Your memory is excellent. If you have to go back 25 years to think of an incident like this, you are doing well.
I very much disagree with the notion that the referee has to explain to players the reason for a sanction. In many cases the player's staste of mind is such that any engagement is an invitation for further dissent or offinabus. This is not just for dissent cases. A reckless revenge tackle for example is the same . The player is looking for an opportunity to have a go at you.
To answer your question, "positively influencing player behaviour" doesn't just apply to incident management. It starts from the moment you get into the grounds.
I'd go B first. I would have had to see your body language but this would have been a good example of showing card and walking away, everyone including the player would have known what the card is for. If you engage with player where it is not needed then it wont rate too high in positively influencing. But if it is a requirement then perhaps moving to question A can help.
Question A. TBH if I had to explain (as a requirement for every card) then I would have likely done the same. However hindsight is wonderful. How about this sequence: he says it. You blow the whistle a double toot not too laud - just enough to get everyone's attention, you pause a second or two with a calm body language you put a smile on you face. You are not upset, you have not been offended and you are managing this situation professionally. If he is a distance from you, you walk towards him (not run). Stop about 2 meters away from him. "Mate you know you can't say that to a referee. And as a referee I can't just ignore it. This is leaving me no other option". Depending on the context and the rest of the game I might add "If I don't sanction this now then all respect for my authority in the game is lost". Then show the yellow with confidence but ensure there is no confrontational body language. Body language is very important to ensure this is not personal, you are not doing this to take revenge because he called you a joke. You are doing it because he called the referee (the authority) a joke and the game expects a caution. He had a go at you, if he feel that your response is a personal one then it increases the chances of a come back to your response. Sorry for the long post but hopefully this clears up my view. I must add, in practice i am not very good in player management and its something i am continually working on.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I’m quietly pleased you would have done the same thing given the same set of circumstances 25 years ago. TBH though, what I did on the that day was to just follow the LOTG as I’d been taught to.
I suspect that some referees would have just smiled off the ‘Well you are’ comment and said something along the lines that any more and action will be taken. However, just smiling it off, to me, appears to lead to the sorts of reactions that follow a vast number of cautions in the EPL, when the player clearly shows dissent (by word or action) at the referee’s decision.
The rugby model is a good one and I’d suggest that if we in football followed that model, then there’d be less dissent, fouls etc. There seems to be a willingness (in several forum posters, including yours above) to help the player by running out of earshot or turning a blind eye, as if it’s the referee’s overriding aim to keep 11 a side on the pitch or cards in pocket.
My view is that by ‘laying down the law’ early on, these niggly, potential run away situations do not occur because players aren’t stupid enough to do anything once they realise you’re ‘one of those’ refs. It worked for me in the game 25 years ago because there were no further incidents and I’ve found that disciplinary action helps in all games I’ve refereed, bar one.
I was interested in the distinction you made between the feeling of dissent being personal and using the authority argument. I could never imagine using a revenge card and acting in a way that suggested revenge whilst showing a card. When I’m an official, everything a player says to me is me as an official and I will act as an official.
I don’t think you were condoning a comeback from a player – only suggesting that this might be a response if the player thinks the ref was doing something for revenge, but this line of thinking that a player is somehow not responsible for his actions, because of the actions of a referee (i.e. not card and dash), upsets me greatly. The position of referee should be respected at all times by both referee and players, but the players should really understand the LOTG, as it the game that they play and therefore should be responsible for their actions at all times.