Assessor says not to use verbal warnings for fouls?

[Lefelee]

Last weekend an assessor told the referee in a game I assisted in that you should not issue public verbal warnings for fouls by themselves, as there are only three types of fouls, careless, reckless and using excessive force. According to him, in about 80% of cases where referees issue such warnings the tackle is reckless and worthy of a caution, but the referee doesn't have the courage to caution the player. For last 20% no verbal warning is needed or at most a quick, quiet word with the offender is enough.

He went on to claim that verbal warnings are a very good thing to use for players getting close to a caution for persistent infringement or dissent, but that a tackle is either careless (no card or verbal warning needed, but that the referee could very well have a quiet word with the player) or reckless and worthy of a caution.

Actually, I very much agree with him, but this seems like a very controversial opinion, you see referees at all levels giving such dressing downs for fouls that more often than not merit a booking, and in my assessed games, both as R and AR, I or the referee have very often heard from assessors that we have given verbal warnings for caution-worthy fouls.

What is your view?

 

[SM]

At a recent assessment I was advised that not all reckless challenges should be cautioned and depending on the nature of the game and foul severity, sometimes a good bollocking is sufficient. Wasn't 100%sure I agreed, but that is what was said.

Personally, I find there are times when a public word will do the trick (with challenges which straddle the line between reckless and careless that is - if it is clear reckless then card it is). It's knowing when you can manage situations and when you shouldn't. Certainly nothing to do with lack of courage or wishing to be seen favourably by teams or anything else. Just sensible refereeing.

 

[Lefelee]

Well, I see my task as referee to prevent situations from happening (acting), once they do, you must take appropriate action, even though it could have been avoided (react).

In my view, the best preventive and 'managing' approach is always talking to players during play, telling them to be careful when you see they are about to make tackles, etc. If you have to react, then do that in the appropriate manner, don't give them a public word because you failed to prevent their tackle (no matter whether you did your best to prevent it or not).

 

[Kes]

Well, I see my task as referee to prevent situations from happening (acting), once they do, you must take appropriate action, even though it could have been avoided (react).

In my view, the best preventive and 'managing' approach is always talking to players during play, telling them to be careful when you see they are about to make tackles, etc. If you have to react, then do that in the appropriate manner, don't give them a public word because you failed to prevent their tackle (no matter whether you did your best to prevent it or not).

That can work with kids (to a point) but I'd steer clear of that where open age is concerned.
As a player I certainly wouldn't appreciate a referee commentating on what I'm doing/about to do. It isn't a ref's job to prevent players making stupid/foul tackles - because he can't. Players will do what they do and need to take responsibility for their actions themselves.
"Managing" the situation comes down to deciding whether to caution or bollock the individual concerned, but only after the deed has been done. You can't prevent things. You're a referee mate - not a school teacher.

 

[SM]

There is a risk of players getting annoyed and telling you to go love yourself with that approach @Lefelee especially with higher level games. You also cannot use the phrase "I don't tel you how to play, please do not tell me how to referee" if you are actually telling them how to play!

Referees talk a lot about be proactive rather than reactive. You need to be both.

 

[GraemeS]

With all due respect to the OP, I think this statement in particular

but that a tackle is either careless (no card or verbal warning needed, but that the referee could very well have a quiet word with the player) or reckless and worthy of a caution.

is absolute rubbish!

There are absolutely gradations within the wide brackets of "Careless" and "Reckless" - and if a player commits a tackle that is approaching reckless but isn't quite there, a dressing down is absolutely the correct approach. As long as you're consistent within the match, why on earth would the assessor have a problem with that?

 

[OIREF!]

What about the specific case of persistent infringement? More often than not I would speak to a player and make him aware that his last chance has gone. Can't see anything wrong in this.

 

[Lefelee]

Well, you hear referees, even at quite high levels, who say "well, I think it was a little bit more than careless, but it was the player's first tackle/it's very early in the game, so I won't caution him". There is no such thing in the Laws of the Game!

I advise you all to watch some games from the Serie A and La Liga. The referees are consistent, apply disciplinary measures from the beginning of the game, and use few verbal warnings. Here in England we're sticking to a silly idea that the best referee shows the fewest cards. Why?

 

[Kes]

I advise you all to watch some games from the Serie A and La Liga. The referees are consistent, apply disciplinary measures from the beginning of the game, and use few verbal warnings. Here in England we're sticking to a silly idea that the best referee shows the fewest cards. Why?

Because we're English by god!!
To referee a football match any other way would be, well........just not cricket!!

 

[SM]

here in England we're sticking to a silly idea that the best referee shows the fewest cards. Why?

