Refereeing in GAA

I played hurling in Kilkenny from a young age until 30, I played club and some underage county I then played in Dublin(senior) for a year and now Cork(senior) for the last number of years. There was very little difference in refereeing in Dublin and Kilkenny, but a massive difference with the type of refereeing in Cork. It seems very easy to get a free in Cork or a yellow card for minimal contact.

I always hear people in Cork complain that the referees locally are to blame for the levels of toughness in the players when the go on to play county but I have to disagree. Firstly I have found that the the players here are as tough as any other part of the country and secondly one of the Cork county players in my club here has always insisted that he spends the majority of he's time playing county hurling with county standard referees just like every other county and he feels that he is well used the the type of refereeing at this stage. He feels that this year was the first time that they focused on their levels of aggression when playing.

Has anyone else noticed this? Again its just my personal opinion on differences I have noticed across various counties, I'm not saying I'm correct just my observation.

I've always found the refs at Junior in Dublin to be very whistle happy, and often took it as a personal affront if they were asked to explain any decision whatsoever.

Played a match one time where the ref have ten yards against us literally every time someone asked what a decision was for, and eventually just started giving ten yards when nobody said anything. Not even joking, we lost by a point in a match where we got two frees all day and the opponents didn't score once from play. That kind of farcical situation isn't at all unusual.

Some fantastic refs doing the rounds as well though, just great judgment, communicativeness. The best Junior ref in the county is a Kilkenny man though. Shiner Brennan, even throws in a running commentary on the match. I once tackled and dispossessed someone them gave the ball away with a bad handpass, shiner was right beside it all: "oh beautiful tackle...jaysus he makes a hames of the easy part, eejit!" Talk about adding insult to injury!

DH2K9 wrote: »

Hi lads,

I had a good chat with David Coldrick this week on the Tackling Sport Podcast.

He discussed his own reffing career, recent rule changes, dealing with abuse and what more can be done to encourage young referees.

Full show: podfollow.com/tackling-sport

I'm wondering what more can be done to get more people refereeing and what can us players, supporters do more to facilitate this. I fear we're just going down the same road of abuse being acceptable and a part of the game. I both play and referee and it drives me mad some of the things players/management appeal for and give out to you over. Would love to know your thoughts.

A good start would be making explaining decisions compulsory. The amount of times I or a teammate have had a few moved up ten yards because we simply asked what a free was for is crazy. And I honestly mean simply asked, no anger or abuse or anything. To be fair this is a habit of one ref in particular, but the general aversion to explaining decisions is common among refs, who are often first to complain then that players and supporters don't have a clue about the rules or about reffing. So, teach us! The best refs aren't the ones who get everything right, they're the ones who calmly explain their decisions to you. Give respect, get respect is, by definition, a two way game.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

A good start would be making explaining decisions compulsory. The amount of times I or a teammate have had a few moved up ten yards because we simply asked what a free was for is crazy. And I honestly mean simply asked, no anger or abuse or anything. To be fair this is a habit of one ref in particular, but the general aversion to explaining decisions is common among refs, who are often first to complain then that players and supporters don't have a clue about the rules or about reffing. So, teach us! The best refs aren't the ones who get everything right, they're the ones who calmly explain their decisions to you. Give respect, get respect is, by definition, a two way game.

I dont think explaining decisions should be made compulsory. A lot of the time you shouldnt have to explain exactly what a free is being given for.
Now refs moving a free up for players simply asking what a free was for is just terrible game management and that's where a ref assessor should come in and pull the ref up on it.

Clareman wrote: »

In my opinion the best refs are the ones that you don't notice, the worst refs are the ones who try to undo a mistake by balancing it out. If VAR in the premiership has thought us anything its that even computers can make a mistake.

In my opinion, refs should spend more time with the different teams and teams should have access to a ref before matches, in rugby for example refs will meet the teams before internationals. Teams should also look to see what a ref's "style" is, for example some refs will pull for a certain type of handpass so they should avoid doing that if they know the ref pulls up on it more than others.

I dont think refs spending time before the game really is needed in rugby yes it's about setting your stall and explaining about how you manage certain issues in the game but this iant needed as much in hurling/football.

greenspurs wrote: »

the lack of respect for refs in gaelic games is endemic, and seems to be accepted as part and parcel of the passion.

I refereed at a high level in another code, and I always considered gaa as more uncontrolled , and there was less clarity for tackles, fouls etc.
but t think gaa , especially hurling and camogie, need 2 refs, one in each half, because the game is so fast, and with 1 puck of the ball the ball is 100 yards away, and theres no way a ref can keep up with that , and make a correct call.

