Another sin bin question...

[HoofItYouDonkey]

Player shows dissent so you call him over and take name, etc and tell him he is off to the sin bin. He then shows further dissent.
What do you do? Show him another card, Sin bin him for 20 minutes and tell him a substitute will have to replace him when the 20 minutes is up?

 

[SWC 220]

As soon as you have shown him the card for the sin bin C2s he is classed as being in the sin bin even though he has not left the FOP. As such, if further dissent is shown, you issue a further yellow card for dissent C2 but no sin bin and they cannot take any further part in the game and to my knowledge cannot be substituted after the end of the 10 minute sin bin.
This actually happened to me twice last season.

 

[Hendo]

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

As soon as you have shown him the card for the sin bin C2s he is classed as being in the sin bin even though he has not left the FOP. As such, if further dissent is shown, you issue a further yellow card for dissent C2 but no sin bin and they cannot take any further part in the game and to my knowledge cannot be substituted after the end of the 10 minute sin bin.
This actually happened to me twice last season.

Thanks, just to clarify they play the rest of the game with one player less. Correct?

 

[SWC 220]

Yes that is correct. It is the same outcome as it would have been if they had been given a red card but you do not show the red card.

 

[Hendo]

Correct, that player can't return, nor can they be substituted.

 

[Big Cat]

More pertinent... is whether the continuation of dissent is one offence or two. A balance is needed between identifying double dissent and punishing the player twice for the same crime imo
The solution discussed previously, is to run off after sending the player to the naughty step, mitigating the player's temptation to continue ref bashing. Flash'n'Dash so to speak

 

[TSHudson]

The solution discussed previously, is to run off after sending the player to the naughty step, mitigating the player's temptation to continue ref bashing. Flash'n'Dash so to speak

Not sure about that one. I shouldn't have to remove myself from the situation to stop someone mouthing off. If you need to get back into position sure, but I don't see why I have to run away to "help" a player avoid getting removed from the game.

I had something like this the other week, player was showing dissent and as I explained to him that he was going to the sin bin, I made it very clear I had sanctioned his dissent up to that point and if he carried on, it would be a further sanction. He then decided to call me a fcking p*ick so it was an easy red

 

[es1]

Not sure about that one. I shouldn't have to remove myself from the situation to stop someone mouthing off. If you need to get back into position sure, but I don't see why I have to run away to "help" a player avoid getting removed from the game.

I had something like this the other week, player was showing dissent and as I explained to him that he was going to the sin bin, I made it very clear I had sanctioned his dissent up to that point and if he carried on, it would be a further sanction. He then decided to call me a fcking p*ick so it was an easy red

i agree here

i would say the first card is acknowledgment that the dissent up until that point has been punished. anything else after this i'd suggest was a new offence, not merely a continuation

 

[one]

If a player has a death wish and no regard for what you do or say then it is out of your hand. But sometimes using your personality and player management skills can help deescalate the situation and save the player from getting a second yellow. I wouldn't say 'running off' but sometimes walking away shuts them up. Sometimes delaying the yellow card does. Sometimes making it clear further sanctions may come can help but that could also backfire; some players don't like to be 'threatened'. While players are responsible for their own behaviour, what separates a good referee from a great one is one that can positively influence player behaviour.

 

[Viking]

One. I cautioned a player 25 years ago for calling me 'a bloody joke'. I was taught to say exactly what I was cautioning him for, so I repeated what he had said. He then said, 'well you are', so I cautioned him again and sent him on his way.

A - would you have done the same thing in the same circumstances and B - where does this sit along your line of positively influencing player behaviour?

 

[Big Cat]

Not that I've gotten anywhere near mastering the idea yet, but I'm asserting that the less interaction with a sin binned player, the better. My Flash'n'Dash comment was tongue in cheek and illegal, but tend to ONLY request, "name please', before departing the scene of the crime .
The player's temper will usually abate on the naughty step, but it's not likely to deviate 10 seconds after the offence. That said, if an unavoidable second interjection is worse than the first, they've burned their bridges

 

[santa sangria]

One. I cautioned a player 25 years ago for calling me 'a bloody joke'. I was taught to say exactly what I was cautioning him for, so I repeated what he had said. He then said, 'well you are', so I cautioned him again and sent him on his way.

A - would you have done the same thing in the same circumstances and B - where does this sit along your line of positively influencing player behaviour?

Respect. I would do the same.

 

[santa sangria]

Not that I've gotten anywhere near mastering the idea yet, but I'm asserting that the less interaction with a sin binned player, the better. My Flash'n'Dash comment was tongue in cheek and illegal, but tend to ONLY request, "name please', before departing the scene of the crime .
The player's temper will usually abate on the naughty step, but it's not likely to deviate 10 seconds after the offence. That said, if an unavoidable second interjection is worse than the first, they've burned their bridges

Same as with a mouthy physio. If you are standing over the injured player you are inviting their worst behaviour. If you are 8 yards away they have to make a much bigger blatant effort at dissent and any sanction is far easier to sell.

 

[one]

One. I cautioned a player 25 years ago for calling me 'a bloody joke'. I was taught to say exactly what I was cautioning him for, so I repeated what he had said. He then said, 'well you are', so I cautioned him again and sent him on his way.

A - would you have done the same thing in the same circumstances and B - where does this sit along your line of positively influencing player behaviour?

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.

 

[PinnerPaul]

More pertinent... is whether the continuation of dissent is one offence or two. A balance is needed between identifying double dissent and punishing the player twice for the same crime imo
The solution discussed previously, is to run off after sending the player to the naughty step, mitigating the player's temptation to continue ref bashing. Flash'n'Dash so to speak

Agree 100% Take the sin bin complication away and its rare that a cautionable incident of dissent is literally just one line!

Common sense has to be used - personally I think the relevant line in LOTG re sin bins is to prevent someone spending 10 minutes telling you what he thinks of your decision making - not for us to listen out for the next bit of verbals 3 seconds after sending someone to the sin bin.

 

[Kent Ref]

For the sake of clarity / communication if a player gets a second dissent while "binned" it would make sense for the referee to be able to show a yellow followed by a red. That way the other players would know he was not going to be replaced once the 16 or 20 minutes is up.

 

[RobOda]

In many cases the player's staste of mind is such that any engagement is an invitation for further dissent or offinabus.

Ugh, yes, and then if you follow up that dissent with a second caution the bench get the hump.

 

[one]

For the sake of clarity / communication if a player gets a second dissent while "binned" it would make sense for the referee to be able to show a yellow followed by a red. That way the other players would know he was not going to be replaced once the 16 or 20 minutes is up.

Technically this will cause some issues. A red means a send off and the player has to leave the TA and vicinity of field of play. It also means a minimum one match suspension. Neither of these would/should apply when a player gets cautioned while in the bin.

 

[GraemeS]

Technically this will cause some issues. A red means a send off and the player has to leave the TA and vicinity of field of play. It also means a minimum one match suspension. Neither of these would/should apply when a player gets cautioned while in the bin.

You're absolutely right, but I have a real issue with this aspect of sin bins (and actually, how cards are handled around VAR too).

Cards exist so that everyone at the match know what that player can or cannot do for the rest of the match. And that should be it. But due to the way they've implemented sin bins, we have yellow cards that mean different things in different contexts, players who can be shown either 2 or 3 yellows before being sent off, and players who can take no further part in the match without seeing the clear communication tool that we've been given to communicate that fact.

System should be that we show the card that matches the punishment we want to dish out on the day, and then worry about the paperwork later.