Jambo66 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hope this does not descend into an argument about whether or not the right decision was made at Love Street on Saturday - since I wasn't there and there is no footage of the incident, I can't comment. However, am I the only person who thinks that the real problem with allowing the 4th official to intervene only in cases of serious foul play is a ridiculous rule? The referee and his assistants can intervene at any point, but the 4th official only in extreme circumstances. This means that had Hugh Murray been guilty of a yellow card offence and had he already been booked, then the 4th official is allowed to intervene and make sure that Michael Stewart is sent off for serious foul play, but cannot say anything about Hugh Murray. (I am not suggesting that HM did commit a bookable offence and clearly, he had not been previously booked). This means that there is the potential for one team to be severely disadvantaged. Surely, if the 4th official is allowed to intervene at all, he should have the same rights as the assistant referees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hope this does not descend into an argument about whether or not the right decision was made at Love Street on Saturday - since I wasn't there and there is no footage of the incident, I can't comment. However, am I the only person who thinks that the real problem with allowing the 4th official to intervene only in cases of serious foul play is a ridiculous rule? The referee and his assistants can intervene at any point, but the 4th official only in extreme circumstances. This means that had Hugh Murray been guilty of a yellow card offence and had he already been booked, then the 4th official is allowed to intervene and make sure that Michael Stewart is sent off for serious foul play, but cannot say anything about Hugh Murray. (I am not suggesting that HM did commit a bookable offence and clearly, he had not been previously booked). This means that there is the potential for one team to be severely disadvantaged. Surely, if the 4th official is allowed to intervene at all, he should have the same rights as the assistant referees? Fair enough in cases of serious foul play - allowing the 4th official to become involved in everything else is a recipe for disaster and I reckon games would descend into high farce with stoppages every few minutes due to an interjection. Whats really needed are three unbiased competent officials running the game - unfortunately just now there actually seems to be a dearth of these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 To be honest, I think it is a great idea - provided it is done consisently in every game by every 4th official. Time and again, things go on and get missed (or ignored) by referees, whereas if the 4th official does what he did on Saturday it would help catch these things. Many players do things off the ball, and lets face it Mikey Stewart has form for it, so if there was more chance of them getting caught it might clean up the game a bit. Unfortunately though, where it falls down is the underlined points in my first line - we just know it isn't going to happen fairly, especially when a certain 2 clubs will most likely never get pulled up like other clubs would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 To be honest, I think it is a great idea - provided it is done consisently in every game by every 4th official. Time and again, things go on and get missed (or ignored) by referees, whereas if the 4th official does what he did on Saturday it would help catch these things. Many players do things off the ball, and lets face it Mikey Stewart has form for it, so if there was more chance of them getting caught it might clean up the game a bit. Unfortunately though, where it falls down is the underlined points in my first line - we just know it isn't going to happen fairly, especially when a certain 2 clubs will most likely never get pulled up like other clubs would. Thereby lies the problem - could you really have seen a 4th official becoming involved in a similar incident at Ibrox with Barry Ferguson being the culprit or at Parkhead with Scott Brown. Allowing them more scope to become involved means allowing them more scope to punish other teams and ignore the misdemeanors of the Old Firm - unfortuately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Stinkfinger Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hope this does not descend into an argument about whether or not the right decision was made at Love Street on Saturday - since I wasn't there and there is no footage of the incident, I can't comment. However, am I the only person who thinks that the real problem with allowing the 4th official to intervene only in cases of serious foul play is a ridiculous rule? The referee and his assistants can intervene at any point, but the 4th official only in extreme circumstances. This means that had Hugh Murray been guilty of a yellow card offence and had he already been booked, then the 4th official is allowed to intervene and make sure that Michael Stewart is sent off for serious foul play, but cannot say anything about Hugh Murray. (I am not suggesting that HM did commit a bookable offence and clearly, he had not been previously booked). This means that there is the potential for one team to be severely disadvantaged. Surely, if the 4th official is allowed to intervene at all, he should have the same rights as the assistant referees? I would imagine the law was introduced to stop players getting away with commiting serious foul play. A petulant kick up the jacksie(if thats what happened) hardly warrants being called "serious". Perhaps if Murray had been injured in any way or he had taken a right hander or the physio was called on to treat him then yes,get the FO involved but as we are all aware it will not happen again this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/the_fourth_official.cfm?curpageid=713 He must indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off having been seen to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of the view of the referee and assistant referees. The referee, however, retains the authority to decide on all points connected with play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 Fair enough in cases of serious foul play - allowing the 4th official to become involved in everything else is a recipe for disaster and I reckon games would descend into high farce with