As a ref you have to accept that every time you blow the whistle you will upset 50% of all that are there, players and supporters.
Some refs know that, some refs try balance it out, and some will revel in driving 1 set mad with his decisions.
It happens.

But most players are a bit thick really. The easiest way to get 50/50 calls in your favour throughout a game, and games after, is to stay on his good side "well done ref", not "gway ta fcuk ref will yaa" …. Flattery counts kids !

I dont think 2 refs are needed but you can address things more by giving linesmen and umpires more powers.

greenspurs wrote: »

I would disagree.
More powers ? Like what ? They have the 'power' to notify the ref of any foul play that goes on behind his back.
He then takes action.

Would you recommend that Umpires are given cards and a whistle ?

dont be ridiculous.
maybe power was incorrect word to use but how often do we see umpires notify refs of clear foul play now then?
If you give the other 6 officials more training and use them more in decision process then you dont need to add a second ref in the actual game
There is already 7 officials between umpires, linesmen and the ref. Adding an 8th person is a waste of time. Use all the people already there on the pitch far better

greenspurs wrote: »

Ridiculous ?? Where was I ridiculous ?
8 officials - when theres a 4th Official.

How could you get 3/4 people to agree on the same incident?

Training - What training should Umpires receive to assist the ref?
Linesmen - What (additional) training should they receive?
4th Official - what (additional) training would you suggest they need.


My opinion would be -
2 Refs , 1 in each half. They deal will all fouls and scoring in their half. If they see an off the ball incident in the 'other' refs half, Inform him.
Linesmen - flag ball out of play - If there is an incident that neither ref sees, they will go ask his opinion, if he saw it.
Umpires - Flag Scores, award wides or 65s. If an incident happens that happens off the ball/behind the refs back , inform the ref.

its very easy to get a consensus from several people on one incident in games.
An incident occurs. If ref sees the incident he will ask the linesman and/or umpires for their view but will start off by saying what they saw. Otherwise the ref will say they havent seen anything and ask the umprie/linesman what they saw
The training umpires etc receive is regular meetings with ref development officers/top referees in their area like any actual referee should be getting.

greenspurs wrote: »

Really ? Maybe you mean if the ref DOESNT see the incident? but even so ..

Is that on every decision ?
Will time be stopped while the officials have their huddle?

Not going to happen , ever, and doesn't now.

not every decision but linesmen need to be involved far more then they are
2 refs doesnt help the situation when you have major issues with the officials already in place. Adding another without changing how the existing officials manage a game

greenspurs wrote: »

As I said above, re linesmens duties.

The 2 refs on the pitch would take care of matters on the pitch.

Its quite simple.
It worked well during the Aussie/Compromised/International rules series against the Aussies, no reason to think it wouldn't help with the officiating in GF and especially hurling.

why add an extra ref when you can simply get your existing officials to do more.
If you have a second ref is that at all levels?
a linesman should be able to talk to ref throughout a game and give trends etc on things to watch out for like off the ball incidents etc. Ref can look for those incidents and sanction if needed
When there is so many issues with one refs interpretation of many things in the game adding a second ref is pointless. Fix what your existing officials are doing without adding another official on top of that

greenspurs wrote: »

Senior and Intercounty - numbers are small so probably hard to work.

Linesmen - yes, shur that's obvious, as I have stated twice already.

Interpetation - 2 refs is too many? You suggested letting them all have a meeting to decide on fouls/sanctions !?!!
Each ref looks after his own half of the field.... Simple.
The hardest things to see are the incidents that happen 80 yards from a ref after a long clearance, if theres one ref in each half, he would never be that far away

2 refs is too many. You dont need to add a second ref when you can give your other officials who will be there anyway more powers.
It isnt simply one person reffing a match. It's a team of officials so why wouldnt you use all resources available to get the best decision.

You dont need a second ref to help make decisions from far away. Use the bloody umpires and linesmen.

greenspurs wrote: »

you only need 1 ref? 2 is too many?
But give the other 6 more powers ??? Who would you/players trust ? A 2nd ref in their half of the pitch blowing for a free, or an umpire calling a free ?

An umpire, is not a referee, and never will be.

the problem isnt with the referee it's what the rest of his officials can do. You already have enough people there as match officials why add another person.
The umpire and linesmen are match officials as much as any the referee and any other appointed official. Give them more powers and you have far better management of a game
If you have 2 refs. They will differentiate in how they ref certain issues in the game. That causes issues in games and frustration for players