A&H

Cahill on Rose - Spurs vs Chelsea

So you've never issued a caution and thought 'I wish I never did that'? Where the game didn't really need it and you could tell everyone thought you were over officious for issuing it?

Slight amendment.....'I wish I didn't have to do that'.....

Yes, of course I have been there.....but my role as referee to apply the LOTG, and if that means issuing a caution that won't be well received.....well hey ho....goes with the territory.
 
The Referee Store
Slight amendment.....'I wish I didn't have to do that'.....

Yes, of course I have been there.....but my role as referee to apply the LOTG, and if that means issuing a caution that won't be well received.....well hey ho....goes with the territory.

I apply the laws of the game. But I don't issue cautions when they're not needed.
 
Common sense Padfoot, common sense.

Yes...I'm well aware of what the fictional 'law 18' is supposed to represent.......

However when it comes to a mandatory caution it does not apply. Unless of course you are looking for an excuse not to apply the LOTG correctly?
 
So back to the OP, you think its a red card. I think its reckless but wouldn't caution. The only winner is the beautiful game.
 
No, I'm completely with Jacko, if you've had a game with barely any fouls for 85 minutes and one lad completely accidentally slightly mistimes a challenge in the 86th, no malice intended at all a challenge where he's made a genuine attempt to win the ball but got it quite wrong, gets the player and not the ball, definitely reckless. Are you seriously going to caution him, none of the players want/expect it, it's not needed so why issue it
 
So back to the OP, you think its a red card. I think its reckless but wouldn't caution. The only winner is the beautiful game.

I would be happy with a yellow, could argue for a red.....but cannot accept nothing at all.

And I'm afraid I can't even agree your last point......the beautiful game doesn't win when referees fail to carry out their duties properly.....but as we all know, in order to progress within refereeing you have to forget about principles and the LOTG, and concentrate on keeping the marks up and the right faces happy.
 
No, I'm completely with Jacko, if you've had a game with barely any fouls for 85 minutes and one lad completely accidentally slightly mistimes a challenge in the 86th, no malice intended at all a challenge where he's made a genuine attempt to win the ball but got it quite wrong, gets the player and not the ball, definitely reckless. Are you seriously going to caution him, none of the players want/expect it, it's not needed so why issue it

Because that is what you are there for. To facilitate a game of football within the boundaries of the LOTG......and those laws state unequivocally that a player playing in a reckless manner MUST be cautioned.
Not, may or might, but must be cautioned. So in failing to do so, you are not carrying out your role correctly.
 
I would be happy with a yellow, could argue for a red.....but cannot accept nothing at all.

And I'm afraid I can't even agree your last point......the beautiful game doesn't win when referees fail to carry out their duties properly.....but as we all know, in order to progress within refereeing you have to forget about principles and the LOTG, and concentrate on keeping the marks up and the right faces happy.

We are carrying out our duties. We're using the tools we have to bring the game to a safe conclusion. If it can be managed manage it, if it can't then the cards come out.
 
Because that is what you are there for. To facilitate a game of football within the boundaries of the LOTG......and those laws state unequivocally that a player playing in a reckless manner MUST be cautioned.
Not, may or might, but must be cautioned. So in failing to do so, you are not carrying out your role correctly.


Maybe I feel that I can manage the situation better by giving the player a talking to rather than a caution, it's all situational, think about the game and how it's been up to that point
 
We are carrying out our duties. We're using the tools we have to bring the game to a safe conclusion. If it can be managed manage it, if it can't then the cards come out.

Maybe I feel that I can manage the situation better by giving the player a talking to rather than a caution, it's all situational, think about the game and how it's been up to that point

Ok....last time I'm going to say this.....

A reckless challenge is a mandatory caution......you do not have the option of managing it.......it's there in black and white....it's a caution. Failing to give that caution is not applying the LOTG correctly....therefore you are not carrying out your duty, you are choosing to ignore the LOTG.

No matter how you try and dress up your failure or justify it.....you are still not fulfilling the role you are there to carry out.
You have traded integrity for popularity and made it that much harder for the next referee who comes along and tries to do the job properly.

I understand why you have done this.....because you believe the nonsense that by applying 'law 18' or 'managing' the situation you have become a better referee......you haven't. You have failed in the most basic way possible.....failure to apply the LOTG.

Sorry if that's disagreeable or uncomfortable but when you strip it back to the bare essentials that's what it is.
I know all about the compromises refs have to take in order to progress.....and how that leads to these situations where a basic failure is ignored when it suits.....the difference is that I no longer have to play that particular game, and I can see that by making those compromises we fail the very game that we are supposed to protect.

It still doesn't change the basic fact that reckless challenge is a mandatory caution, and failure to follow that through is a fundamental failure in applying the LOTG.
 
I can't help but agree with padfoot here. Managing the game (or applying law 18) is fine if it is a borderline careless/reckless challenge but when it is a clear reckless challenge do what is expected (by other referees if nobody else ;) ) and give the caution.

