent.
If he was the right man for the job we’d have fewer bad decisions to discuss and some method of demotion or suspension to deal with the worst offending officials.
But we have none of these things. So Hugh Dallas has to go and he has to take Dougie McDonald with him.
If there is a reluctance within the SFA to insist on that then it can be probably be explained as a refusal to pander to Celtic. Which leads to a cul-de-sac. If the SFA refuse to act because of the way Celtic have behaved then we’re in a rather sorry mess. A plague on both their houses.
And then we come to the latest twist. The referee’s planned strike at the weekend. The final descent into farce.
Not all our referees are irredeemably bad at their job. Many are guilty of mistakes but they are honest mistakes. Even at their worst they retain their integrity - McDonald’s moment of madness after the game at Tannadice aside.
The idea that they turn up for 90 minutes every Saturday, pocket their cash and go home is laughable.
It takes dedication to be a referee. And it takes a thick skin to put up with the abuse they receive from the moment they start out refereeing age group games. In fact it’s hard to think of another job, except perhaps politics, where realising your ambitions will bring such an increase in the amount of abuse you need to put up with. And they do all this in their spare time.
There’s something to admire in their dedication, even if you suspect that many of them probably always volunteered to be milk monitors at school.
But there is nothing admirable in the decision to strike. Their actions have generated bad press for Scottish football at a time when we are hardly the most respected of footballing nations.
They’ve also jeopardised important revenue streams for our clubs at a time when we’re not awash with cash.
And, by refusing to give interviews to fully explain their reasons, they have created a media vacuum that has been filled with speculation and gossip.
At the moment I don’t understand what the strike will achieve. It seems a strike that has little purpose, certainly no definable measure of it’s success. That’s not so much an industrial action as it is a holiday.
When it comes to the strike game they’ve shown themselves to be more Arthur Scargill than Jimmy Reid.
If referees have been subjected to sustained abuse outwith what is normal in the heat of a game, if their families feel threatened, if they have been receiving abuse at their full time workplaces, then that is wrong.
If they feel that any clubs, managers, players or officials are guilty of encouraging that atmosphere with their behaviour or comments then they need to state that and demand that the SFA takes action.
Certainly wiping out the weekend’s fixture list is not going to halt the actions of society’s nutters. And there must better ways of getting the SFA’s attention than enforcing a weekend shutdown.
Where will be when all this is over? Dougie McDonald will still be a referee. Hugh Dallas will still be presiding over his own personal fiefdom. Celtic will still be peddling their complaints. The SFA will appear even more impotent than before.
Weeks of nonsense, weeks of faults and stupidity on every side of the various arguments, will have ended in a farce that has achieved nothing.
And it’s me. And it’s you. The punters who just want to see a game, have a couple of pints while discussing how the players played and the ref reffed who will have lost out. And the rudderless ship that is modern Scottish football will have lurched ever closer to the rocks.
> What? No mention of the Hugh Dallas email? No. Not relevant. Perhaps it calls into question his judgement. It might even call into question his sense of humour. It definitely calls into question his IT skills. But it’s a human resources question for his employers rather than anything else. Others might disagree.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Les Miserable
Amazingly I'd forgotten all about this.
Given the stick our referees have been getting this season I wonder what the reaction would be if one had managed to do a Les Mottram.
A howler. And this was 1993 - in 1994 we sent him to the World Cup.
(About half way into the video, apologies for the Jim White commentary)
Given the stick our referees have been getting this season I wonder what the reaction would be if one had managed to do a Les Mottram.
A howler. And this was 1993 - in 1994 we sent him to the World Cup.
(About half way into the video, apologies for the Jim White commentary)
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
He knows SFA
With no input from the match official in charge, this would, in fact, contravene one of Fifa's fundamental laws of the game, namely 'the decision of the referee is final'.That was Gordon Smith, the bumbling incompetent atop the SFA slag heap, explaining why there could be no change to the appeals regulations in Scottish football.