I don't think that is true. Certainly not been advocated here by anyone.

 

[ref craig]

That assessor must had lots of cards then because if I can just say to a player and a captain his on verge of getting a caution then a public rebuke and a cut of the grass to say no more will say you've tried to manage it and no more on it

 

[DanCohen17]

He went on to claim that verbal warnings are a very good thing to use for players getting close to a caution for persistent infringement or dissent, but that a tackle is either careless (no card or verbal warning needed, but that the referee could very well have a quiet word with the player) or reckless and worthy of a caution.

That assessor must had lots of cards then because if I can just say to a player and a captain his on verge of getting a caution then a public rebuke and a cut of the grass to say no more will say you've tried to manage it and no more on it

"Nothing further your honour"

 

[J-K]

I talk to some players throughout the game, often I tell them that they are just the right side with their challenge, but if they go in that strongly and catch the man it'll be a straight yellow. Some are grateful they are being told the boundaries some start arguing.

 

[PinnerPaul]

That can work with kids (to a point) but I'd steer clear of that where open age is concerned.
As a player I certainly wouldn't appreciate a referee commentating on what I'm doing/about to do. It isn't a ref's job to prevent players making stupid/foul tackles - because he can't. Players will do what they do and need to take responsibility for their actions themselves.
"Managing" the situation comes down to deciding whether to caution or bollock the individual concerned, but only after the deed has been done. You can't prevent things. You're a referee mate - not a school teacher.

So what's that whole warning players about holding before a corner kick is taken malarky then - you see that quite often at all levels as well?
In fact didn't Howard Webb award a penalty in a World Cup match for holding (from a fk in this case I think) AFTER issuing a warning before the kick was taken?
Surely, as SM says below, we have to be proactive and reactive as situations dictate.

 

[Kes]

So what's that whole warning players about holding before a corner kick is taken malarky then - you see that quite often at all levels as well?
In fact didn't Howard Webb award a penalty in a World Cup match for holding (from a fk in this case I think) AFTER issuing a warning before the kick was taken?
Surely, as SM says below, we have to be proactive and reactive as situations dictate.

Different. (Since you ask).
Preventing stupid stuff (that is likely to result in a match-changing penalty being given) prior to play being re-started (do it myself quite often) is not the same as giving a running audible commentary on the validity/potential of player's tackles as they go about their game. I understand what you're saying Paul, but the ref is there to referee - not "coach".

 

[GraemeS]

Why is a penalty match changing and a yellow card (ie. 50% of a dismissal) isn't?

 

[Kes]

Why is a penalty match changing and a yellow card (ie. 50% of a dismissal) isn't?

Last 2 mins of the match for example?
A penalty generally results in a change of scoreline as well.

(Did you seriously need to ask that question?)

 

[GraemeS]

Last 2 mins of the match for example?
A penalty generally results in a change of scoreline as well.

(Did you seriously need to ask that question?)

Just being devils advocate in this case. But technically, I don't think it's fair to "coach" one team out of penalties and not apply the same standards to other significant events.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Different. (Since you ask).
Preventing stupid stuff (that is likely to result in a match-changing penalty being given) prior to play being re-started (do it myself quite often) is not the same as giving a running audible commentary on the validity/potential of player's tackles as they go about their game. I understand what you're saying Paul, but the ref is there to referee - not "coach".

Yes I was provoking a discussion really. Been out with levels 4 & 5s and quite a few do seem to like the commentary approach.

Have used it myself at a lower level (youth) and in both instances , seems to aid match control.

As far as Op is concerned, agree with others - its nonsense to say don't issue verbal warnings for fouls, its goes against the Respect guidelines issued for referees, encouraging us to use the captains in the stepped approach to help control the match, for a start!

Putting both together, I can't believe a referee who only communicated with players using his cards and whistle alone would find match control easier than using common sense talking as circumstances dictate.

 

[Kes]

Putting both together, I can't believe a referee who only communicated with players using his cards and whistle alone would find match control easier than using common sense talking as circumstances dictate.

Agreed.
I'm actually very communicative verbally with the players but only to further aid that communication process when necessary. For instance, in response to appeals for fouls (which I'm not giving) or say, for an appeal that the ball has gone out of play when there's no flag, and I don't believe that it has.
In these cases, shouting something like "No, that's okay - that's a good challenge" or "Keep going gentlemen - play on please" respectively, helps with the flow of the game and aids your match control. Consistantly warning players prior to tackles/challenges however as alluded to by @Lefelee is not something I'll indulge in. A player can play the "victim" card the minute you warn him. If he wants to make a stupid tackle that might cost him a card that's his business.