stoppages every few minutes due to an interjection. Whats really needed are three unbiased competent officials running the game - unfortunately just now there actually seems to be a dearth of these people. I completely agree with that part. However, if he is only allowed to become involved in an incident of serious foul play, then there is a risk that one team will escape proper punishment during the game. I don't really want the 4th official to have the same powers as the assistants - otherwise where does it stop. A 5th official? A 6th? There isn't really a problem if he only interferes when there is unprovoked serious foul play, but there is when the provoker goes unpunished simply because he was not guilty of serious foul play. Either he can interfere at the same level as the assistants, or not at all. He can always put the incident in his match report and players guilty of serious foul play can be punished later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hope this does not descend into an argument about whether or not the right decision was made at Love Street on Saturday - since I wasn't there and there is no footage of the incident, I can't comment. However, am I the only person who thinks that the real problem with allowing the 4th official to intervene only in cases of serious foul play is a ridiculous rule? The referee and his assistants can intervene at any point, but the 4th official only in extreme circumstances. This means that had Hugh Murray been guilty of a yellow card offence and had he already been booked, then the 4th official is allowed to intervene and make sure that Michael Stewart is sent off for serious foul play, but cannot say anything about Hugh Murray. (I am not suggesting that HM did commit a bookable offence and clearly, he had not been previously booked). This means that there is the potential for one team to be severely disadvantaged. Surely, if the 4th official is allowed to intervene at all, he should have the same rights as the assistant referees? Yes, as a qualified referee, and assuming that the gold standard for refereeing is that they are all unbiased etc... Then the 4th ref should have the same capacity as the other refs. Seems silly not to offer this. For a start, it SHOULD reduce refereeing mistakes, by having another pair of eyes. (again, assuming refs are unbiased and neutral) If video evidence were ever going to play a role, the 4th ref would have to assume parity with the other refs in order to be able to provide such assistance. Any grey area or over complication simply leads to confusions and controversy. The only difference should be the final say by the games ref and his abiltiy to overrule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yes, as a qualified referee, and assuming that the gold standard for refereeing is that they are all unbiased etc... Then the 4th ref should have the same capacity as the other refs. Seems silly not to offer this. For a start, it SHOULD reduce refereeing mistakes, by having another pair of eyes. (again, assuming refs are unbiased and neutral) If video evidence were ever going to play a role, the 4th ref would have to assume parity with the other refs in order to be able to provide such assistance. Any grey area or over complication simply leads to confusions and controversy. The only difference should be the final say by the games ref and his abiltiy to overrule. I wonder how many stoppages we would have in games if we had an over fussy ref and an over fussy 4th Official matched together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I wonder how many stoppages we would have in games if we had an over fussy ref and an over fussy 4th Official matched together. Thats a problem of the game anyway, and another ref who cant let the game flow will maybe add to it, but it doesnt mean it would be the systems fault. Good referees are good referees. The SFA lacks these enormously. Having 4 good refs on the the park would not slow a game down. The problem you mention is therefore not a problem with the 4th official being overly picky, its one of the SFA not being able to get, or train referees to a good standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Thats a problem of the game anyway, and another ref who cant let the game flow will maybe add to it, but it doesnt mean it would be the systems fault. Good referees are good referees. The SFA lacks these enormously. Having 4 good refs on the the park would not slow a game down. The problem you mention is therefore not a problem with the 4th official being overly picky, its one of the SFA not being able to get, or train referees to a good standard. Ah, now there's the rub - where in Scotland are we going to find four good referees? Maybe it's not even a case of "good" referees - it's possibly more a case of finding ones who can run a game in a fair and unbiased manner. Imagine having a game at Tynecastle againt Rangers with with McCurry and two Glasgow asistants and Dougie McDonald as the 4th official - it dosn't bare thinking about!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Ah, now there's the rub - where in Scotland are we going to find four good referees? Maybe it's not even a case of "good" referees - it's possibly more a case of finding ones who can run a game in a fair and unbiased manner. Imagine having a game at Tynecastle againt Rangers with with McCurry and two Glasgow asistants and Dougie McDonald as the 4th official - it dosn't bare thinking about!!!!! If you think too long about it, then you'd realize half the SPL games are not worth playing, as they will not be officiated to the level that means the results can be accepted as genuine and fair. But obviously thats not going to happen. I dont have a solution, and certainly not one the SFA or OF would be happy with But this is the real problem. And simply, if the referees are good, and can handle games well, no increase in the number of them should slow the game down further. The fact that people worry it might simply highlights the poor refereeing ability of this league, not a theoretically decent system. So at the moment, because of the poor refs, this system might be a bombscare, but it shouldn't stop the strive for the best approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 If you think too long about it, then you'd realize half the SPL games are not worth playing, as they will not be officiated to the level that means the results can be accepted as genuine and fair. But obviously thats not going