And then up pops a contradiction:
So let’s not hide behind FIFA rules. Let’s look at our own appeals system and ask ourselves how it can be improved. Let’s admit that referees have a tough job and sometimes need help to make the best decisions. Let’s not have an appeals system in place that relies on referees admitting their mistakes. In this way we will prevent compounding a genuine error on the field of play with another, this time avoidable error, which adds points or suspensions to an innocent player’s disciplinary record.And the author of these words? Rangers, Hearts, the PFA, Celtic, St Mirren, Hibs or any of the other growing band of critics of the way the SFA handles these disciplinary matters? No. In fact that quote is from Neil Doncaster, Gordon Smith’s counterpart at the SPL.
So basically the boss of the big league publicly rubbishing the big boss of the game.
And proof that Gordon Smith is either unaware of the rules his own organisations is governed by or is prepared to misinterpret those rules to fend off any critics.
Time, perhaps, for Mr Smith to be on his way?
Many moons ago when I worked in the civil service we discovered that some African republic had a farming law that made a specific expemption for farmers in Northern Ireland. Britain is seen as a model of good governance so younger countries would just lift our laws word for word.
So perhaps we’re doing the world a service. Anyone wanting to develop a structure to run football in their country could do worse than look at Scotland and just do exactly the opposite.
The SFA was established in 1873.
Why have we spent all that time perfecting our imperfections?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Blowing the whistle
Apparently, during his time managing in England, Jim Gannon refused to talk to Sky Sports for a number of months. Not in an Alex Ferguson, Harry Redknapp type bust up. No, Jim wouldn't talk because he got a bad picture from his satellite dish at home.An amusing anecdote but also a sign that Mr Gannon is not above taking an unconventional approach or taking on the big boys.
So perhaps it's no surprise that it's the Motherwell manager who is the unofficial shop steward as certain managers go loco over the issue of poor referees in the SPL.
Some managers have refused to get involved. Others have backed Gannon. Craig Levein, and can anyone remember a time when he wasn't at war with the authorities, has jumped on board. So has Csaba Lazlo, although you suspect that much like Fergie calling the ref a fat knacker this is a good way to distract attention from the Tynecastle malaise.
Perhaps the most pertinent comment came from Gus McPherson. Gus is, of course, an increasingly likeable arch pragmatist and his response was as to the point as you might expect. Referees, he surmised, are no worse than last year.
And it's Gus that's probably hit the nail on the head. As Jim McLean pointed out in Friday's Daily Record, the role of the referee is now analysed like never before. Tiny Wharton was safe in the knowledge that his every decision would immediately be scrutinized by such footballing behemoths as Craig Burley.
Burley's black and white opinions of every foul, offside and booking are aided by instant replays from every angle. Even then Craig is wrong as often as he is right. Which might suggest that we are all guilty of imperfection and error and we can expect our referee's to display human frailties on occasion.
Football is also now a business. Big money is involved and the pressures are great. In an age when relegation brings with it the threat of bankruptcy each decision has major ramifications.
There, if I may widen the scope of my pontification, a societal change at play as well. Everybody now expects everything to be perfect and we are too willing to slip into the role of hard done by, helpless victim when things don't go our way. Ireland's mammoth session of greeting over Thierry Henry's gifted left hand was proof positive of that.
For all these changes though not much has changed. Supporter's of teams outside the Old Firm have always claimed a ref would develop acute myopia whenever a blue or hooped shirt transgressed. Rangers and Celtic supporter's have always claimed that certain referees are of certain religions. And every fan in the land has been united by the apparently certain knowledge that all referees are of questionable parentage.
What seems to be different this time is the extent to which Gannon and others are prepared to unleash their scorn. Unprecedented. So vitriolic that the referee's are even threatening to strike.
They're are good referee's and there are some who are not so good. And the very best referee's will still sometimes get it wrong. In much the same as there are good players, bad players and good managers, bad managers.
I don't agree with Gannon and his cohorts. Things aren't as bad as they are making out. And, utlimately, I think they're doing the game a disservice.
