Referees should be microphoned

This is a piece from Tim Lovejoy, which I think raises a lot of very valid points.

Lovejoy: Time to mic up the refs

IN his latest column for SunSport, Tim Lovejoy says that it's time for football to take a leaf out of rugby union's book and mic up referees.




YESTERDAY I was sent a clip of rugby ref Nigel Owens officiating on a match between Munster and Treviso at the weekend.
On it he is seen talking to a player in an authoritative manner: “I don’t think we’ve met before but I’m the referee on this field, not you. Stick to your job and I will do mine.
"If I hear you shouting for anything again I’m going to be penalising you. This is not soccer.”
It is totally brilliant and he’s completely right, it’s not football where players dispute and try to influence every decision.
In that clip there is one man in control of the match. It’s not only extremely appealing from a fans perspective but it quite frankly makes our sport look neanderthal.
After discussing this on Twitter it was soon pointed out that not only does referee Nigel Owens have a Twitter account, but he’s also willing to speak to fans about the game. Just amazing.

Video: Rugby ref lays down the law


NIGEL OWENS tells player: 'I'm the referee. This is not soccer'
In contrast our refs seem so far removed from us. A football ref could never have a twitter account.
They are looked upon with such contempt I imagine they would receive bucket loads of grief from both the fans and the players.
Chatting with Nigel on Twitter he let me know in no uncertain terms that he would not tolerate any dissent from players, so it begs the question - why do ours?
How has our sport got in such a mess that players can swear and treat refs with such disdain?

The mindset of the players is wrong and needs changing. I don’t think there would be too many upset fans if players were booked for questioning the refs decisions.
I know they get things wrong but it’s not as though they ever change their mind.
My other observation from the clip is Nigel is wearing a mic. I think our game is crying out for this to be tried.
If refs do this they can explain their decisions and we’ll all be able to see they’re only human.
It also means we can hear the way they control the match and we’ll be able to pick up on the way the players talk to them.
It would remove that cloak of mystique from the closeted world of the football official and would surely make some players think twice before hurling out abuse.
This was tried once when they put a hidden mic on David Elleray during a match between Millwall and Arsenal in the 1980’s for a current affairs TV programme.
Sadly Tony Adams after having his goal disallowed called Elleray a “F*cking cheat”. Remarkably he stayed on the pitch with only a dressing down.



I imagine the authorities have been too scared to try it again since that incident.
I think Brian Clough was the last manager to truly get his players to respect the ref, we need this to change. We should introduce a zero tolerance policy.
Swearing on the pitch and questioning the refs decision should both be a bookable offences.
I know it would be carnage for the first few months but you’d be surprised how quickly players would learn.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm a big fan of Nigel Owens, as a famous welsh personality (he's been through so much in his life btw, currently reading his book, fascinating stuff) - and he's a great example of a top quality ref, I know rugby is quite different to football, but I do think something like this needs to be trialled again...

What do you think of the idea?

Furthermore: It's no surprise to me that arguably the best PL referee is Howard Webb, since he seems to be most in control of the players during a match, I think more referees need to be like nigel owens, and howard webb

Prepare for the apocalypse - I agree with Tim Lovejoy

Football could learn so much from Rugby in terms of the treatment of officials. Wiring the referees for sound would be great because it would leave no doubt as to how the referee is interpreting incidents, and perhaps then it would be less open to "the referee's favouring x" discussions. Also it would ensure that the players themselves would be accountable for the way they behaved towards referees (moderating language etc) I would also take the Rugby rule that only the captain is allowed to speak to the referee unless the referee speaks to a player first. This then would stop the likes of Lampard and Rooney from sticking their oars in to discussions between players and officials. Liverpool's Dirk Kuyt was really bad at this.

In return, the referees would be expected to be equally accountable, and a transcript of each match report would be made public (but that's another issue)

Which incident would be more annoying?

1: Nani runs into the box, Kompany goes in hard and Nani tumbles to the ground. Immediately all the United and City players start screaming and shouting, the referee (we can't hear him) gestures for Nani to get up. United fans are convinced it was a penalty and perhaps Nani's reputation goes against him. TV replays show Kompany caught Nani, but then a split second later got the ball. After Nani gets up, the referee awards United a corner.

2: Same incident. The referee calls Nani and Kompany to him, Vidic as United captain (Kompany being City's) and we can hear the conversation. Nani says it was a penalty, Kompany says he got the ball. The referee says "From my angle it looks like the City player made a good challenge and won the ball because of the movement of the ball, I rule it's a corner kick"

Is it a wrong decision? Yes, but it's a justifiable decision. I think in general people would be more understanding. People make mistakes. What bugs me at the moment is that referees are not in any way asked to explain these decisions, so other agendas and things (such as "bottling" it) come to mind.

As I said, I think match reports should be made public following the FA receiving them.

It's not ideal due to timing. Rugby referees stop their clock at any stoppage and of course the game finishes at soon as the clock hits 80 and the ball goes out of play. This obviously doesn't happen in football so it brings an issue of added time. If referees take 30 seconds to talk to players every 5 minutes then you'll end up with 8-10 minutes of added time! It's just problematic, and not really necessary.

they wouldn't be talking anymore than now, just that we'd be able to hear it and the players would have to be more respectful

There's not really much to here in that case, all referees do is warn the player or explain as they book them. Most of the time they give arm signals that explain what they are saying anyway.

These would make interesting reads.

would be a great addition to the game if we actually found out what is the thinking behind some of the decisions being taken. We must also mike up the linesmen.

The respect that rugby players have for refs is Wonderful. All of them listen and even ask them questions at times for clarity. Not that whole madness we get on soccer pitches. Perhaps it's the knowledge that they can be heard on t.v.

All I know is that I'd love to hear what these refs are saying. Doubt it's gonna happen though, football always seems to be last in line when it comes to technology.

In competitions other than domestic leagues/cups it would make communication problems, otherwise it's a grate idea.

how so?

There are no communication problems now are there? even if so, this wouldn't make the problem worse...

He probably means that not all refs are fluent in English.

The languages would be exactly as they are now - this isn't a change in how the refs communicate, they wouldn't talk more or in a different language to the current system, just that when televised, it could be heard, and it would be more about forcing the players to respect the ref more than anything.

My point is it would be a bit harder for a referee from the spanish league to lead a game between Arsenal and Milan, and to actually speak with the players.

but they do that now.... and have no problems talking with the players.... you don't think they're reffing while unable to speak to the players do you??

Sure he could say 'calm down compadre' or 'last foul number 5' but he couldn't really explain the Big bang theory to them. Also do you think that MIlan players would know english and gooners Italian? Which language should the ref speak?

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just saying that it would need a bit of thinking at higher level competitions.

Whatever language they use right now in these uefa comps... I think the refs speak english in them don't they? I get your point to a certain extent but I don't see how it's relevant since they're not going to be asked to do anything different to what they currently do.

So if it isn't a problem now, it shouldn't become one.

they can probably find a couple of mutual words, but they cannot really "explain decisions"? Cause that's the whole point of this isn't it? Also never really seen referees at international tournaments speaking more than 4-5 words to a player.