What is it with Phil Dowd?

[davevillan]

The problem then though is that there are far too few referees who have the required knowledge of the game to implement the rules properly.  Rugby fast tracking ex players to referee at the highest level helps it massively.

I dread to think what an awful hash most ex-footballers would make of being a ref.   With a few exceptions, such as Neville and Dixon, the ones that have entered punditry merely confirm the theory that most British footballers are as thick as shit.  I can't see many of them having the intelligence, maturity and impartiality required to do the job, and since most top level players retire as multi millionaires they will hardly have the incentive to be the target of mass abuse every week for peanuts. 

I agree that premier league players don't have the incentive to make the switch in general but they don't have to have played at premier league level necessarily, just to have had a bit of a career as a professional.  The problem with the current system is that you have to start in your early 20s at the latest to make it to the top end, which limits the options too much.

The pundit/manager issue in English football comes down to the fact they get the jobs on reputation not ability, that wouldn't happen with referees (at least you'd hope not) and just leads to them being lazy.  If you listen to the pundits most of them are happy to spout cliches and take the easy option.  We saw it last season, the majority of Villa fans gave McLeish a chance and only turned on him when he started making us play the way Blues had the year before, with the same level of success, but the easy thing was to say we hated him because he'd managed them and he didn't stand a chance.

As Nigel mentions, on field assistance for the big decisions is a necessity now.  Something like the penalty at the weekend, for example, the game was stopped and a crowd of players formed around the ref for a couple of minutes, easily enough time for someone to watch a replay and tell him there was no contact and to reverse the decision.  Then you give a free kick the other way (I'll come back to this) and book him for the dive.  It would go a long way to stamping out diving as well.

The other thing that they should look at from Rugby is the ability to reverse a decision.  Give a free kick for a bad tackle, but if the player gets up and starts pushing or waving an imaginary card at the ref you reverse the decision and give the free kick the other way.

Rugby isn't without its problems, Scrums, for example, are appallingly reffed at the top level, with pretty much everything being fed to the 2nd row, defensive backrows are nowhere near legally bound and the decisions when it collapses or wheels are pretty much a lottery, but regardless of these issues (and a few others) the game is still in a much healthier state, with very few terrible decisions being swept under the carpet.

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

[cheltenhamlion]

I thought about what you said, Zakk. Then decided that the cheating fat chunt can fuck off.

[The Man With A Stick]

My brother used to hate Roger Milford. I remember him very very vaguely as a bit of an arse.

The only thing I remember about him is his perm.  He had the hair of a 65-year-old spinster.

[lovejoy]

My brother used to hate Roger Milford. I remember him very very vaguely as a bit of an arse.

The only thing I remember about him is his perm.  He had the hair of a 65-year-old spinster.

I think he was from Bristol. He refereed the Final when Gazza crocked himself in ?1991? Gascogne should have been sent off twice in that match but Milford bottled it.

[paul_e]

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

Of course players won't play exactly as per the laws, if they can get away with stuff that gives them an advantage why wouldn't they do it?  Shirt pulling happens every game at virtually every corner because there's not a lot you can do to stop it but it's not within the laws.

I've not done a refs course in football, I am a qualified ref and coach in rugby though, both of which were significantly easier to get due to the fact that I'd been playing at a decent standard for 6-7 years before I did them.

I know full well how difficult it can be to manage a game, and I understand that you don't have the benefit of hindsight but there's an unwillingness to improve the standards, which suggests that the referees are happy with how big a part they play in the season.  Most players want the game to flow be entertaining, just that would help greatly, most of the refs that don't get threads like this are the ones that don't try to have a big influence on things.  Dowd in particular seems to enjoy being the centre of attention.

[Lastfootstamper]

My brother used to hate Roger Milford. I remember him very very vaguely as a bit of an arse.

The only thing I remember about him is his perm.  He had the hair of a 65-year-old spinster.

I think he was from Bristol. He refereed the Final when Gazza crocked himself in ?1991? Gascogne should have been sent off twice in that match but Milford bottled it.

Yeah, didn't he come out with something afterwards along the lines of "it didn't seem right to show a red card to a man on a stretcher". It's only little old Forest, after all

[Pat McMahon]

The problem then though is that there are far too few referees who have the required knowledge of the game to implement the rules properly.  Rugby fast tracking ex players to referee at the highest level helps it massively.

I dread to think what an awful hash most ex-footballers would make of being a ref.   With a few exceptions, such as Neville and Dixon, the ones that have entered punditry merely confirm the theory that most British footballers are as thick as shit.  I can't see many of them having the intelligence, maturity and impartiality required to do the job, and since most top level players retire as multi millionaires they will hardly have the incentive to be the target of mass abuse every week for peanuts. 