I would like changes. I'd like the appeals procedure to be quicker, clearer and more transparent. I'd like the referee's to face the press after a game and provide the rationale for certain decisions. And I would like more responsibility handed back to to the men in the middle. We have to trust them to apply common sense to the unique circumstances of every game.
All of these changes rely on a wind of change blowing through the corridors of power at the SFA. This I think gets to the heart of the matter. This public row is because managers are frustrated at the SFA, the refusal to change, the refusal to even discuss. Many of our problems can be traced back to the fact that it is the SFA, not referees, who are not up to the job.
In the short term, of course, we risk referees being scared to do their jobs as they see fit. In that sense each Gannon rant is self defeating. In the longer term it's going to be harder to persuade people that being a ref is a viable option. The talent pool will get ever shallower.
Whatever Jim Gannon is trying to achieve, he's doing the game no favours going about it this way.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
For crying out loud
An under-15's cup final. A great day for all involved. A special day for the youngsters.
And so it comes to pass that, as Leith Athletic beat Ayr Boswell in the Edinburgh International Soccer Tournament on Sunday, the Ayr manager is sent off and one of the players headbutts the referee.
Absolutely brilliant. And we wonder why we don't bring many youngsters through these days. It seems the touchline parents are still alive and well. No doubt the professional players who question each decision will be blamed. I'd say the boy probably has some issues that need to be worked through. But the manager that got sent off must take a large portion of the blame.
Would you expose your child to this?
I'm getting old and reactionary but I'd ban every Ayr Boswell team at all age groups for a year. That might, just might, send out a message.
And so it comes to pass that, as Leith Athletic beat Ayr Boswell in the Edinburgh International Soccer Tournament on Sunday, the Ayr manager is sent off and one of the players headbutts the referee.
Absolutely brilliant. And we wonder why we don't bring many youngsters through these days. It seems the touchline parents are still alive and well. No doubt the professional players who question each decision will be blamed. I'd say the boy probably has some issues that need to be worked through. But the manager that got sent off must take a large portion of the blame.
Would you expose your child to this?
I'm getting old and reactionary but I'd ban every Ayr Boswell team at all age groups for a year. That might, just might, send out a message.
Reffing Hell!
The SPL kick off may be delayed by a referee's strike.
For the love of God, how much more ridicule can football in this country survive?
Bad enough that this fine band of men make so many ludicrous decisions. Bad enough that you are unable to question them. Bad enough that some clown thought it would be a good idea to have them sponsored by Specsaver.
Now we're being held to ransom as the men in the middle demand something approaching a 74 percent pay rise. 74 percent. Robert Mugabe would cringe at that level of inflation.
They have claimed they want to be paid a similar wage to countrparts in similar European leagues.
Quick question: other than the distortion of the wages paid in Glasgow does the SPL pay comparative wages to players?
First reaction - tell them to go whistle. Ship in some referee's from elsewhere and see if the standard improves.
Second reaction - we need, unfortunately, to do a deal. If the league doesn't kick off at 12.30 on Saturday then what little credibilty we do have is going to be shattered.
Can we afford to let that happen?
For the love of God, how much more ridicule can football in this country survive?
Bad enough that this fine band of men make so many ludicrous decisions. Bad enough that you are unable to question them. Bad enough that some clown thought it would be a good idea to have them sponsored by Specsaver.
Now we're being held to ransom as the men in the middle demand something approaching a 74 percent pay rise. 74 percent. Robert Mugabe would cringe at that level of inflation.
They have claimed they want to be paid a similar wage to countrparts in similar European leagues.
Quick question: other than the distortion of the wages paid in Glasgow does the SPL pay comparative wages to players?
First reaction - tell them to go whistle. Ship in some referee's from elsewhere and see if the standard improves.
Second reaction - we need, unfortunately, to do a deal. If the league doesn't kick off at 12.30 on Saturday then what little credibilty we do have is going to be shattered.
Can we afford to let that happen?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
What Does It All Mean?
It is probably good that someone other than a Romanov has come out and questioned the standard - if not the integrity - of referees in Scotland.
