+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75104
Total Topics: 5527
Most Online Today: 151
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 3
Guests: 149
Total: 152

Author Topic: Discussion Concerns  (Read 1315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Seagull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
Discussion Concerns
« on: Sat 18 Feb 2023 09:51 »
I enjoy being a member and contributor of RTR and hope to continue as such. Having said that, I have become a little concerned lately regarding the direction in which some conversations are evolving. My understanding of the "raison d'etre" of RTR is to discuss and exchange opinions on Referees, their match appointments and their decisions, both objectively and subjectively. However, quite a few recent discussions have, in my opinion, developed into slanging matches with a heavy team support bias and have almost become a football club supporter forum rather than fair and balanced opinions of the refereeing subject supposedly being discussed.

What do other members think?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Agree Agree x 7 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Microscopist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #1 on: Sat 18 Feb 2023 11:05 »
I'm still trying to work out why ASM thinks I'm a Chelsea fan  :)

More seriously and picking upon that analology.  As a microscopist, during the first 20 years of working part of my job was to challenge conventional wisdom, and it came fairly naturally to me.  I learned that it doesn't make you very popular, I can live with that.  It did earn me the nickname Cassandra from one of my colleagues.

On a more technical side microscopy taught me that using different filters to examine something generally gave a more complete understanding. 

To me there seem to be plenty of folk on here see football though amber filters, and that's fine too.  But there is, as I see it not many folk using a blue filter with some who did giving up commenting, perhaps because of the treatment they have been given, or perhaps there are other reasons.

This filter analogy was brought to mind again yesterday when my BLFG persuaded me to attend a talk on beginning astronomy at a "friendship group" in a small local Church with which Alloway is about to be united.  In talking about looking at the stars and the sun the host explained that using different filters in front of the objective lens would show different features.

 So not just in the microscopical world but also in the astronomical world and I would say in the metaphysical world it is better to take in views through different filters to get a better grasp of what is going on.
« Last Edit: Sat 18 Feb 2023 11:49 by Microscopist »

cwh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: amesbury
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: ex level 2/assesor
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #2 on: Sat 18 Feb 2023 18:01 »
I enjoy being a member and contributor of RTR and hope to continue as such. Having said that, I have become a little concerned lately regarding the direction in which some conversations are evolving. My understanding of the "raison d'etre" of RTR is to discuss and exchange opinions on Referees, their match appointments and their decisions, both objectively and subjectively. However, quite a few recent discussions have, in my opinion, developed into slanging matches with a heavy team support bias and have almost become a football club supporter forum rather than fair and balanced opinions of the refereeing subject supposedly being discussed.

What do other members think?

I totaly agree with you - there is definately an increase in comments such as 'my team should have been given a penalty' 'red card to' 'my team this and that etc
 I too think that it      seems to be developing into a club supporter forum - lets get back to what the forum should be about
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 6 View List

JCFC

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Brighouse
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #3 on: Tue 21 Feb 2023 12:00 »
Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty" (though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum and headed off elsewhere.

I should hate to think, though, that this site should become the preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of saints in church windows was an interesting and informative example last year.

What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a slightly mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may even be guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in his first stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a bandwagon effect, with constant references that were tantamount to bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote and Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in my view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.

I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.
« Last Edit: Tue 21 Feb 2023 12:04 by JCFC »
Like Like x 3 Agree Agree x 10 Love Love x 1 View List

Seagull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Maidstone
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #4 on: Tue 21 Feb 2023 14:06 »
Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty" (though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum and headed off elsewhere.

I should hate to think, though, that this site should become the preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of saints in church windows was an interesting and informative example last year.

What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a slightly mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may even be guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in his first stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a bandwagon effect, with constant references that were tantamount to bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote and Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in my view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.

I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.

Thank you for you kind comment. I thought more responses would be received too.

I agree with virtually all that you say, JCFC, especially about RTR not becoming the preserve of refereeing experts. I certainly don't regard myself as one either. I have no problem with comments sometimes deviating towards other subjects, a good example of which you cite (church windows). I find those interesting and even amusing. However, I just feel that a growing minority of recent discussions became about the club the individual contributor supports, how certain decisions affected their team, etc., as opposed to discussing the refereeing aspect of the decision concerned.

