Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 835
Latest: NRUReferee
New This Month: 23
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 66274
Total Topics: 4970
Most Online Today: 52
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 2
Guests: 34
Total: 36

Author Topic: Discussion Concerns  (Read 1207 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,272
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Concerns
« 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