WHAT?!? You've never seen American football, or soccer? Multiple refs. Even tennis has multiple referees.
Yes, they can be counted on to do things right because their actions are public. That mirrors the original suggestion that the police video be streamed online publicly in real time. If the refs could turn off the cameras during the game, and make the stadium 'leave the scene and stop interfering', we would likely see just that, infantile backstabbing and/or a striped wall form.
In the US, pay can be crap, but the long hours can mean massive overtime. There are also usually benefits that make up for the (sometimes) mediocre pay.
I agree, they deal mostly with the 'seedy underbelly of society', which is why I think they should spend some time serving the community as part of their job...of course, they are already understaffed and underfunded, so I don't have an answer of how to make that happen. I just think it would give them a better viewpoint of those they 'serve and protect'.
In the US, the fear is of being CAUGHT. That's the only way they face retribution. By sticking up for each other when one commits a crime, it makes being caught nearly impossible.
Yes, because they have authority I feel they have a moral responsibility to wield it responsibly. They should also have a heavy handed legal responsibility, just in case their morals are out of whack.
The only one's I leave out of the blanket condemnation are those willing to stand against their own when their own are wrong...they are seemingly few and far between, but I do admit they exist.

Except there's only one referee to a game, they have absolute authority, everything they see is in public and calling interference on a fellow referee will not see them ostracized and potentially harmed by another ref who, let's not forget, has the ability to call fake interference on them

I get what you're saying. Of all the people they deal with, cops should be most watchful for illegal activity in other cops. In an ideal world, they would be (hell, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need cops).

But in the real world, policing is a tough job. I don't know how it is in the US, but in NZ the pay is crap, the hours are long and most people inherently distrust you. It's not surprising that when you spend your days dealing with the worst of society you form an "us vs them" mentality. Not to mention the politicking and other bullshit you have to deal with.

I think most cops are like most normal people; most of them are fundamentally decent, and just trying to get by and do their job as best they can. Maybe they're not happy about certain things in their job, but they feel powerless to do anything about it for fear of retribution.

Obviously the difference is that the stakes are higher. If I fail to point out an uncomfortable truth to my boss, some software doesn't work as well as it could. They're dealing with peoples lives.

I don't know the answer. Cops absolutely should be held to a high moral standard. They are a necessary aspect of modern society. But I don't think the answer is this kind of black and white thinking of "all cops have turned a blind eye to something, therefore they're all complicit". The world is more complex than that.

Cops get singled out because it is their JOB, which they are paid decently for, garner respect for (warranted or not), (edit: are given authority because of), and get many other perks because of, to be a "rat" as you put it, or a cop as others would put it. When that's your job, to police people, it's ridiculous to single your group out to not "rat on" or police, especially when some of them are not acting like 'police'.
I understand it, most people won't call foul on their own 'team', I simply disagree that it's acceptable or defendable, especially when that is who and what you are, a 'police' person. It's kind of like being a referee, but refusing to call interference on another referee that catches the ball, to me. Their culture is already set apart in many ways, I only wish they were set apart by a higher moral standard as well (that they live up to).

This happens to soccer players too often. People always talk about soccer being for pussies in the US but you try running that much, it's insanity and young men have serious heart failures. One was just as recent as last season in the Premier League, Fabrice Muamba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0XN1d6s2oU

He survived and later returned to White Hart Lane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmNLbuvOH3o

As a referee I must point out the excellent refereeing from both refs here. I mean there's so much fakery it's hard to know what's going on at times. Both refs handled the situations well.

"Soccer Player Accidentally Slaps A Referee's Boobs" has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Yeah, it is a bit goofy to blame the microphone for working properly. Rather than blame 2k for thinking up that feature.

Still, I've yet to see anything that the kinect can do that would make games more fun to play. Overly sensitive referees are creative at least.

Sometimes when you mess up you have to own up to it as a referee. The best thing he could've done in this situation after making the call is say it was an inadvertent whistle and restart play with a drop ball to the keeper. Which he would've done anyways if there was a stoppage of play that doesn't result in a free kick, like a quick correction of a players kit.

The goalkeeper should have told the referee that he had a problem, I believe the ref would then stop the game so the keeper can correct his equipment. Outfield players would have to go off the pitch but for keepers, the game stops.

It would have been nice if the ref had let it slide but I don't see this has a horrible decision or a big f-you to the ref.

As a referee the ref does make us look bad. He's just not used to this sort of situation, he's used to players screaming and crying for everything in the world even the smallest stupidest of perceived slights. He probably has whiplash from jerking his head around to listen to whiny players.

At this level though especially you should be able to feel the temperature of the game and the expectations of players. He could've let this go and been pragmatic but he didn't and that's a shame. No doubt this was a long conversation after with him and his coach and ARs so he's likely to never make this mistake again. Also it shows a great example to referees like me to be mindful of these sort of situations.

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in. Looks bloody nice when it comes off

I thought it was offside when it happened. It always looks strange when a player is in so much space and 95% of the time it's because they're offside.

In football (unlike, I believe, other sports with offside rules) it's the exact moment your team mate passes the ball that matters, which is why the director pauses it then.

Fun fact - this means that the assistant referee (the linesman, at the side with a flag) has to simultaneously look at what players are in offside positions and look at the ball to see when it's passed. If the ball is travelling quite far up the pitch, it's physically impossible for the assistant referee to do this.

Additional fun fact - players and fans are extremely forgiving of this and should this impossible situation result in an error that's to the detriment of their team, they will typically smile wryly and think back to a time when they've been the beneficiary.

The previous paragraph may not be entirely accurate.

That's on the referee. He's supposed to check the equipment out before the start of the game.

I've have great cop interactions and horrible cop interactions. Same with referees in sports. People are fucking stressed out and they have problems sometimes with authority or difficult situations or masters they have to serve.

That's why we have to try and make their jobs as easy as possible. Don't give cops quotas they have to fill, have them be a part of the community.

You're right because that's the ONLY thing we referees use is the laws of the game right? No, there's constant discussion among the top referees in the nation, I know I've been in the room with them. I've been trained by FIFAs and former FIFAs, it's the most confusing law period. Don't try to pretend it's not, you have interpretations you have instructions and you have Position Papers, and you have actual real situations where you have to apply all of those things.

So yes you can try to talk about it being simple and you can try to teach it simply, but it's not. There is way more to it, I've been in the debates, I've helped former FIFAs write the interpretations to FIFA for better explanation. It should be simpler, but in practice it's not.

What's so confusing about offside?
The laws of the game state:
"A player is in an offside position if [..] he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent"
and
"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position"

And that's basically it.

Inviting arguments by deliberately allowing the decision to be subjective - sure. But confusing?