Hopefully, it's just a blip and future discussions can largely be confined to refereeing aspects of matters raised, rather than develop into slanging matches about teams.
Like Like x 2 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Whistleblower

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,627
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #5 on: Tue 21 Feb 2023 15:09 »
Thank you, Seagull, for starting a discussion that I expected might have drawn more responses. I am largely in sympathy with your views, though with slight reservations. I am less worried than cwh about comments like "my team should have had a penalty" (though I draw the line at the wince-inducing "should of.") Such phrases are an indication that a large pinch of salt is required, and should not be taken particularly seriously. There have often been members who have posted in this manner, but they have tended to grow bored with the general nature of the forum and headed off elsewhere.

I should hate to think, though, that this site should become the preserve of refereeing experts = I would be ruled out for a start (no bad thing, many might say.) One of its delightful features is the freedom to wander away from arcane dissection of incidents and stray into pastures unrelated. The discussion of saints in church windows was an interesting and informative example last year.

What does concern me a little is the reappearance of a slightly mean-spirited approach in some posts. (Perhaps I may even be guilty myself.) Some years ago, when Mr Attwell was in his first stint on the Premier League, there seemed to be a bandwagon effect, with constant references that were tantamount to bullying. Some of the recent posts - notably on Messrs Coote and Mason - have been disappointing in their lack of charity in my view - but then I am not young enough to know everything.

I am sure that the vast majority of members will continue to contribute in their usual reflective manner and that the moderators will help others to see the error of their ways. Long may Rate the Ref continue to flourish.


Thank you for this very well considered post JCFC with which I am broadly in sympathy. It's a fine line between trenchant criticism, which is perfectly acceptable in my view, and being mean-spirited and lacking in charity.  When I offer a critique of a referee, I endeavour to confine myself to the officiating and not make an ad hominem attack on the individual's character or motivation. I have been critical recently of Coote and Mason. The former because I do not think his performances have merited a Cup Final appointment ( and thus making other more deserving referees miss out ) and the latter because I just didn't think he was up to the job ( a view which the authorities seem to share )

Where we start getting into more treacherous currents is when posters start giving opinions about the character of individual referees and ARs simply from their on field demeanour and without ever having met them. The word "arrogant" is sometimes bandied about. I have been privileged to meet a fair number of senior referees over the years, well over fifty I would guess, and of that number I would only say that two showed arrogance. Virtually all of them were dedicated, focussed and with plenty of self-belief ( I don't know how you would survive without that ) but the majority were personable and agreeable company. " Play the ball and not the man " is a fair mantra and most of us on RTR endeavour to do that in our estimation of officiating performances.
Like Like x 3 Agree Agree x 6 View List

JCFC

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Brighouse
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #6 on: Wed 15 Mar 2023 16:21 »
On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one, but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects badly on the posters who do so.
All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term them dross is out of order in my mind.
Agree Agree x 7 View List

cwh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: amesbury
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: ex level 2/assesor
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #7 on: Wed 15 Mar 2023 17:25 »
On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one, but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects badly on the posters who do so.
All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term them dross is out of order in my mind.

I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also be avoided
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,277
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #8 on: Wed 15 Mar 2023 18:29 »
On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one, but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects badly on the posters who do so.
All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term them dross is out of order in my mind.

I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also be avoided
A memory as far back as this morning should suffice !
Agree Agree x 1 View List

cwh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: amesbury
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: ex level 2/assesor
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #9 on: Thu 16 Mar 2023 04:00 »
On a slightly different tack. I may be in a minority of one, but I do find it inappropriate and plain wrong to refer to referees, individually or as a group, as "dross." This reflects badly on the posters who do so.
All referees will make mistakes, all will have matches in which they will feel they not been at their best, but to term them dross is out of order in my mind.

I personly cannot remember this term being used {memory is failing a bit) but I certainly agree with you 100% and I also think that any other derogatory personal terms/words should also be avoided
A memory as far back as this morning should suffice !

Memory must be worse than I thought - although I still cannot see/find any reference to 'dross'

Toprefm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #10 on: Thu 16 Mar 2023 10:30 »
Read the Craig Pawson Middlesbrough game comments. Second poster (the edited bit was where the comment was made)
Informative Informative x 2 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,277
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« Reply #11 on: Thu 16 Mar 2023 13:08 »
Read the Craig Pawson Middlesbrough game comments. Second poster (the edited bit was where the comment was made)

I guess that word has become a non-word like "cheat" regardless of context.
Agree Agree x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List