One mistake is forgivable - two such serious errors suggest either incompetence or an official being influenced by external factors. If it is incompetence then McCurry and his linesman should pay the penalty and serve time outside the SPL. If they were influenced by the crowd - and you can imagine these results going the way of Celtic at Parkhead or either of the Old Firm at Hampden - then the SFA need to completely overhaul the way our officials are trained.
In actual fact I've seen so many errors by McCurry that I'm inclined to believe that this is just another measure of his gross incompetence. Gordon Smith is disingenious in accusing Craig Levein of questioning the integrity of McCurry: Smith has been around football long enough to know that if you're not good enough you get shipped out. What's the difference for referees?
Smith made much of being a football man when he got the job. By throwing this back around at Levein he shows that he's learnt the bureacrats art of politicking. Other than that he has done nothing to suggest he was the right man for the job. A refreshing change would have been for Smith to say "actually, Craig's got a point. If this standard of refereeing continues then the integrity of the game will be called into question. Let's do something about it now." Some chance.
It is noticeable that following the "corner" awarded to Celtic against Motherwell last week the internet message boards were full of Rangers fans crying foul. This week the reverse is true. Old Firm supporters view Scottish football through a prism of their own prejudice.
What they fail to realise, and what Sir David Murray fails to realise when he launches attacks on the SPL and the SFA, is that the Old Firm's bloated sense of their own importance has left the whole of the Scottish game inexorably weighted towards Glasgow's ugly sisters.
What they want the normally get. And, as was proved on Saturday, if one man's incompetence is highlighted in the full glare of title run-in then it is going to be easy to people to point to officials being scared by the size of Rangers or the size of Celtic.
So we need to raise the standard of refereeing in Scotland. We need to show we have referees who are good enough to do the job, wherever the game is. We need a chief executive at the SFA who will at least accept the premise of a legitimate debate. We need to applaud, not crucify, Levein for asking the questions.
We need a new dawn. Because a title showdown and a European run for the big two does not hide the fact that Scottish football is uninspiring right now. We expect Rangers and Celtic to win but we expect them to start each game on a level playing field. If the officials are not good enough, if they can't handle the pressure, then they must be removed.
But, of course, this is the real world. And nothing will happen. Levein, who has rebuilt United and sent a team out that was more than capable of achieving something against this Rangers side, will be harshly punished. Now ask yourselves what would happen if Rangers and Celtic found a referee that agreed with neither of them? My guess is he'd be out on his ear before Gordon Smith had time to bury his head in the sand.
One mistake is forgivable - two such serious errors suggest either incompetence or an official being influenced by external factors. If it is incompetence then McCurry and his linesman should pay the penalty and serve time outside the SPL. If they were influenced by the crowd - and you can imagine these results going the way of Celtic at Parkhead or either of the Old Firm at Hampden - then the SFA need to completely overhaul the way our officials are trained.
In actual fact I've seen so many errors by McCurry that I'm inclined to believe that this is just another measure of his gross incompetence. Gordon Smith is disingenious in accusing Craig Levein of questioning the integrity of McCurry: Smith has been around football long enough to know that if you're not good enough you get shipped out. What's the difference for referees?
Smith made much of being a football man when he got the job. By throwing this back around at Levein he shows that he's learnt the bureacrats art of politicking. Other than that he has done nothing to suggest he was the right man for the job. A refreshing change would have been for Smith to say "actually, Craig's got a point. If this standard of refereeing continues then the integrity of the game will be called into question. Let's do something about it now." Some chance.
It is noticeable that following the "corner" awarded to Celtic against Motherwell last week the internet message boards were full of Rangers fans crying foul. This week the reverse is true. Old Firm supporters view Scottish football through a prism of their own prejudice.
What they fail to realise, and what Sir David Murray fails to realise when he launches attacks on the SPL and the SFA, is that the Old Firm's bloated sense of their own importance has left the whole of the Scottish game inexorably weighted towards Glasgow's ugly sisters.
What they want the normally get. And, as was proved on Saturday, if one man's incompetence is highlighted in the full glare of title run-in then it is going to be easy to people to point to officials being scared by the size of Rangers or the size of Celtic.