to happen. I dont have a solution, and certainly not one the SFA or OF would be happy with But this is the real problem. And simply, if the referees are good, and can handle games well, no increase in the number of them should slow the game down further. The fact that people worry it might simply highlights the poor refereeing ability of this league, not a theoretically decent system. So at the moment, because of the poor refs, this system might be a bombscare, but it shouldn't stop the strive for the best approach. I agree with much of what you say about standards. One other observation about the 4th official - the remit at present is in the main is to control the technical area and to supervise substitutions etc. If this person is spending much of his time doing this and not watching the play. Are we, in order to have the 4th official concentrate on matters on the pitch, going to have to employ a 5th official to do the work that the 4th official previously did? That along with the referees supervisor sitting in the stand would make six officials effectively"policing" a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I agree with much of what you say about standards. One other observation about the 4th official - the remit at present is in the main is to control the technical area and to supervise substitutions etc. If this person is spending much of his time doing this and not watching the play. Are we, in order to have the 4th official concentrate on matters on the pitch, going to have to emply a 5th official to do the work that the 4th official previous did? I dont think the 4th ref has a hard job to be honest. He is right next to them, and only really has to manage what they say, subs and really only gets involved when they go mental. I'm not saying he should actively be a huge part of the games process, but he is either able to act as a pair of eyes for the ref...or he is not. Seems silly that he cannot, therefore he should have the same capacity as the other linesman. He would not be expected to cover EVERY aspect of the game...thats the 1-3rd ref's job. But where he see's something others do not, or can help in clarification...then he can play a role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I dont think the 4th ref has a hard job to be honest. He is right next to them, and only really has to manage what they say, subs and really only gets involved when they go mental. I'm not saying he should actively be a huge part of the games process, but he is either able to act as a pair of eyes for the ref...or he is not. Seems silly that he cannot, therefore he should have the same capacity as the other linesman. He would not be expected to cover EVERY aspect of the game...thats the 1-3rd ref's job. But where he see's something others do not, or can help in clarification...then he can play a role. No problem with the 4th official being involved in incidents of serious foul play where the referee and assistants missed the event and reporting to the Referee on the full circumstances of what has happened allowing the referee to take the appropriate action against all involved in the incident. I just worry that giving advice on "matters of opinion" would become the norm and the game would descend into high farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 No problem with the 4th official being involved in incidents of serious foul play where the referee and assistants missed the event and reporting to the Referee on the full circumstances of what has happened allowing the referee to take the appropriate action against all involved in the incident. I just worry that giving advice on "matters of opinion" would become the norm and the game would descend into high farce. As I said, if referees were up to the job, it shouldn't matter or effect the game much. its a shame we all know thats not possible because of their level of ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmmgcycbwc Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Having read the regulations, I think it is clear that whatever else McCurrie had no right to change the corner into a free for St Mirren. So he does not even know the regulations, it appears. Has the 4th official got the right to enter the field of play (as he did twice on Saturday)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I would imagine the law was introduced to stop players getting away with commiting serious foul play.A petulant kick up the jacksie(if thats what happened) hardly warrants being called "serious". Perhaps if Murray had been injured in any way or he had taken a right hander or the physio was called on to treat him then yes,get the FO involved but as we are all aware it will not happen again this season. Couldn't agree more. I think this is the type of thing which is ruining the game because it is far too subjective in what is considered violent conduct. Bet your bottom dollar that if there is coming together of heads on Wednesday night initiated by a Hamilton player, no butting, just a pre boxing match stare, we will be screaming for a red card. Similarly this board was split 50/50 whether or not Riordan should have got a penalty at the last derby. I think deep down we all knew that Rirdan made no effort to continue his run, which he clearly could have but were willing to say it's a penalty because 'we've seen them given' rather than truely believing a clear fould had been committed by Jonsson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 If the 4th official is on the look out for serious foul play (rather than keeping managers in line) then why not go the whole hog and give him access to video replays so that he doesn't miss anything? Saturday blew the myth out the water that video evidence would slow the game down - it was what, 3 minutes from the offence to the sending off?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I'm a bit concerned that the 4th official took so long to intervene. So...did he intervene because he had Gus McPherson in 'is ear'ole? Or...was it because Mikey's offence had been confirmed by t.v. evidence during the 2 minutes? (as is rumoured) If it's the latter, then this must be the first use of t.v. evidence in football! The problem with that, of course, is that there is no legislation in effect that allows the use of video evidence. We need to know FROM THE 4TH OFFICIAL what happened in that 2 minutes that led to his intervention. Think we'll ever be told? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.