Referees and "fronting up" !!!

[Pigman]

Today I watched the League Cup Final and witnessed Man United get the benefit of the doubt (yet again!!!) by having a player prevent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and yet not get sent off desite being the last man - hell Phil Dowd didn't even give him a yellow card - explain that olne to me !!!

Last week I saw Diamonds fall foul of a dreadful decision by a referee that gifted Oxford United a win they didn't deserve.

My question is - should referees be forced to front up to the media after games to share their thinking about key decisions in games and, if proven to be wrong, own up to the fact?

I'd have far more respect for referees who explained the reasons for their decisions, even if they owned up to getting them wrong - it is a human trait that can be forgiven if they own up to it, we ALL make mistakes.

What I find unforgivable is hiding from fans who pay a lot of money to see their team cheated !! Phil Dowd should be on Sky Sports News right now explaining why he didn't send Vidic off, or at least give him a yellow card !!

[jimbobjaw]

I can see the argument, in that managers have to come out and say what they thought of the game stright after, and tend to, unless they have been knighted ;) , to get punished for anything that they say out of turn.

However, would it really make a difference. Personally i think that if a referee came out and explained to me that he decided Vidic should have stayed on the pitch because he thought that a penalty was punishment enough, or that he thought another United player was going to help prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity, then i would still think he was wrong, and completely delusional. If referees cannot be "man" enough to give fair decisions during big games, then i am afraid i doubt very much that they will be "man" enough to come out after the game and hold their hands up! It is probably fair to give them the opportunity, but i sincerely doubt it will change anything. WHat does need to happen is that we some how find a way to improve the useless lot that we have atm. I honestly cannot think of a single referee who i have an ounce of respect for, who you would back to consitently have a good game, and get the big decisions right.

[Formic]

I saw the end of the Rugby game on TV yesterday afternoon, a feature of which was you could hear everything the ref was saying - he was telling the players the reasons for his decisions, when to release the ball or risk being penalised etc - and you soon realised he knew what he was doing. They then had the situation where a try could have been scored, and the ref made it clear he couldn't tell if the ball had been grounded - so he allowed the video referee to make the right decision (a try). Without that option the on-field ref would have had to have disallowed the try.

I believe we'd soon realise who the competent refs were if we heard them explain their decisions as they went - and the poor ones would quickly be weeded out.

[Mad Dog]

I saw the end of the Rugby game on TV yesterday afternoon, a feature of which was you could hear everything the ref was saying - he was telling the players the reasons for his decisions, when to release the ball or risk being penalised etc - and you soon realised he knew what he was doing. They then had the situation where a try could have been scored, and the ref made it clear he couldn't tell if the ball had been grounded - so he allowed the video referee to make the right decision (a try). Without that option the on-field ref would have had to have disallowed the try.

I believe we'd soon realise who the competent refs were if we heard them explain their decisions as they went - and the poor ones would quickly be weeded out.

I think that would be a better way to go about it. I get the impression some of the refs at Premier League level are full of their own self importance. Dowd, a TV interview would only serve to further their ego. More importantly, with the way the interviewers try to stir things with the managers after games, letting them loose on the refs may only cause more harm (of course, the media wouldn't mind this!).

[RushdenTillIDie]

What i don't get is why Martin O'neil is going up to Phil Dowd at the end and calling the decision outrageous - It should have made no difference, why was his frustration that he couldn't play 85 minutes against 10 men, he should be more focused on the fact that his team dropped there lead and then lost the game, at the time they were 1 up and dominating, they had 85 minutes to add to the total/pull a goal back etc, the decision didn't change the game, it was just contentious.

Football i'm afraid is run by Idiots and officiated by idiots, we should be using video technology, and i think we should be using the challenge system like they do in American Football - give each manger 2 challenges a half, they can then use it to review whatever decision they feel is important - if it's overturned they keep there challenge if it stands they lose a challenge - It wont happen but it's simple and wont delay the game much at all, as you only need to challenge the contentious decision, i know there are loads of other reasons why video tech isn't used in football but it's still ridiculous...

Phil Dowds decision was wrong but it didn't affect the game that much imo - i'm pretty sure united would have been just as lethal upfront and when have they played naff with 10, not often, if anything they probably would have upped there game.

[TheIncognitoKid]

Was really against video technology at first, but i now think the time has come to bring it in. It will end so many debate's and the FA will benefit. Better idea than UEFA have had, to put an extra offcial behind the goal-line. Crazy! :o