Refereeing

[Abrak]

Watching the rugby World Cup it is incredibly refreshing to see how decisions made by the referee are not questioned by the players. I think in rugby only the captain can question a referees decision and if say a player questions a penalty then the penalty is simply advanced 10m. In football questioning the referee is mandatory so that you imply that say as penalty is a 50:50 decision that goes against you on the basis that it will pressure the referee to give you a 50:50 decision at the other end later in the game. We also see the managers claiming that referees are bias against their team to pressure the referees into being bias for them.

Football just seems to be a lot about refereeing decisions. Now of course Rugby and say tennis have good reasons why referees are not questioned in that they use technology to make major decisions. In rugby a try can be subject to a decision by a fourth official who uses slow motion replays etc. In tennis a player can appeal a call. And actually the decisions that referees make in football that are so subject to debate almost entirely surround penalties and goals. So it wouldnt be difficult to appeal penalties to a fourth official nor would it be difficult to give a team 'two appeals' a match to the fourth official. Either against a penalty or a goal that you felt was offside.

Anyway the obsession with refereeing is not healthy in the game and you dont see it in most other sports. The reality is that referees will get 90% of decisions right and 10% wrong and that decisions will go in your favor 50% of games and against you 50% of games. If the referees decisions basically 'decide' the games then you need to amend the decision making process. You cant be both a believer in 'bad refereeing' and against the use of 'technology'.

There is definitely something wrong in football that the referee seems so 'important'.