RATE THE REF - James Linington v West Brom

[jdrobbo]

James Linington (Isle of White) v West Brom

How to Score
A. Decision Making (including use of advantage) - out of 25
B. Consistency - out of 25
C. Fitness and Positioning - of 25
D. Control and Authority - out of 25


Please only Rate the Ref if you attended the game and only do so, after the game has ended. Thank you

[jdrobbo]

Bump


Please only provide ratings if you attended the game.

[IanMcL]

Total tosser of a homer. All the traits of a hopeless ref. Blind, plays with self and fatherless.

They got away with absolute murder. We got booked for virtually nothing.

[Vegas Claret]

maybe we should ask him to rate the pies when he comes to the Turf, clearly eats far too many. Shouldn't be anywhere near this level being that out of shape

[Claret3495]

shite

[SalisburyClaret]

There’s no excuse for giving him any marks

[RammyClaret61]

From tv, so won’t count.

A) 5.. the decisions he made he got wrong, the decisions he didn’t make, he got wrong.
B) 20.. consistently wrong.
C) 5.. who ate all the pies.
D) Unable to mark. Should’ve been a easy game. He got in the way with his decisions to often.

[bfcjg]

Not sure why you can only rate if you were there. On the tele you get a great view of everyone's view point so surely this is more accurate

[Tricky Trevor]

First half fine. Second half I don’t know who got to him but atrocious.

[MDWat]

Another shocker

[MrTopTier]

First half generally ok.

Second half very poor.
Bartley’s tackle on Jay should have been a booking.
Missed the penalty when he had a clear view.
Gave numerous free kicks for soft tackles against us.


A. Decision Making 13
B. Consistency - 9
C. Fitness and Positioning - 11
D. Control and Authority - 12

Can always tell when it’s a poor ref, people post comments rather than scores. Maybe Crap, Ok, decent and very good could be converted into numbers.

[Hipper]

I only saw on TV but didn't see what he did wrong overall, apart from some nit picking. It was a gripping match which flowed well. We have only ourselves to blame for not winning it.

Eight minutes added time included subs, and injury to Muric and his replacement, which took an age.

[Woodleyclaret]

Awful, Sunday pub league standard. He even had the ale gut.Do refs not have to be fit anymore?

[NRC]

Not sure why you can only rate if you were there. On the tele you get a great view of everyone's view point so surely this is more accurate

Nonsense criteria for the reason you state. Some kind of superiority”club” thing

[alf_resco]

Not sure why you can only rate if you were there. On the tele you get a great view of everyone's view point so surely this is more accurate

Exactly this.
Watching on TV you get an unbiased viewpoint from commentator(s) and studio pundits.
Far more likely to get a fair impression of a ref than being surrounded by one-eyed fanatics.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I was at the game and the ref was awful.

[RVclaret]

What is the reason you can only rate if you are at the game, does anyone know?

[NRC]

What is the reason you can only rate if you are at the game, does anyone know?

Yes, I’ve stated it above. In this instance “club” does not mean the football club, it means the forum “club”

[jdrobbo]

What is the reason you can only rate if you are at the game, does anyone know?

Thanks for asking. I’ll try and offer some clarity:

I put Rate the Ref together, after taking advice from a former professional official, who posted on the old board (Fox40). He explained the criteria that assessors used (there were five back in 2006) but we agreed that for ease of use, it’d be best to use just four criteria and have a system out of 100[%]

We agreed that you had to be present to contribute due to the ‘Fitness and Positioning’ criteria and that decisions should be formed from a single view, rather than that of the tv, where countless replays are offered, which can seriously inflate or decrease a score depending on the type of decision made. We all know that Jon Moss struggles to keep up with play but being at the ground, you can see exactly where he is in a moment in time, as a decision is made. You truly don’t get that on the tv, as 80% of the time, the focus of the picture is on the players close to the ball.

As a consequence we went with these rules and to ensure fairness, we have kept them exactly as they were.

I hope this explains it.

Thanks again

John

[Silkyskills1]

'didn't see what he did wrong'

That's surprising because he provided plenty of examples. For all his posturing he obviously didn't bother checking their goalies top which was very similar to the ones all the officials wore. Seemed to have mastered the art of running backwards though. Perfect conditions mind.

[Hipper]

Thanks for asking. I’ll try and offer some clarity:

I put Rate the Ref together, after taking advice from a former professional official, who posted on the old board (Fox40). He explained the criteria that assessors used (there were five back in 2006) but we agreed that for ease of use, it’d be best to use just four criteria and have a system out of 100[%]

We agreed that you had to be present to contribute due to the ‘Fitness and Positioning’ criteria and that decisions should be formed from a single view, rather than that of the tv, where countless replays are offered, which can seriously inflate or decrease a score depending on the type of decision made. We all know that Jon Moss struggles to keep up with play but being at the ground, you can see exactly where he is in a moment in time, as a decision is made. You truly don’t get that on the tv, as 80% of the time, the focus of the picture is on the players close to the ball.

As a consequence we went with these rules and to ensure fairness, we have kept them exactly as they were.

I hope this explains it.

Thanks again

John

Thanks for explaining.

My only comment would be that you are talking about using the guidelines for referee's assessors, presumably former or current referees compared to, on here, football fans, full of emotions and bias, and in many cases ignorance of the Laws, not to mention experience of actual refereeing.

Positioning is an obvious area for misunderstanding. A referee doesn't need to keep right up with play. Research has shown that ten metres seems to be a good viewing distance although that has changed from some years ago (I think it was 20 metres). Any closer and incidents can be missed. Of course this is at the top level with quality assistant referees and fit referees. At lower level greater distance is needed - at least that was my excuse!

https://sponet.fi/Record/4055732

[jdrobbo]

Thanks for explaining.

My only comment would be that you are talking about using the guidelines for referee's assessors, presumably former or current referees compared to, on here, football fans, full of emotions and bias, and in many cases ignorance of the Laws, not to mention experience of actual refereeing.

Positioning is an obvious area for misunderstanding. A referee doesn't need to keep right up with play. Research has shown that ten metres seems to be a good viewing distance although that has changed from some years ago (I think it was 20 metres). Any closer and incidents can be missed. Of course this is at the top level with quality assistant referees and fit referees. At lower level greater distance is needed - at least that was my excuse!

https://sponet.fi/Record/4055732

Yep, I totally accept that. But it was the decision we made (I took his advice) based purely on the fact that a TV doesn’t always put the ref in the frame. I completely get what you’re saying. It’s a tough one and I welcome the discussion.