I agree that premier league players don't have the incentive to make the switch in general but they don't have to have played at premier league level necessarily, just to have had a bit of a career as a professional.  The problem with the current system is that you have to start in your early 20s at the latest to make it to the top end, which limits the options too much.

The pundit/manager issue in English football comes down to the fact they get the jobs on reputation not ability, that wouldn't happen with referees (at least you'd hope not) and just leads to them being lazy.  If you listen to the pundits most of them are happy to spout cliches and take the easy option.  We saw it last season, the majority of Villa fans gave McLeish a chance and only turned on him when he started making us play the way Blues had the year before, with the same level of success, but the easy thing was to say we hated him because he'd managed them and he didn't stand a chance.

As Nigel mentions, on field assistance for the big decisions is a necessity now.  Something like the penalty at the weekend, for example, the game was stopped and a crowd of players formed around the ref for a couple of minutes, easily enough time for someone to watch a replay and tell him there was no contact and to reverse the decision.  Then you give a free kick the other way (I'll come back to this) and book him for the dive.  It would go a long way to stamping out diving as well.

The other thing that they should look at from Rugby is the ability to reverse a decision.  Give a free kick for a bad tackle, but if the player gets up and starts pushing or waving an imaginary card at the ref you reverse the decision and give the free kick the other way.

Rugby isn't without its problems, Scrums, for example, are appallingly reffed at the top level, with pretty much everything being fed to the 2nd row, defensive backrows are nowhere near legally bound and the decisions when it collapses or wheels are pretty much a lottery, but regardless of these issues (and a few others) the game is still in a much healthier state, with very few terrible decisions being swept under the carpet.

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

I am amazed how many pundits freely admit they don't know the laws of the game, or even the number of laws.

When I was playing as an amateur we had a ref come and explain law changes to us before each season. It definitely helped and he reckoned we were more clued up than pros because at least we all knew the number of laws of the game ( it was 17 back then and probably still is).

Didn't prevent us from being shite, mind.

[seanthevillan]

The problem with

The problem then though is that there are far too few referees who have the required knowledge of the game to implement the rules properly.  Rugby fast tracking ex players to referee at the highest level helps it massively.

I dread to think what an awful hash most ex-footballers would make of being a ref.   With a few exceptions, such as Neville and Dixon, the ones that have entered punditry merely confirm the theory that most British footballers are as thick as shit.  I can't see many of them having the intelligence, maturity and impartiality required to do the job, and since most top level players retire as multi millionaires they will hardly have the incentive to be the target of mass abuse every week for peanuts. 

I agree that premier league players don't have the incentive to make the switch in general but they don't have to have played at premier league level necessarily, just to have had a bit of a career as a professional.  The problem with the current system is that you have to start in your early 20s at the latest to make it to the top end, which limits the options too much.

The pundit/manager issue in English football comes down to the fact they get the jobs on reputation not ability, that wouldn't happen with referees (at least you'd hope not) and just leads to them being lazy.  If you listen to the pundits most of them are happy to spout cliches and take the easy option.  We saw it last season, the majority of Villa fans gave McLeish a chance and only turned on him when he started making us play the way Blues had the year before, with the same level of success, but the easy thing was to say we hated him because he'd managed them and he didn't stand a chance.

As Nigel mentions, on field assistance for the big decisions is a necessity now.  Something like the penalty at the weekend, for example, the game was stopped and a crowd of players formed around the ref for a couple of minutes, easily enough time for someone to watch a replay and tell him there was no contact and to reverse the decision.  Then you give a free kick the other way (I'll come back to this) and book him for the dive.  It would go a long way to stamping out diving as well.

The other thing that they should look at from Rugby is the ability to reverse a decision.  Give a free kick for a bad tackle, but if the player gets up and starts pushing or waving an imaginary card at the ref you reverse the decision and give the free kick the other way.

Rugby isn't without its problems, Scrums, for example, are appallingly reffed at the top level, with pretty much everything being fed to the 2nd row, defensive backrows are nowhere near legally bound and the decisions when it collapses or wheels are pretty much a lottery, but regardless of these issues (and a few others) the game is still in a much healthier state, with very few terrible decisions being swept under the carpet.

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

I don't think that the problem with Dowd his just his decision-making, its the smug irritating way he does it. Wasn't it Dowd who told a Wigan player to f**k off a few years ago, against Arsenal I think?

The fact that I can think of numerous non-Villa examples of when he's been a complete arse speaks for itself.

[nigel]

I think a big problem with Dowd, and a few others in fact, is they suffer from delusions of grandeur, they think they're celebs now, and fans go to see them as well as the teams.

Can't believe this idiots got 15 pages (on my set up) Actually, thinking about it I can, 'cause he's useless and everyone hates him!!

[davevillan]

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

Of course players won't play exactly as per the laws, if they can get away with stuff that gives them an advantage why wouldn't they do it?  Shirt pulling happens every game at virtually every corner because there's not a lot you can do to stop it but it's not within the laws.

