Cricket have it right with their officials......

[HammersmithR]

If any of you follow cricket you will have seen there was some drama with Kevin Pietersen in the last test being given a warning by the umpires for doing a 'switch hit' before the bowler had bowled. This created some debate amongst spectators and the media. At the end of the day the umpires were interviewed by the media about their decision and cleared everything up.

Now why in football are we never able to hear why a ref gives a decision?

We might not agree with his interpretation, but at least we would be able to hear his reasons for his decisions.

[andover66]

100% AGREE, the only difference with a cricketing official and a ref is most are ex pros and have actually played the game of cricket at a professional level. Really cheesed off with it all Dave.

[DeepcutHoop]

100% AGREE, the only difference with a cricketing official and a ref is most are ex pros and have actually played the game of cricket at a professional level. Really cheesed off with it all Dave.

Agree as well, I'm sure a lot of them would like the right of reply to a lot of the criticism that gets aimed at them too.

I assume they don't do it for fear of putting off prospective refs, which must be hard enough to recruit as it is...

[acricketer]

The umpires are neutral from different countries for every test match. None are from Bolton.

[BUSHRANGER1982]

If any of you follow cricket you will have seen there was some drama with Kevin Pietersen in the last test being given a warning by the umpires for doing a 'switch hit' before the bowler had bowled. This created some debate amongst spectators and the media. At the end of the day the umpires were interviewed by the media about their decision and cleared everything up.

Now why in football are we never able to hear why a ref gives a decision?

We might not agree with his interpretation, but at least we would be able to hear his reasons for his decisions.

I wouldn't settle for that alone. I really couldn't care less why Mason made as poor a decision as he did against us yesterday.
Ways should be found to ensure he, and other refs too, doesn't make a poor ruling like that, and have it stand, ever again.

[cookie17]

100% AGREE, the only difference with a cricketing official and a ref is most are ex pros and have actually played the game of cricket at a professional level. Really cheesed off with it all Dave.

Completely wrong, very few umpires have ever played the game to a professional level.

[andover66]

[QUOTE=cookie17;838826]Completely wrong, very few umpires have ever played the game to a professional level.

well I can think of a few Ian Gould ex pro ,Richard Kettleborough ex pro,Nigel Llong ex pro,Asad Rauf ex pro,Simon Taufel ex pro. all have reached the very minuman of 1st class cricket or county cricket.

[QPR_NW10]

If any of you follow cricket you will have seen there was some drama with Kevin Pietersen in the last test being given a warning by the umpires for doing a 'switch hit' before the bowler had bowled. This created some debate amongst spectators and the media. At the end of the day the umpires were interviewed by the media about their decision and cleared everything up.

Now why in football are we never able to hear why a ref gives a decision?

We might not agree with his interpretation, but at least we would be able to hear his reasons for his decisions.

all of this i agree with HammersmithR. they call on players to explain themselves for tackle/actions (cisse/bibotelli/cantona - extreme) but the refs seem completed protected...it's mental.

forget about refs talking WHY they made such a decision...if CRICKET...a game that takes FIVE DAYS can use replay/video evidence can still be called "cutting edge"...along with one of the fastest contact sports in the world...rugby league....

the question is not "why not" but "when"...and "why on earth are we waiting"....

[qblockoompah]

did anyone see pen decision for chelsea? Murphy was going mental as he clearly got the ball, then ref says it werent you it was Kelly, yet kelly never touched him?? very bad decision?1!!!

[HammersmithR]

did anyone see pen decision for chelsea? Murphy was going mental as he clearly got the ball, then ref says it werent you it was Kelly, yet kelly never touched him?? very bad decision?1!!!

Was a very soft decision. Seems to be the bigger clubs get these types of decisions.

[themodfather]

not just that, the umpires are RESPECTED....and usually you do not get a "home ref"
i mean mr mason from bolton doing a man utd game..it's all greater manchester for effs sake!!

qpr MUST compile the list of errors, weak pens, goals not given and send to the fa,prem committee and refs assoc for starters....we must COMPLAIN as man utd and arsenal and all the top teams do.

[MYU]

If any of you follow cricket you will have seen there was some drama with Kevin Pietersen in the last test being given a warning by the umpires for doing a 'switch hit' before the bowler had bowled. This created some debate amongst spectators and the media. At the end of the day the umpires were interviewed by the media about their decision and cleared everything up.

Now why in football are we never able to hear why a ref gives a decision?

We might not agree with his interpretation, but at least we would be able to hear his reasons for his decisions.

Superb post.

[essex]

I think ref's reports should be published after the game, allow us to see what they saw.