It was mentioned above, if you don't caution and try and manage an offence, then an opponent player commits exactly the same type of challenge what are you going to do? Caution for it or another warning to remain consistent? Either way what happens to your credibility and match control? Your either getting called inconsistent or too soft ("we have work on Monday ref! Get a grip!") and worse challenges are to come. (What you don't punish you encourage)

I received a clear briefing when starting to go through the assessment promotion process; if it is a card, give the card. Very simple advice. refs trying to manage games and start applying all sorts of made up leniency into your refereeing in the name of match control are asking for problems and making your games harder for yourselves.
 
Last edited:
I understand why you have done this.....because you believe the nonsense that by applying 'law 18' or 'managing' the situation you have become a better referee......you haven't. You have failed in the most basic way possible.....failure to apply the LOTG.

Sorry if that's disagreeable or uncomfortable but when you strip it back to the bare essentials that's what it is.
I know all about the compromises refs have to take in order to progress.....and how that leads to these situations where a basic failure is ignored when it suits.....the difference is that I no longer have to play that particular game, and I can see that by making those compromises we fail the very game that we are supposed to protect.

It still doesn't change the basic fact that reckless challenge is a mandatory caution, and failure to follow that through is a fundamental failure in applying the LOTG.

You know that we're there for the player's benefit and not the other way around? You talk about protecting "the game", but whose game is it?

It's perfectly possible to apply LotG fully AND be sympathetic to the players and the individual match in question. In reality this normally comes down to where you draw the line between careless/reckless and reckless/dangerous rather than ignoring things that are firmly in the middle of the reckless category.

For me there are two types of "good game". I love walking off the pitch after a game where there've been lots of tough decisions and feeling happy that I nailed every single one. That's a good game. But, when a match is a little more incident free, and there haven't been any tough calls to make, then walking off with 22 happy blokes who've enjoyed their football is a good game too.

This is where respect comes into it, and communication or management is a big part of showing players respect. I had a cracking Intermediate cup game a few weeks back: I made loads of unpopular decisions, refereed according to my idea of careless and reckless, not theirs, but I kept on talking to the players and the skippers all the way through, telling them what I was thinking, and warning them before they made the tackles as well as whistling afterwards. I ended up booking the skipper: he'd left the ground, won the ball cleanly and one footed, but then caught the chap with his follow through. Skipper was livid - it was his best tackle all season - but because I'd been talking all game long he was happy to listen to me tell him it was the follow-through. He still thought it was a shocker, but he got back into position with a smile on his face and no dissent at all. End of the game he comes up to me and says something along the lines of "you've made some bad decisions there ref, I really don't agree with them, but you were talking to us really well all the way through and it made it easy to deal with, well done!". He bought me a pint after, and the assessor loved my cautions (and non-cautions) too.

Games aren't all about us. They really aren't.
 
You have made some great points there refsheff - however, they are not at odds with padfoots view at all. In fact they are complimentary. The best refereeing is marrying both elements together. :D
 
I don't think we're going to agree and I bet if you go to a few games in the country that's non league and football league you'll see a reckless challenge (in your opinion) receive a stern word rather than a caution at some point sooner rather than later.

Earlier in the season I had an incident where I gave a free kick against a centre back early in the game who had gone up for a free kick and gave away a soft foul near the half way line. His opponent tried to take it quick he kicked the back away and his opponent tripped him, all very quick and both received a yellow card.

10 minutes later the player who made the trip but in a reckless challenge on his opponent. I pulled him to one side with the captain pointed to the changing rooms any more and that's where your going. Had nothing from him for the rest of the game and both teams on my side.

After the game the assessor supported me and said he would have done the same.
 
I don't think we're going to agree and I bet if you go to a few games in the country that's non league and football league you'll see a reckless challenge (in your opinion) receive a stern word rather than a caution at some point sooner rather than later.

Earlier in the season I had an incident where I gave a free kick against a centre back early in the game who had gone up for a free kick and gave away a soft foul near the half way line. His opponent tried to take it quick he kicked the back away and his opponent tripped him, all very quick and both received a yellow card.

10 minutes later the player who made the trip but in a reckless challenge on his opponent. I pulled him to one side with the captain pointed to the changing rooms any more and that's where your going. Had nothing from him for the rest of the game and both teams on my side.

After the game the assessor supported me and said he would have done the same.

There is an old saying about 2 wrongs.......

It just means that both and you and the assessor were incorrect in law......but this is why the system is broken, because the assessors don't have the testicular fortitude to penalise referees for it.....
 
There is an old saying about 2 wrongs.......

It just means that both and you and the assessor were incorrect in law......but this is why the system is broken, because the assessors don't have the testicular fortitude to penalise referees for it.....

I disagree, it would have been easy to send the player off. I took the tougher option and kept him on with a rebuke, as it would have been a very soft double yellow in the space of 5 - 10 minutes.

The system isn't broke. It's the way we in this country like our football.
 
I disagree, it would have been easy to send the player off. I took the tougher option and kept him on with a rebuke, as it would have been a very soft double yellow in the space of 5 - 10 minutes.

The system isn't broke. It's the way we in this country like our football.

Dress it up however you like....you still failed in your basic duty of applying the LOTG.

Wonder if both teams would have still felt the same if that player had then gone on to score the winning goal......or broke someone's leg with another poor challenge?

Don't understand why people bother picking up the whistle if they are not prepared to do the job properly......
 
Back
Top