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?
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?