Butcher Banned

[Scotty]

Rule 68 ... what a crock of sh**. You cannot make a comment that suggests bias or incompetence .... !!! what if the feckers are biased or, as happens almost weekly, completely incompetent ?

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a referee for misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material.

You can follow procedures and make a complaint to the SFA through the referee supervisor instead of through the press.

And the end result? The SFA will side with the referees 99.999999% of the time, even if they think they are wrong. There seems to be something 'sacred' about referees and their reports. They are seldom held accountable for errors, and if proved to be incompetent - usually based on numerous media reports rather than the referee supervisors - are quietly dropped from the top tier or given lower league games.

I know reffing is a hard job, and they are forced to make split second decisions without the benefit of TV replays, and from an angle of view that may be worse than most of the people watching from the sidelines so it is inevitable that they will make mistakes .... but I would just like to see them admit to an 'honest' mistake from time to time which would be much more palatable than their governing body always putting them on a pedestal as bastions of neutrality who never get things wrong. Given that their fees are now so high, I would also like to see them actually sit down with the two managers at the end of a game and have a full and frank discussion behind closed doors about any decisions where either manager wants clarification without the spectre of the manager being red carded in the referee's room. As it stands, the managers cant really speak freely as the ref can issue a card right up until they leave the stadium !!!

As I mentioned before, I have experience of this as part of the IDAFA exec, and a member of our disciplinary committee, (as well as being mentioned in referee reports a couple of times!) I can think of more than one occasion where we had a referee's report one one hand, and the 'offending' player's account on the other both of which were completely different. One at least two occasions I can recall independent (or opposition) witnesses backing up the player's account rather than the referee's, and on one of those occasions it was a fellow committee member who sided with the player as he had been watching this game from the sideline, but on every occasion, we had to take the referee report as 'gospel' and sanction the player based on the recommended minimum punishments under SAFA guidelines, which are of course trickled down from the SFA .... One one occasion where we did not do that, and dismissed the case based on eyewitness reports, the decision was returned to us by the SAFA and we were told to find in the other direction and apply the 'recommended' sanction ....... (never quite got my head round how 'recommended' actually morphed into mandatory punishment, but thats another story).

[PaderbornCaley]

During the one match ban (I presume will be Fridays game?) will he still get tp do the half time team talk etc? Its just pitch side he‘s banned from?

Edited October 3, 2012 by CapitalCaley

[FoolPhysio]

Quick question for you - are any of you current or past referees, or (heaven help me for even suggesting this) personally know or be related to one?

I am just curious, as no-one here (or on other boards) seems to speak much about the definitive referee oversight mechanism or how it works. And it not only applies to the highest grades, it applies to all SFA qualified referees regardless of the level they choose to officiate at. From the commentary on this and other threads where this is discussed, many seem to think there is no background activity regulating the performance of the referee and that they are the ultimate authority, which although correct in terms of the Laws of the Game and the actual match itself at the time it is played, is not the case in the wider scheme. Referees at the top level will always have an observer present, who is responsible for making a report on their performance and where there is cause for concern, this will be dealt with via internal means. They have to meet minimum performance standards on a consistent basis over an average of matches played. Those who are persistently below par will be quietly replaced. Problem with this can be two-fold - 1) there needs to be games that they are poor in before this can trigger the process and 2) who are the thrusting young up-and-comers pushing to take their place? If there is no one stepping up to be counted, you are left with what there is and if that is not good enough, then who can we really blame for that? People are put off being a ref because really, who apart from a masochist or the mentally challenged would want to do it nowadays? So the problem will never resolve itself.

There also has to be an understanding here as to why the authorities are so protective of the concept of the referee as the arbiter of the game - just look at the way nearly every decision is challenged by players, often in an aggressive and confrontational manner. If the status of the referee were to be even slightly diminished, this would only get worse and it would lead to even worse performances at times as refs second-guess themselves or allow bias to creep in just in an effort to keep the aggro level down. It should not be allowed to happen and it may go some way to explain why the SFA seems to have such an entrenched position on the matter. Never underestimate the influence of FIFA in these things as well.

