Why do players argue with the ref when a player is sent off?

[TheCenturion]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I've never understood why. Not just red cards, but when players argue with officials over other decisions.

I don't think that a referee has ever reversed his decision there and then because players surround him and complain. In my view it just makes them look like prats and utter muppets. Then again, I despise football behaviour in general.

So tell me. What does it achieve?

 

[TheCenturion]

Then again, Rugby has video replays and the refs aren't nearly as bad as they are in footie.

That argument would make sense, except for the fact that you often see players arguing even when the ref has obviously made a correct decision.

But it still doesn't explain why they feel the need to do it in the first place? It serves no purpose, other than as you say perhaps venting anger. But they should definitely restrain themselves, and also perhaps direct their anger at their offending teammate rather than the ref.

 

[TheCenturion]

Football is more important than rugby, so it means more and they get more frustrated.

Gilly. I can't tell - are you being serious?

 

[TheCenturion]

But of course

Again, I still can't tell if you're being serious. If you are, that's an extremely poor argument and full of holes. If not, well trolled

not really, even before the days of VRs in Rugby the players still had much more respect for the officials than their footballing equivalents. I'd go as far as to say that in general rugby players have much more repect for the game they play as a whole. Most professional footie players are pompous, self absorbed egotistical *****s who think they are bigger than the game. All you have to do is look at the total lack of respect they have even at an international level.

Not just rugby, but cricket too. Cricket is 100% based on respect and playing in the spirit of the game. There was an incident once where a player was given out LBW when it was very very obvious that the umpire had made the wrong decision. The equivalent in football is maybe the ball hitting a player's stomach and the ref giving handball.

So this player, when he was walking off, he pointed to his bat to show that the ball hit his bat. That is all. What happened? He got disciplined and got fined 20% of his match fee and had to apologise. Cricket is all about respect for the officials. Players can show disappointment in themselves for getting out, but if they show any sort of disappointment or resentment towards an official - BOOM! Disciplinary time.

 

[TheCenturion]

The thing about cricket is the fielding side will quite often signal a 6 instead of a 4 if it's a close call and the umpire cant see. Would you get that in football?

Exactly. And there's players who absolutely embody the spirit of the game. There's a player called Jacques Kallis, whenever the umpire is unsure if a fielder took a catch cleanly, Kallis simply asks the fielder and if they say yes, he'll take their word for it and walk off the pitch!

 

[TheCenturion]

So players in cricket get fined for insubordination, even if they're right and this demonstrates that cricketers have more respect than footballers? Eh?

In cricket, it's a lot easier to objectively state whether a decision was correct or not, and as such, umpires have statistics for the % of decisions that they call correctly. Umpires at Test level have around 95% of correct decisions.

My point is that most of the time, the reason the fine is handed out is because it is not acceptable behaviour for a cricketer. Other than the odd situation, the cricketers respect the umpire's decision, even if they feel hard done by, and will walk off without question. Everyone can make mistakes, afterall.

My point was that I was trying to highlight the level of professional conduct and respect that cricketers (and rugby players) are required to show in comparison to footballers.