So we need to raise the standard of refereeing in Scotland. We need to show we have referees who are good enough to do the job, wherever the game is. We need a chief executive at the SFA who will at least accept the premise of a legitimate debate. We need to applaud, not crucify, Levein for asking the questions.
We need a new dawn. Because a title showdown and a European run for the big two does not hide the fact that Scottish football is uninspiring right now. We expect Rangers and Celtic to win but we expect them to start each game on a level playing field. If the officials are not good enough, if they can't handle the pressure, then they must be removed.
But, of course, this is the real world. And nothing will happen. Levein, who has rebuilt United and sent a team out that was more than capable of achieving something against this Rangers side, will be harshly punished. Now ask yourselves what would happen if Rangers and Celtic found a referee that agreed with neither of them? My guess is he'd be out on his ear before Gordon Smith had time to bury his head in the sand.
What Mike said...
“In the 55th minute of the match Rangers were in possession of the ball and attempted to clear it from their defensive area. As is normal practice, I started to run towards the half way line, anticipating the ball being cleared from defence. The clearance, however, was not successful and the ball struck Noel Hunt of Dundee United, who then played a very quick “one-two” allowing him to chase the ball into the penalty area closely followed by David Weir of Rangers.
“At this point, given the very quick change of the direction of play, I was caught out of position and my line of sight was partially obstructed by another player. “I saw Noel Hunt fall to the ground with David Weir in close proximity behind him. As my vantage point was extremely poor it was not possible for me to say what or, if any, infringement had occurred.
“Given this significant doubt in my mind it would have been improper for me to simply conclude that an infringement had occurred on the opposite side of the field of play from me. On this basis, I had no option but to allow play to continue amidst the appeal for a penalty kick.
“I have now had the benefit of seeing the incident again on television. I believe that were it not for the fact that I had been caught out of position by the quick transfer of play I would have awarded Dundee United a penalty and would have cautioned the Rangers player David Weir. In my opinion there was another defender in close proximity with the possible opportunity to make a defensive challenge on the attacker.
“In the 71st minute Dundee United were in possession of the ball and Danny Swanson shot towards the Rangers goal from approximately 30-35 yards. The ball appeared to me to be deflected off a Rangers player and entered the goal. “As I turned to award a goal to Dundee United it was brought to my attention that the stand side Assistant Referee had his flag raised signalling that an offside infringement had occurred. I also noticed that a Dundee United player required medical treatment.
“Having made sure that the player received the required treatment, I then went across to the Assistant Referee and confirmed that he was signalling for an offside infringement. He confirmed this was the case and informed me that a Dundee United player had been in an offside position and that he had played the ball prior to it entering the goal.
“I informed the Assistant Referee that it appeared to me that the ball was deflected off a Rangers player. The Assistant Referee told me that he had not seen it touch a Rangers player but had definitely seen it played by the Dundee United player, David Robertson. Given that David Robertson was behind the Rangers player, my view was such that I could not tell if the ball had been played by Mr Robertson last before entering the goal. Consequently, I decided to accept the advice of my Assistant Referee.
“Again, having had the opportunity to review the incident on television, it is clear to me that the ball is not played by the Dundee United player Robertson who was, however, technically in an offside position and was in close proximity to the ball.
“I can understand the difficulty faced by my assistant referee in this incident and why, David Robertson may have been considered offside.
“Again, with the benefit of seeing the incident again numerous times on television, I consider it would have been more appropriate to conclude that the player, David Robertson, was not involved in active play and would have allowed the goal to stand.”
Referee Mike McCurry argues his case in his spat with Dundee United boss Craig Levein.
“At this point, given the very quick change of the direction of play, I was caught out of position and my line of sight was partially obstructed by another player. “I saw Noel Hunt fall to the ground with David Weir in close proximity behind him. As my vantage point was extremely poor it was not possible for me to say what or, if any, infringement had occurred.
“Given this significant doubt in my mind it would have been improper for me to simply conclude that an infringement had occurred on the opposite side of the field of play from me. On this basis, I had no option but to allow play to continue amidst the appeal for a penalty kick.