Certainly there are times that I, as an ex-referee, will watch a game and see a poor performance that sometimes I just shake my head at. But while a player or two can be below par on the day they can hide more easily - the ref cannot. Their faults and foibles will be there in the limelight for all to see. Talk about pressure. But there are just as many times when I listen to or read comments from fans who make comments on performances that are simply unfair and at times totally unrealistic.

What I find strange is that the SFA does not do more to explain about the observer process, but it could be much to do with the points I have made above.

I realise this may not be a popular post, and I am not defending referees just because I used to be one, but I hope you will appreciate that I am giving an honest view from what may be seen as "the other side". Only by understanding how it works can we decide if it really is failing and from there work together as lovers of the Game to make it better. Constant dripping about how cr4p it is and how standards are falling is not fixing it, just making it worse.

[FoolPhysio]

Scotty, your post was made while I was composing mine and you have captured some of my points eloquently. Your suggestion of meeting the managers is a valid one but experience tells me that if there was something contentious during the match then often that is NOT the time to do, while emotions can still be somewhere in the stratosphere.

I see no benefit in a ref "defending" their performance, because that is what it would be for most fans. Being open and honest is not as welcome or comfortable as some people would like to think it would be, and it could easily degenerate to something resembling a blame-game contest.

[Scotty]

Scotty, your post was made while I was composing mine and you have captured some of my points eloquently. Your suggestion of meeting the managers is a valid one but experience tells me that if there was something contentious during the match then often that is NOT the time to do, while emotions can still be somewhere in the stratosphere.

Fair comment. I accept it could go either way. It might actually be a positive encounter, but if the game has had contentious decisions then equally it could be a flashpoint. I do however feel managers have a right to ask for explanations of decisions and the refs should not be allowed to hide behind the option of saying nothing and issuing a card in the refs room, or (if memory serves me right) I remember one manager - but cant recall who - being interviewed on Sportsound last season and when asked about a decision he stated that he would like to ask the ref but he had locked himself away and wouldnt come out !

I see no benefit in a ref "defending" their performance, because that is what it would be for most fans. Being open and honest is not as welcome or comfortable as some people would like to think it would be, and it could easily degenerate to something resembling a blame-game contest.

Another fair comment, but from a fan point of view, I would prefer to see things being transparent and if that includes a ref admitting they made a mistake from time to time i would see that as refreshing. I did enjoy the whistleblower site during its short existence as it showed some refs as being big enough men to admit to making errors ...

maybe a little humility from some refs might go a long way. hindsight is a wonderful thing and even if scores cant be reversed or goals chalked off some things can be rectified after the fact (like bookings), and a ref doing it where they thought they may have got it wrong in the heat of the moment or from their angle, which saves clubs the £1000 appeal fee might mend some fences and lead to a better relationship... you then build on that in a collaborative manner and try to improve things for all. It doesnt have to be 'them and us', everyone has a stake in repairing the game and its image.

[PullMyFinger]

Butcher Out

Go away

[Crownboy]

Lets face it we have a discipline problem!! Butcher should set an example and mouthing off at referees is not wise or productive!!

[Alex MacLeod]

During the one match ban (I presume will be Fridays game?) will he still get tp do the half time team talk etc? Its just pitch side he‘s banned from?

No.....ban begins one hour before k.o until after the final whistle.

Lets face it we have a discipline problem!! Butcher should set an example and mouthing off at referees is not wise or productive!!

Who was mouthing off at the ref? Butcher made his comments to the press.

[Yngwie]

From BBC Gossip page:

Inverness CT boss Terry Butcher says his players were "ecstatic" at news he will serve a one-match touchline ban in Friday's Highland derby. (Daily Mail)

[gordieict]

At the end of the day he broke the rules however stupid they are...its a one match ban not the end of the world time to move on and Mo will do a fine job in dugout on Friday. Butcher will have done his work by then and plotted our 3-0 victory

[Scarlet Pimple]

The answer to this lies in the hands of the SFA--introduce immediate camera replays of the incident and a senior ref or all three of them can come to a decision right there on the spopt.

In ice hockey, cameras over and beside the goals are used to allow refs to suspend play, consult the guys upstairs and announce his decision based on camera evidence to the crowd. No olne complains because it is so open and evidential that no one can complain without seeming to be a berk.

So, why have the Aithorities not done this? The perennial question nowadays that never seems to get an adequate answer.

