RateTheRef

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.