Jump to content
Fans Focus - Non League football clubs

Gluck_ab

Regular Users
  • Content Count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Gluck_ab last won the day on March 15 2016

Gluck_ab had the most liked content!

About Gluck_ab

  • Rank
    Spectator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rich For the sake of like for like comparison, would you mind showing me the evidence over a number of seasons to support your claims there are more postponements now than there used to be? Thanks, GA
  2. Perhaps there were more resources available then and more volunteers able / prepared to spend the time maintaining a pitch too? Similarly, no two teams, relatively speaking, have the same quality pitch, and wear and tear on a pitch may be dependent on the number of games played on it during a season (youth, Ladies, Sunday, ground-share).
  3. The advent of camera phone technology and social media has been useful in taking photos that can be posted to show the extent of a waterlogged, frozen or snow covered pitch and, in many cases, prove a point as to justifying postponement of a game.
  4. I posted this recently in a separate thread titled 'Postponements': " I can't speak for referrees at Supply League (CCL) but those of us at Contributory League (Isthmian / Southen Leagues) are advised by the FA to, in effect, let the clubs make the decision to play or not for us. By that I mean the following: if both clubs are happy to play, play; if one club is not happy to play, then don't play; and, if neither team is happy to play, then don't play. Clearly, best practice would be for a pitch inspection to be done in consultation (i.e. in the presence of officials from both teams) but that is not always practicable and an early pitch inspection is often required. In those cases the decision is the referee's to make himself based on a range of factors such as the existing condition of the pitch, groundsman's advice and prevailing weather factors. Personally, if I have any doubt I would err on the side of caution." I'd add to that quote that adverse conditions may affect the players, officials and spectators and certainly a referee would be naive not to consider these at least those for whom he has some responsibility at the level he officiates at.
  5. Clementine - I'm not of your opinion that refs do like to postpone games. On the contrary, same as players and club officials, we'd like them on too!
  6. Is that a hypothetical question addressed with a cynical or ironic answer?!
  7. Good question (perhaps a leading one though)! Personally I would check the weather forecast myself anyway as it's easy enough to do so. That's why this would ought to be only one of the factors considered as opposed to the sole one, and the decision to be that of the referee based on the evidence available at the time. The trouble is with a forecast is that you are only vindicated correct if the event(s) actually occurs, in this case bad weather. You could say you're damned if do, damned if you don't! In the case of the abandonment I used as an example, the forecast for weather later on during the game was heavy rain though both clubs were happy to start the game knowing this might occur, as the pitch, whilst soft in parts, was playable at kick-off time. It subsequently did rain heavily resulting in the game being abandoned.
  8. I can't speak for referrees at Supply League (CCL) but those of us at Contributory League (Isthmian / Southen Leagues) are advised by the FA to, in effect, let the clubs make the decision to play or not for us. By that I mean the following: if both clubs are happy to play, play; if one club is not happy to play, then don't play; and, if neither team is happy to play, then don't play. Clearly, best practice would be for a pitch inspection to be done in consultation (i.e. in the presence of officials from both teams) but that is not always practicable and an early pitch inspection is often required. In those cases the decision is the referee's to make himself based on a range of factors such as the existing condition of the pitch, groundsman's advice and prevailing weather factors. Personally, if I have any doubt I would err on the side of caution. I've done a number of pitch inspections recently under different circumstances, one of which (in consultation with the clubs) resulted in the game starting but being abandoned at half-time (again after consultation) following the deterioration of the pitch after a torrential downpour. Equally, I've called games off in the morning as that was, in my opinion, the best decision to make at the time on the available evidence. I don't think any referee does so happily as we'd rather have a game than no game.
  9. E&E Good point on the addition of a page in the programme on the laws of the game. In advance of it being a mandatory requirement, as you suggest, irrespective, you could always print a particular law and the respective application of it from the back of the Laws of the Game in your programme. It's a starting point and might also help reduce the credibility given to MOTD or Sky commentators who, in the main, talk a load of cobblers based on their limited knowledge of the Laws.
  10. So what point are you trying to make Smudge? I'll hazard a guess so correct me if I'm wrong. If it's that officials cost a set amount per game and you're using that as a measure of value then the league sets the match fees so that's a cost clubs know. I'm not sure how the fee figure is arrived or if clubs have an input into it - others might though. For the sake of comparison, match fees in the Contrib leagues are £45 and £30 plus £0.34 per mile for the ref and ARs respectively and in Conference South are £55 and £35 plus £0.35 per mile respectively. Do you think that represents value for money in terms of the quality of officials in those games? Why don't you try and work out what (which) clubs pay their players and how much, and see if that represents better value? Or if some of that money might be of more value spent on pitch improvements, etc. Making the match fee related to value or worth is an interesting argument but you need to have a baseline to make it sufficiently attractive to the officials to do it - too high and it would attract those with the wrong motivation and too low it wouldn't attract sufficient to do all (or continue to do majority of) the games. I imagine the majority of refs do it because they enjoy it and like / love the game and being involved in it and not for the recompense they might get. Personally, I think what I get on the Leagues I officiate on is ok though if the fees were higher I wouldn't argue!
  11. I suspect it isn't but Smudge, please can you show where you've got your figures from and what point you're trying to make?
  12. So how / what would you propose to raise the current standards and what are your expectations of referees on the CCL? As is the football league system of promotion a pyramid with the pointy end the pinnacle so the referee promotion system is the same. However, some teams though will reach their natural level within it in the same way as some referees will too. That doesn't make their contribution any less valid or valued at their respective level, and they might recognise for whatever reason that reffing on the CCL Prem is as far as they will get and that's fine. Equally, they might use the league as a stepping stone to higher levels as a number of refs have done, and that's fine too.
  13. The comparison is there for the sake of illustrating my point that a ref at any level can have an off day, the same as a player at any level can which is not a justification of anyone's ability or otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...