It's unbelievable really. It's fair , unchallengeable and it gets refs off the hook and also the players can accept it and then just get on with the game......so .......?

[FoolPhysio]

I suspect one of the reasons why technology is being resisted is that the Laws of the Game are applied equally regardless of level. There is also the cost - if you choose to introduce it, are you creating a bias where teams eligible for promotion to a higher league based on results is unable to do so due to prohibitive cost?

I realise that the same argument could be applied to stadium upgrades but that is just my take on it.

The half-ar5ed response to this persistent call for technology to be introduced and especially for determining if a goal has actually been scored was to bring in "line judges" in the Euro 2012 competition, as it was easier to introduce another official. However, this was shown up to be a farce in the England game when a blatant goal was not recognised despite the chap looking at the goal with fierce concentration.

Mind you, with the introduction of Sky Sports we have become used to the media using cameras on goal lines yet there are times when even they cannot clearly identify if a goal has been scored (or given incorrectly) so I don't know how effective it would turn out to be. Might resolve some of the more blatant ones though.

With regard to fouls well . . . just look at our own discussion regarding OTJ being sent off. It ranged from "obvious red card" to "wasn't really a foul". Watching it time and again may or may not help a referee decide, and consensus of opinion should be avoided at all costs. After all, it is said that the elephant is a cheetah designed by committee!

[CaleyD]

I'm totally against video replays and other such technology. Trial by TV after games is bad enough, could you imagine the outcry if refs had video replays and still made errors....which is exactly what would happen.

[Huisdean]

Quick question for you - are any of you current or past referees, or (heaven help me for even suggesting this) personally know or be related to one?

I am just curious, as no-one here (or on other boards) seems to speak much about the definitive referee oversight mechanism or how it works. And it not only applies to the highest grades, it applies to all SFA qualified referees regardless of the level they choose to officiate at. From the commentary on this and other threads where this is discussed, many seem to think there is no background activity regulating the performance of the referee and that they are the ultimate authority, which although correct in terms of the Laws of the Game and the actual match itself at the time it is played, is not the case in the wider scheme. Referees at the top level will always have an observer present, who is responsible for making a report on their performance and where there is cause for concern, this will be dealt with via internal means. They have to meet minimum performance standards on a consistent basis over an average of matches played. Those who are persistently below par will be quietly replaced. Problem with this can be two-fold - 1) there needs to be games that they are poor in before this can trigger the process and 2) who are the thrusting young up-and-comers pushing to take their place? If there is no one stepping up to be counted, you are left with what there is and if that is not good enough, then who can we really blame for that? People are put off being a ref because really, who apart from a masochist or the mentally challenged would want to do it nowadays? So the problem will never resolve itself.

There also has to be an understanding here as to why the authorities are so protective of the concept of the referee as the arbiter of the game - just look at the way nearly every decision is challenged by players, often in an aggressive and confrontational manner. If the status of the referee were to be even slightly diminished, this would only get worse and it would lead to even worse performances at times as refs second-guess themselves or allow bias to creep in just in an effort to keep the aggro level down. It should not be allowed to happen and it may go some way to explain why the SFA seems to have such an entrenched position on the matter. Never underestimate the influence of FIFA in these things as well.

Certainly there are times that I, as an ex-referee, will watch a game and see a poor performance that sometimes I just shake my head at. But while a player or two can be below par on the day they can hide more easily - the ref cannot. Their faults and foibles will be there in the limelight for all to see. Talk about pressure. But there are just as many times when I listen to or read comments from fans who make comments on performances that are simply unfair and at times totally unrealistic.

What I find strange is that the SFA does not do more to explain about the observer process, but it could be much to do with the points I have made above.

I realise this may not be a popular post, and I am not defending referees just because I used to be one, but I hope you will appreciate that I am giving an honest view from what may be seen as "the other side". Only by understanding how it works can we decide if it really is failing and from there work together as lovers of the Game to make it better. Constant dripping about how cr4p it is and how standards are falling is not fixing it, just making it worse.

Fillu appreciate where you are coming from and your point about players and referees having an off day is well made. However the referees can help themselves in some areas and that is by getting the basic decisions correct in games. How often do we see blatant fouls not given, throw ins/corners given to the wrong team etc etc. I think if referees got the basic decisions correct, this would diffuse a lot of the flak they are getting now.

