Ian Plenderleith is Alex Ferguson's Nom de Plume

Excellent article. Really enjoyed that.

Yes. And let's have Steve "If you know the rules of the game, you're a saddo" Bruce first in the queue, please.

At the very least, it should be mandatory for all players to read You Are The Ref of a Sunday.

It would be nice if the likes of ITV, Sky and the BBC insist its pundits, for lack of a better word, pass a refereeing exam.

Excellent article.

I can only echo what's been said about TV and radio pundits, they should be forced to take a yearly referees exam to make sure that there knowledge of the Laws is up-to-date and correct.

Bah, apologies for the "there/their" typo.

Especially the pundits - especially the ultra-lazy Lawrensen.

They also ought to learn the rules of the competitions - Line Acre was spouting guff about it was unfair that Pompey should loose 9 pts - they spent money they didn't have to win the cup - i.e. they cheated the other teams - such a penalty is warranted - and in fact rather light.

It may just be an Australian Rugby League thing but a number (possibly a majority) of TV and radio commentators have their ref's ticket.

Whether or not this makes them a better judge of what is going on on the field (especially in Greg Hartley's case) is a moot point.

Just to play devil's advocate, I became a bigger critic of refs after I got my ref's license. I was qualified, therefore I was in as good a position o call bullshit on the ref. Or so I thought...

Sadly, I've corrected (yes, I actually was right, they were not) the refs in my league often enough to "justify" my naughty dissenting behaviour. I've also suffered the outrage of getting carded because the incompetent shite in the middle was not fond of being corrected. Nothing worse than eating that shit sandwich because the ref doesn't know the rules.

I hate refs. End of.

SB

Heh, I did think about that flipside - in fact I've already thought about how I might fall into the trap of, erm, gently arguing my case with referees as both a player and a coach, pompously citing my new qualification. But presumably, Bishopville Red, you're not playing in a professional league - at the top end you won't get the kind of frustrating ignorance of the laws you sometimes get with referees in the amateur game. I'm not daft enough to think there would be no arguments or controversy, but I think that as qualified referees themselves, players will have no excuse for not knowing better. Every game I've watched this week has featured players clattering in for reckless tackles (eg, Steven G), taking players out, then getting yellow cards while moaning at length about how they 'got the ball'.

If professional footballers completed a referees course and exam on the Laws of the Game, they would just manipulate that as a new way to 'get at' the ref eg "you have to listen to me, I'm a ref too" etc. It's the nature of the professional game. I could see the player who is the qualified ref being the one who is tactically deployed to hang on the referees shoulder, give his opinion and all that.

Same applies for managers. Only rarely does their criticism of referees highlight a lack of knowledge of the laws. It usually consists of second guessing as to why decisions were made, and blinkered interpretations of incidents, all designed to play the victim. Like with footballers, a refereeing course and exam on the Laws of the Game won't change their approach.

"I could see the player who is the qualified ref being the one who is tactically deployed to hang on the referees shoulder, give his opinion and all that" if this would be an effective tactic why has this not been done before? With regard to Keith, I have seen him argue with refs but without a significantly different outcome to anyone else.
I am most in favour of the pundits and commentators having the training. I know that producers often instruct pundits to pull out the referees perceived mistakes as it creates a talking point to fill 15 minutes, it's far easier to grasp than tactical analysis. If they will insist on doing this could it not be based on knowledge? It is (vaguely) akin to unqualified people who make packaging for tablets complaining about the way a proffessor has used the laws of chemistry to produce a drug.

It's worth noting that there are several stages of qualification to becoming a top referee. Doing a course to reach the most basic grade doesn't entitle me to argue with a professional ref, it just qualifies me to referee youth games. For a pro, it would mean having no excuse for ignorance of the game's laws, not a passport to argue the toss. Dissent by word or action is, as all players of course will know, a yellow card offense.

Oh, I can see the possibilities inherent in this. Just imagine-- Lee Bowyer, referee. Robbie Savage, referee. Joey Barton, referee. Oh, yessss..... :)