It is a world wide problem that only technology can solve. And then that brings its own negatives.

What they need to do is create a bigger pool to find high level referee's from.

It's similar to football players - if more people play at a young age then chances are you're going to find better players as you'll have higher numbers. The FA need to do more to get young people into refereeing at an early age - I think around 14-18 - and that way you'll have refs with years more experience.

If someone from the SFA had come into my school when I was say 16 and tried to get me into refereeing I'd have probably given it a go as it was very apparent that I wasn't going to be a player by then. But they didn't and I never even considered being a referee because of it.

This is by no means a quick fix but the way how we decide who the best is in every other aspect of football is by a points system and its the way we have different teams in the best league is by a relegation system,
why can't this method be implemented to our refs?
If the fear of relegation is in the minds of refs via a points system given after the 90mins due to the correct decisions made in said game we will eventually have the top decision makers in the top leagues every where

There should be an organisation or commission which could openly judge and note the referee. At the moment, the FA and or football organisation give them too much power.
The same way teams gate rated, there should which should refers to the best referees.

As a referee myself I think a lot of people underestimate how hard it actually is. The positioning is the biggest difficulty - they make a big deal out of it in ref training but in reality you either have to be fit enough to get from one end of the pitch to the other in five seconds several times a match, or you have to have very good eyesight and spend more time in and around the centre circle; and either if you can do either of those there are still going to be times when the players get in your way. The same goes for the linesman as well - you've either got to be level with the last defender or the ball (if it's behind the defender). If you've got Walcott running at full speed down the wing you'll never be able to keep up. And the ball can always move faster than any of the people on the pitch.

And to be honest, the refs at the top level are pretty good. It looks horrible when they make a glaring error but that's ignoring the hundreds of other correct decisions they've made. As a ref you can never exceed expectations - the best you can do is get every decision right which is effectively the minimum that is expected anyway.

And with regard to fouls there is actually a lot of room for referees to use their discretion. The only real guideline is that if a challenge is 'careless' it warrants a free kick, 'reckless' gets a yellow card and 'using excessive force' or 'dangerous' a straight red. Different refs will have different ideas of what each of those mean.

And I don't think there's a recruitment issue as IBIM suggests - in the league where I referee most of the refs are under the age of 21. I think more problematic are the stringent requirements for promotion - you have to do something like 30 recognised, open-age games in one season (so friendlies or youth leagues don't count), several of which must be assessed by an assessor, to even be eligible. If you're a busy student/working then it's unlikely that you'll have the time or motivation, especially when you're only getting about £15 a game.

have the top decision makers in the top leagues every where
========
Howard Webb is rated one of the best in the world, he was the one who waved away WBA's claims for a penalty yesterday when Mulumbu was clearly fouled.

The ref who gave the ghost goal in the Leverkusen match is a highly rated, CL standard ref.


Having the best doesn't stop wrong decisions.

As IGIM said, relegating refs won't help as their are not quality refs waiting. Hence why blokes like Attwell get quickly promoted despite giving ghost goals!

I think more problems come from the referee assistants than the actual refs and the assistants are not full time pros.

The ref at chelsea acted on the advice of the assistent yesterday for example.

Just put a 5th official in a room with access to instant replays and with a direct line to the ref. The game carries on as normal, and the 5th official provides the ref with the information that he needs/cant see. There are no stoppages or 'challenges', the game just continues as normal, and if the ref/linesman gets something wrong, then the 5th official can call it out and the ref can bring the game back/correct a mistake.

Are the assistant refs really not full time pros? That's ridiculous! How can the ref be expected to run a game as effectively as possible when he doesn't have the most basic of resources available to him?

While I don't have any solution, teams of full time, well trained, well paid professional refs would seem like a no brainier.

Full time, 40 hrs per week of training, reviews and discussion just like any other 'management' position in the real world should be the minimum requirement

I was under the impression that the assistants were full-time pros. However there is no doubt that they are in short supply, and you're generally allowed to run the line at a higher level than you can ref - hence some of the PL linesmen are FL refs. Others, though specialise before they get to the FL and they tend to be the good ones.

I don't think that would really work, Arsene, outside of decisions that are absolutes. There's so many judgement calls made in each game that can be interpreted differently person to person

The ref has to trust the judgement of his officials, he already takes advice from his lineman and 4th official, why not a 5th? Everyone gets to see instant full HD replays from every angle, except for the officials. Why is this still the case?

There's a difference between taking advice from a linesman and having a TV official making decisions that he feels the ref got wrong. Goals, offsides, ball out of play are all straight forward yes or nos, but there's no point in having another ref over rule the judgement of the on field ref in fouls or interpretation of rules.

Sort the linesmen out, have full time regular teams of refs who work day in day out with each other and a full peer review system first, then see where we are.

Just put a 5th official in a room with access to instant replays and with a direct line to the ref. The game carries on as normal, and the 5th official provides the ref with the information that he needs/cant see. There are no stoppages or 'challenges', the game just continues as normal, and if the ref/linesman gets something wrong, then the 5th official can call it out and the ref can bring the game back/correct a mistake.
-----
Exactly my suggestion, too. The ref could still accept/rehect tge advice of the 5th official so would maintain control of the game and his own interpretation of the rules. I can't think of any reasonable objection to this setup.

There's a difference between taking advice from a linesman and having a TV official making decisions that he feels the ref got wrong. Goals, offsides, ball out of play are all straight forward yes or nos, but there's no point in having another ref over rule the judgement of the on field ref in fouls or interpretation of rules.
----
But no one's making that suggestion.

But no one's making that suggestion.

----------------

Arsene clearly suggested that a 5th official should call back the ref and correct his mistakes.


" if the ref/linesman gets something wrong, then the 5th official can call it out and the ref can bring the game back/correct a mistake."

Unless we are only talking of those situations that have a definite yes/no answer such as offside or ball out of play.

But even then, linesman calls offside, play stops and 5th official calks a mistake in that judgement.....where's the solution?

I suppose further details of how this system would work would be needed

Look again at the line you quoted. The ref can correct a mistake. It would be up to the ref, exactly as it is now with tge 4th official. He didn't say that the 5th official could correct a mistake, he said the ref could.

Idea I had a while ago is that there is a league based on average fans scores. Good refs would get 7 or 8 from both sets of fans and bad ones would get 0 from one set and 10 from Man U, err I mean the fans of the team the ref favoured giving an average of 5. The refs with the lowest score at the end f the season get relegated. It would work because fans would vote to play the system.