I've not done a refs course in football, I am a qualified ref and coach in rugby though, both of which were significantly easier to get due to the fact that I'd been playing at a decent standard for 6-7 years before I did them.

I know full well how difficult it can be to manage a game, and I understand that you don't have the benefit of hindsight but there's an unwillingness to improve the standards, which suggests that the referees are happy with how big a part they play in the season.  Most players want the game to flow be entertaining, just that would help greatly, most of the refs that don't get threads like this are the ones that don't try to have a big influence on things.  Dowd in particular seems to enjoy being the centre of attention.

The refs are more professional now then ever, and to suggest they dont have a willingness to improve is well wide of the mark.
The select group refs at meetings are aways looking at ways to improve, fitness/positioning etc to make sure they make the correct decision which ultimately is what every one wants...They wont always get every decision correct, but what they aim to do, is to get the big game changing decisions correct, which sometimes they dont. Its human error, the same way a striker misses an open goal, or a defender scores an oggie. Yet if a ref gets a decision wrong, he is slaughtered..ie Halsey for the pen last week..From his angle he would have seen it as a pen, hence why he gave it, yet he got pelters for it..Our defenders didnt get the same abuse for the rank bad defending which led to the pen, nor our strikers for the chances missed..

[paul_e]

Paul, have you done a refs course and reffed any games??
That comment about refs not knowing the game but the Laws always makes me laugh..Why dont players play as per the Laws..
If a ex player did become a ref, he would soon realise he doesnt know as much as he thinks!! Dont you think they will also give decisions which countless tv replays will show to be wrong, and thats the problem...Every game has tv cameras all over the ground and every important decision is forensically examined before they say the ref got it wrong!! The ref gets one view, and has to make a split second judgement call based on what he sees', and then apply the laws of the game based on his decision..When you listen to these so called experts on tv/radio etc, they may have played the game, but trust me, when they open their mouths, they soon prove they have very little knowledge of the Laws!!

Of course players won't play exactly as per the laws, if they can get away with stuff that gives them an advantage why wouldn't they do it?  Shirt pulling happens every game at virtually every corner because there's not a lot you can do to stop it but it's not within the laws.

I've not done a refs course in football, I am a qualified ref and coach in rugby though, both of which were significantly easier to get due to the fact that I'd been playing at a decent standard for 6-7 years before I did them.

I know full well how difficult it can be to manage a game, and I understand that you don't have the benefit of hindsight but there's an unwillingness to improve the standards, which suggests that the referees are happy with how big a part they play in the season.  Most players want the game to flow be entertaining, just that would help greatly, most of the refs that don't get threads like this are the ones that don't try to have a big influence on things.  Dowd in particular seems to enjoy being the centre of attention.

The refs are more professional now then ever, and to suggest they dont have a willingness to improve is well wide of the mark.
The select group refs at meetings are aways looking at ways to improve, fitness/positioning etc to make sure they make the correct decision which ultimately is what every one wants...They wont always get every decision correct, but what they aim to do, is to get the big game changing decisions correct, which sometimes they dont. Its human error, the same way a striker misses an open goal, or a defender scores an oggie. Yet if a ref gets a decision wrong, he is slaughtered..ie Halsey for the pen last week..From his angle he would have seen it as a pen, hence why he gave it, yet he got pelters for it..Our defenders didnt get the same abuse for the rank bad defending which led to the pen, nor our strikers for the chances missed..

I don't think it's wide of the mark at all.  They may talk about improving but have the performances of refs actually improved in the last 10 years?  Are they getting less major decisions wrong?  Are they investigating ways to improve their chances of getting things right?  If they are, are these being put into practice?

[adrenachrome]

I think a big problem with Dowd, and a few others in fact, is they suffer from delusions of grandeur, they think they're celebs now, and fans go to see them as well as the teams.

Can't believe this idiots got 15 pages (on my set up) Actually, thinking about it I can, 'cause he's useless and everyone hates him!!

... Which makes him a "celeb"

[OzVilla]

My brother used to hate Roger Milford. I remember him very very vaguely as a bit of an arse.

The only thing I remember about him is his perm.  He had the hair of a 65-year-old spinster.

I think he was from Bristol. He refereed the Final when Gazza crocked himself in ?1991? Gascogne should have been sent off twice in that match but Milford bottled it.

Yeah, didn't he come out with something afterwards along the lines of "it didn't seem right to show a red card to a man on a stretcher". It's only little old Forest, after all

I actually really rated Roger Milford as a ref.  Mind you, his contemporaries were David Ellery, Phillip Don, Uriah Rennie and Paul Danson so that wasn't hard I suppose.

[Mortimer's Bear]

Wow, I'd forgot just how shit Rennie and Danson were!

[Clampy]

Paul Durkin was the last decent ref we had i reckon.