“I have now had the benefit of seeing the incident again on television. I believe that were it not for the fact that I had been caught out of position by the quick transfer of play I would have awarded Dundee United a penalty and would have cautioned the Rangers player David Weir. In my opinion there was another defender in close proximity with the possible opportunity to make a defensive challenge on the attacker.
“In the 71st minute Dundee United were in possession of the ball and Danny Swanson shot towards the Rangers goal from approximately 30-35 yards. The ball appeared to me to be deflected off a Rangers player and entered the goal. “As I turned to award a goal to Dundee United it was brought to my attention that the stand side Assistant Referee had his flag raised signalling that an offside infringement had occurred. I also noticed that a Dundee United player required medical treatment.
“Having made sure that the player received the required treatment, I then went across to the Assistant Referee and confirmed that he was signalling for an offside infringement. He confirmed this was the case and informed me that a Dundee United player had been in an offside position and that he had played the ball prior to it entering the goal.
“I informed the Assistant Referee that it appeared to me that the ball was deflected off a Rangers player. The Assistant Referee told me that he had not seen it touch a Rangers player but had definitely seen it played by the Dundee United player, David Robertson. Given that David Robertson was behind the Rangers player, my view was such that I could not tell if the ball had been played by Mr Robertson last before entering the goal. Consequently, I decided to accept the advice of my Assistant Referee.
“Again, having had the opportunity to review the incident on television, it is clear to me that the ball is not played by the Dundee United player Robertson who was, however, technically in an offside position and was in close proximity to the ball.
“I can understand the difficulty faced by my assistant referee in this incident and why, David Robertson may have been considered offside.
“Again, with the benefit of seeing the incident again numerous times on television, I consider it would have been more appropriate to conclude that the player, David Robertson, was not involved in active play and would have allowed the goal to stand.”
Referee Mike McCurry argues his case in his spat with Dundee United boss Craig Levein.
What Craig said...
"We'd have been as well going at that point, really. Mike could have phoned me this morning and said 'Rangers are going to get three points today, just tell your lads to stay in the house.'
"It is impossible to win here in important games, impossible to win. The referee has bottled it. He bottled it because he knew that if he's given the penalty he would have to send Davie Weir off. In this game who gives a toss about Dundee United, eh? Who cares?
"What will happen now is I'll get my wrists slapped for having a go at the referee. But that guy knew it was a penalty kick but knew the game was so important to Rangers that he couldn't give it because he would have had to send Davie Weir off. His assistant probably had a better view of it but he's not going to put his head above the parapet.
"It's Rangers… it is Ibrox… you can't win. An important game going for a title decider? You can't have Dundee United winning that game.
"I'll be sitting in front of six or eight guys, in front of some disciplinary committee in a few weeks time getting a fine, that's what will happen now, I'll tell you something, after the CIS Cup final (in March] I did my absolute best not to have a go at the referee (Kenny Clark] for denying us a blatant penalty. Maybe some people have mistaken kindness for weakness on my part. There is no doubt if you add what happened today I have every right to be furious. Every right.
"Mike McCurry's not going to referee another one of our games this season. We played well, made chances, passed the ball. They did everything they could to try and win today, be entertaining, try and show that coming here they are not scared, not going to bottle it, and they did that. But what's the point?
"Noel Hunt got punched in the face at the goal, a deliberate punch by Kirk Broadfoot, and Cousin head-butts Lee Wilkie. It is not my players that need to worry about discipline, the referee should control the Rangers players.
"A season long is how you end up in third place or fourth place or fifth place, but these decisions add up. It might be that an extra £125,000 for a league place is added to my budget, in fact I know it would be. It might mean an extra place for me next season. It might mean, when I get an injury I could put a good player on rather than a kid. Do people not think about that? It is all about the pressure on Rangers, that's what it's all about?"
Craig Levein expands on his spat with referee Mike McCurry.
"It is impossible to win here in important games, impossible to win. The referee has bottled it. He bottled it because he knew that if he's given the penalty he would have to send Davie Weir off. In this game who gives a toss about Dundee United, eh? Who cares?