Of course there will always be contraversial decions where the refreee has to call it as he sees it without the benefit of seeing 10 replays but I would argue that if the really basic errors you see week in week out from referess were cut out, the situation would improve. I also think the media have a lot to answer for as, with all the replays they have, they can and do have a go at referees rarely indicating that the refreee could not see the incident how the multiple cameras have caught it.

Something has to be done to improve the quality of refrees however and the SFA have to take the lead on that. Just quietly dropping them down a level/grade does nothing. I also think the SFA is hugely culpable with the younger referees coming through by turning them into virtual robots. The younger referees seem to be brainwashed by the SFA that thye must referee in a certain way which takes away the refrees discretion to deal with certain situations. If a refereee did that nowadays, he would probably be marked down hweres in days gone by, common sense would have been exercised by the referee but they are now too afraid to do this.

[Alex MacLeod]

Its time that linesmen were utilised more. The linesman has to be doing his bit to referee the game. We know that the ref cant always see everything but what he cant see should be seen by at least one of the other officials and they should take the decision. Overrule the ref if need be. Perhaps there should even be two linesmen on each side to give greater all round coverage of the pitch.

[FoolPhysio]

Gents, both good points and I welcome the reasoned debate.

Addressing the point re: young referees - there is scope in the Laws and during the training to allow "discretion", but often the individual will think that the easiest way to approach it is as a jobsworth. The Laws themselves allow for this discretion to be applied (the quick free kick, play on etc) but only experience, maturity and dare I say it talent can make the difference between a good decision and a bad one and on such things can a game pivot and the ref suddenly find themselves struggling to retain control. The training process requires refs to progress up the grades (it certainly was in my day and I presume is the same now) so they go via Amateur / Junior, HL and lower leagues before they get anywhere near Div 1 or SPL. There is a fast-track process for those who show both enthusiasm and some basic capability as well but they still need to gain experience first, even if it is cut short in terms of timescale. However, these youngsters are getting the same if not worse abuse at these lower tiers and only the strong-willed would want to power through to the highest levels. Unfortunately, they may not have the required talent to go with that stubbornness and those that did have may have been lost by giving it up as a bad idea.

Totally agree with the obvious errors, and this is where the assistant could and should be helping, but I have stated before that the amount of assistance provided is at the discretion of the referee prior to the match and can change on a game by game basis. Effectively, the ref may tailor what they want depending on who is assisting, who is playing and what the type of match it is. There is no hard and fast rule in what the assistant must do, only limits to what they can do, according to the LOTG.

One important thing to note is that the referee does have the option to change their ruling, but only before play restarts. They obviously have to be careful that they do not do it often (especially in the one match!!) but we have seen it happen before and will no doubt see it again and in my mind it actually is the mark of a good referee when they can admit the mistake, change it there and then and crack on. However, remember Lennon throwing the toys out at the Hearts match a couple of seasons back? That may explain why, even when they are right to do so, referees now hesitate to be seen to change their minds as it can sometimes be easier to just power on rather than put up with the kind of abuse that King Richard the Third dished out. The irony was, the ruling had actually been in Celtic's favour at the time but Lennon used it as a means to attack the ref when it turned out the reason he gave after the match was not the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he was sensationally accused of being a liar. Not a good way to promote open dialogue but then Lennon was at war at the time and didn't care about the collateral damage he was causing.

[Yngwie]

Somebody mentioned that Butcher's ban would keep him away from the team from 1 hour before kick-off until the final whistle.

In a post-match interview though, Terry said he still had 14 minutes to wait until he could get into the dressing room, which seems odd. Was that under the terms of the ban, or did the team just want to celebrate without him?!

[CaleyD]

Rules didn't allow him into the changing room until 15 minutes after the final whistle.

[Alex MacLeod]

By that time the squad were in the pub

[TopSix]

By that time the squad were in the pub

And the Staggies were in their beds crying into their pillows :lol:

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Beds and pillows - what feckin gypo has that kind of luxury.

[+bughtmaster]

Good photo but which one is you IHE ?...........

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I am the pervert underneath

[TopSix]

IHE took the photo.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Aye! I thought tbese loose sandals looked too big for the girl on the right.

IHE is clever, Top 6, he suspended a mirror from the barn rafter and took the photo from below the straw.