http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7023193.stm

Interesting idea. Believe that's how it works in Rugby?
There certainly seems a lot more respect for offials in Rugby but that's partly because you get a different type of person playing.

the trouble is that it's been allowed to go on for too long and there will be massive resistance to any change now, it's been refreshing to watch the amount of respect the refs have in the RWC even if they're shit, any back-chat is dealt with immediately (or quicker) and the game flows better for it.

I'm not a big fan of Rugby but when I do see it, it always impresses me the respect the players have for officials.

Just listening to the players being interviewed you can tell they're a lot more intelligent than football players. It is partly a class thing, football is the 'working man's game historically and Rugby came up through the public schools. That still persists.

Yes, that would be a step forward for sure.

Only thing that could ruin it would be Man Utd making that moaning tit Ferdinand their captain. The guy literally sprints from defence to berate the ref... :banghead:

Don't you think teams would have to choose a captain that is more central then, to be able to talk to the ref? I mean if a goalkeeper is captain he is hardly likely going to go to the opposite end to moan .. I mean talk to the ref.

here's an interesting piece by Marcotti about this general subject, comparing football and rugby

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...ersy/index.html

A wise man once told me that fans and -- by extension -- the press help define a sport as much as the guys who actually play it. For example, if you were to swap figure-skating enthusiasts for ice hockey fans, there would probably be a lot fewer fights on the ice.

His words came to mind last weekend as I watched France upset heavily favored New Zealand in the quarterfinals of the Rugby World Cup. The press and most rugby aficionados (with the exception, obviously, of All-Blacks supporters) hailed it as a heroic and historic performance by Les Bleus. Which it no doubt was.

Except in the build-up to France's winning try, the French made not one, but two forward passes. And forward passes are illegal in rugby. Had the match officials spotted it, they would have whistled play dead. France would not have scored that try, which means that it would have seven fewer points.

It's not an exaggeration to say that, without that blown call, New Zealand would be in the semifinals right now.

What's striking here isn't the refereeing mistake. Those happen all the time and we've all heard that "refs are human," etc. It's the reaction in the press and by the players. With a few exceptions from New Zealand, there was little mention of the mistake amidst the celebration of the French victory.

Now take a step back. Imagine what would happen if Brazil (the soccer equivalent of New Zealand in the sense that the Seleção is regularly the best in the world) lost a World Cup quarterfinal to, say, Sweden or Belgium because of two blatantly offside goals. The outcry would likely be universal.

Indeed, we still talk about Diego Maradona's "Hand of God" goal 21 years later. Or consider some of the controversial officiating which ended up benefiting South Korea in 2002 at the expense of Spain and Italy.

And yet, reaction has been comparatively muted. One guy who did speak up in the rugby world was Jock Hobbs, head of the New Zealand Rugby Union. He said: "In our view, some of the decisions were very, very questionable. We would like that performance [by the match officials] to be reviewed."

Milquetoast stuff right? Just a guy expressing his view after a glaring error cost his team a place in the semifinals, correct?

Wrong. Apparently, in rugby circles these days, such statements merit a buttock-pummeling. According to press reports, Hobbs could face punishment from the game's governing body for his "outburst." Outburst? You be the judge.

Suffice to say that in soccer, we're a bit less sensitive. If match officials get it wrong, we chastise them. If a team gets lucky -- and France, however deserving it might have been, was lucky on that occasion -- we recognize that it was lucky.

We don't simply accept a result, like a bunch of lemmings. We ask why. We analyze. We wonder what might have been. And we place blame where necessary.

It's not elegant, it can be unpleasant and the critics (yours truly included) often get it wrong. But we don't pretend that everything's fine when a blown call changes the course of our sport's history.

In recent years, it has become fashionable among some people to say that soccer should learn from rugby, a sport where players rarely argue with referees and where only the captain is allowed to address the match official.

Screw that. I don't want a sport where referees are all-powerful higher beings and even speaking to them is an honor bestowed on just one player per team. I don't want a sport where we're not allowed to criticize grave mistakes. I don't want a sport where players -- who are, after all, adults -- are treated like misbehaving children.

Sure, referees are human and they make mistakes. Fine. But they are also professionals who compete against each other, trying to do the best possible job they can do, just as the players do. Why not reward the good ones and point out the ones who, for lack of a better word, suck?

Nobody likes the sight of footballers surrounding a referee and angrily jabbing their fingers in their direction while protesting a call. But have you noticed that it generally only ever happens to bad referees? Good match officials know how to be respected.

I played rugby in college and I can honestly say I love the sport as a player. But as a fan or a journalist, it really leaves a lot to be desired. And I'm thankful that I cover a sport where people can speak their mind and are encouraged to think critically and analytically. Even if we -- all of us, fans and the media alike -- do occasionally (or even often) get it wrong. At least we care.

And we're bright enough to realize when human error perverts the course of a game.

Yowsers that was a long post!

I think the point is in Rugby players talk respectfully to the ref.
In Football you get the players running 40 yards, veins bulging, to scream in the face of the ref.
You say you don't think the players should be treated like kids but frankly they act like kids.

I don't think the refs should be put on a pedestal, they should be more accountable for their mistakes and it maddens me when they refuse to acknowledge or admit their mistakes. But at the same time there should be some respect there and there isn't right now. Mate of my dad's was a ref at a reasonably high level, I think he got to the lower league level or close to it. He gave it up in the end because of the constant abuse. Something needs to be done about that.

you realize that was a copynpaste job?

I did.












Had you actually posted, it would have been longer :1run:

Oh...I think by the time I got to the end of the article I'd forgotten.

Not a valid comparison on that point, I'm afraid. The forward passes of the French guys where not a deliberate attempt to drive a coach and horses through the rule book - Madonna cheated plain and simple. There is a big difference between an infringement of a technical nature - offside, slight forward pass or whatever - and a blatant piece of cheating. If we can't make that kind of distinction we are going to get no-where.

I am sure that New Zealand fans will talk about the forward pass for some time to come. That is what happens in football as well - I see no difference there.

What IS different and I think is perhaps the main point that is being made is that the players did not hound the ref at the time and that is what is important. If people want to play the 'what if' game later then let them. It does not hurt anyone.

I am not sure we even have to make it just the captain being the one to speak to the ref - even captains can be overly agressive (not naming John Terry or anything). However, the refs would be fine to tell people to back off and if they did not, pull out the yellow card right away. If need be, book 5 or 6 players at once if they are not complying. There would be some whining for a couple of games and then the dust would settle and behaviour would improve. It is just the FA, FIFA and so on to just make the decision to bring back discipline. There is no need for any rule changes or other pratting around - just apply the rules as they exist. You hassle or insult a ref, you get booked.

(It is like the government bringing in special laws like 'Causing Death by Dangerous Driving'. Not needed - it is just window-dressing to make out the politicians are doing something when they are not. The law of manslaughter already covers the offence - just use the law. Ditto the refs now.)

Pretty much covers it, well said Coney

Speaking about discpline in football -
Warning:
Anyone going to the Russia game be very careful, organised gangs of hooligans from russian clubs are going to target england fans in and outside the stadium especially those who are wearing england shirts

The reason rugby players don't argue with the ref when a decision is made is because half the time the rugby players themselves don't know what the offence given is. Rugby is stopped so frequently players don't know what is going on.

:lol: There might be something in that.
Every time there are stoppages in play there are so many bodies flying around it's damn near impossible to tell who did what and whether the decision was right.

Not that I understand the rules mind.