"What will happen now is I'll get my wrists slapped for having a go at the referee. But that guy knew it was a penalty kick but knew the game was so important to Rangers that he couldn't give it because he would have had to send Davie Weir off. His assistant probably had a better view of it but he's not going to put his head above the parapet.
"It's Rangers… it is Ibrox… you can't win. An important game going for a title decider? You can't have Dundee United winning that game.
"I'll be sitting in front of six or eight guys, in front of some disciplinary committee in a few weeks time getting a fine, that's what will happen now, I'll tell you something, after the CIS Cup final (in March] I did my absolute best not to have a go at the referee (Kenny Clark] for denying us a blatant penalty. Maybe some people have mistaken kindness for weakness on my part. There is no doubt if you add what happened today I have every right to be furious. Every right.
"Mike McCurry's not going to referee another one of our games this season. We played well, made chances, passed the ball. They did everything they could to try and win today, be entertaining, try and show that coming here they are not scared, not going to bottle it, and they did that. But what's the point?
"Noel Hunt got punched in the face at the goal, a deliberate punch by Kirk Broadfoot, and Cousin head-butts Lee Wilkie. It is not my players that need to worry about discipline, the referee should control the Rangers players.
"A season long is how you end up in third place or fourth place or fifth place, but these decisions add up. It might be that an extra £125,000 for a league place is added to my budget, in fact I know it would be. It might mean an extra place for me next season. It might mean, when I get an injury I could put a good player on rather than a kid. Do people not think about that? It is all about the pressure on Rangers, that's what it's all about?"
Craig Levein expands on his spat with referee Mike McCurry.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Learning from Rugby
The news that UEFA are considering rugby’s rule of only allowing team captains to talk to referees during matches should be welcomed.
The petulance and arrogance of players in surrounding officials and berating decisions is becoming a blight on the game.
Of course football is a passionate game and, with adrenalin flowing and win bonuses at stake, players will lose their heads. That’s unavoidable.
But if you were walking down the street and six or seven young guys started shouting and swearing at you, would you not think it was unacceptable behaviour? Footballers can’t be exempt from the normal boundaries of society.
In fact rugby should be the inspiration for some other rule changes in as well.
How about UEFA making the 10 metre rule that they have already experimented with permanent?
Managers would quickly stamp down on dissent if it was costing territorial advantage and leading to dangerous set pieces.
How many times have you seen the opposition team take turns to kick your star player?
Why doesn’t football follow rugby’s example and allow the referee to tell captains that the next player on their side to commit a foul will be booked? Even if it’s his first offence.
The sin bin also offers possibilities for football. How many games have been ruined by senseless red cards when the player in question would probably have benefited from simply cooling off on the sidelines for ten minutes?
The arrogance that pervades the football authorities is absolutely mind blowing at times. But they have to realise that the game can be improved for the fans if they take on board lessons from other sports.
The petulance and arrogance of players in surrounding officials and berating decisions is becoming a blight on the game.
Of course football is a passionate game and, with adrenalin flowing and win bonuses at stake, players will lose their heads. That’s unavoidable.
But if you were walking down the street and six or seven young guys started shouting and swearing at you, would you not think it was unacceptable behaviour? Footballers can’t be exempt from the normal boundaries of society.
In fact rugby should be the inspiration for some other rule changes in as well.
How about UEFA making the 10 metre rule that they have already experimented with permanent?
Managers would quickly stamp down on dissent if it was costing territorial advantage and leading to dangerous set pieces.
How many times have you seen the opposition team take turns to kick your star player?
Why doesn’t football follow rugby’s example and allow the referee to tell captains that the next player on their side to commit a foul will be booked? Even if it’s his first offence.
The sin bin also offers possibilities for football. How many games have been ruined by senseless red cards when the player in question would probably have benefited from simply cooling off on the sidelines for ten minutes?
The arrogance that pervades the football authorities is absolutely mind blowing at times. But they have to realise that the game can be improved for the fans if they take on board lessons from other sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)