Why does someone have to become a referee in order to state a valid opinion about refereeing? By the same token, should everyone who criticises the poor performance of a player/team have to play for a team themselves? I don't disagree that bad refeering is too often cited as being the reason for a team failing to achieve good results, but people are still entitled to their opinons on the issue of refereeing, whether they are good or bad.
Lots even most of us have played football...even the majority of Referees have. Maybe not all that successfully but hey, at least we've had a go!
Whether or not this entitles us to pass comment (positively or negatively) on the performance of players is a moot point, as is the question of whether we'd really like to be THAT footballer playing for THAT team (probably our team so we're a tad biased in our assessment particularly if said team isn't 25 points ahead in the table by Christmas)
All Cestrian Alty ( I suspect) and myself are saying is that Refereeing is as different to playing as Cow sh*t is to Caviar and, until you've actually had a bash you may not be as well placed to comment as you are about playing.
Reffing, as we've both said is sort of addictive and you become protective of your 'hobby' (which is what it is for a lot of us) particularly when you know how many hoops the guys who Officiate at BSP level have had to jump through and continue to have to jump through.
Most of you don't know and to be honest don't care and I don't blame you...it's of no real interest to you. But Please don't discount our views they're honestly held and in our own way at least as valid as yours are about the relative values of Lee Elam , Warren Peyton , Dale Johnson and Colin Little