Dissent and maintaining authority

[Jacob M]

I had a Men's Sunday League game yesterday, between 2 bottom teams of bottom division, (Orange v Yellow (who only had 10 men), 3-0 to Orange after 87 minutes with no previous incidents.

Yellow corner, Orange CB holding Yellow player by the arm with both hands, preventing him from jumping for the header. I had a clear uninterrupted view and gave the penalty, much to the apparent bemusement of everyone. The Orange captain asked what I had given it for, as even the yellows hadn't appealed. Whilst I was explaining the decision, Orange no. 6 shouts at his captain "Leave him X, he just wants to feel relevant" I called him over and cautioned him for dissent, again to the bemusement of everyone apart from me.

Yellow scored the penalty, game ended 3-1, with no further incidents. However I felt that any authority or respect I had built up over the previous 87 minutes had evaporated within that 30 seconds. What made matters worse was the yellows calling for me to get on with the game because they "didn't want to miss the start of the United game." Would you say I was too hasty with the card, and do you have any tips for maintaining authority in a situation like this?

 

[DB]

Sounds like you handled it properly mate.

 

[Kes]

Yellow scored the penalty, game ended 3-1, with no further incidents. However I felt that any authority or respect I had built up over the previous 87 minutes had evaporated within that 30 seconds. What made matters worse was the yellows calling for me to get on with the game because they "didn't want to miss the start of the United game." Would you say I was too hasty with the card, and do you have any tips for maintaining authority in a situation like this?

Based on what you've written Jacob, it sounds to me like you got it spot on. Well done mate.
There are some referees who'd have stretched that yellow card to a red one for what Orange No 6 said about you. It was certainly insulting, and was designed for you to hear it.
That's the trouble with grass roots football, it can all go to ratsh** in the last minute, make you feel like crap and there's not a blind thing you can do about it because it's the players themselves that caused it. Forget it and them.

 

[Padfoot]

Can't see anything wrong with a caution for that.

Well done.

 

[lincs22]

Perfectly right for the caution.

If they had been more concerned on their match than the MU match, they may not have had the caution.

 

[McTavish]

Would you say I was too hasty with the card, and do you have any tips for maintaining authority in a situation like this?

I think the second part of the question is more interesting and hasn't really been addressed yet. Jacob has, as we all agree, applied the LOTG 100% correctly but because he has given two decisions which none of the players was expecting, his match control has become very difficult.

Fortunately this has happened in the 87th minute rather than the 7th so not too difficult to get through to the end but I have had similar situations where I have given decisions which players find incomprehensible and it has made the game much more challenging than it should have been.

A good example is that I recently gave an IFK for playing in a dangerous manner against a player who stooped very low to head a ball forcing his opponent to pull out of the challenge to avoid kicking him in the head. There were the inevitable calls of "high foot" and astonishment on both sides when I gave the kick against the player going for the header. I was 100% right in law but my game would have been easier if I had either ignored the incident or given the IFK to the player heading the ball. This was early in the second half and for the rest of the game there was a general reaction against many of my decisions - nothing that could really be called dissent but a general level of disgruntlement as if by that one decision, which the players all felt (incorrectly) was wrong, I had shown that I was a terrible referee.

I have a thick skin and just got on with the game (although did book one player for his failure to keep his thoughts to himself) but I would be interested in other referees' experience of this and if they have any advice or techniques for dealing with this sort of thing.

 

[Russell Jones]

You're absolutely spot on @McTavish , by far the most problematic decisions are the ones that no one else but the referee expects / understands. The only technique I've found useful on a couple of occasions is to call BOTH captains together to briefly help them understand what's going on. This had two benefits ... firstly it slowed the game down and avoided further clashes with tempers raised and secondly, where the captains actually listened to the explanation they at least understood my thought process even if not entirely agreeing with it!

Obviously the easier route would be simply to give only what the players expect / appeal for. But I don't think either you or I are that way inclined

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I was 100% right in law but my game would have been easier if I had either ignored the incident or given the IFK to the player heading the ball..

That's why you're the one person who's been paid to read the laws - because you know the correct answer when nobody else does. The correct decision can be the unpopular one or the one that both teams have no clue about. And part of the skill of refereeing is being able to sell the decision that nobody wants or understands. Award the penalty for the offence behind play that nobody saw. So on and so forth. Not justifying the easy, incorrect one.

 

[Ryan Owens]

Don't forget that, when considering whether an action is dissenting or not, you do have some leeway. In this case, a public rebuking for his comment may have sufficed and helped maintain match control. Explain to the defender what the pen was given for, call the player #6 over to you, give him a bollocking about how you were explaining the call to the other fella and his two cents aren't needed, tell him to go away and carry on. Ultimately, you weren't incorrect to caution, but was it the best solution to the problem at hand?

@MacTavish your story seems like it would have benefited from a brief explanation to the player and his captain why the decision was made. Did you speak to anyone?

 

[McTavish]

@MacTavish your story seems like it would have benefited from a brief explanation to the player and his captain why the decision was made. Did you speak to anyone?

Of course I explained myself. The conversation went something like this:
Blue team in unison: "High boot, ref!"
Me: "Peeeep! Indirect free kick to red - dangerous play."
Blue player: "No ref, it's the other way. It was them that had the high boot."
Me: "The kick is for playing in a dangerous manner, because your player was trying to head it so low down he was putting himself in danger."
Blue Player: "But it's high boot ref, you have to give it to us!"
Me: "His foot was in a perfectly safe place, your player has put himself in danger and prevented red from safely playing the ball so it is an indirect free kick to red."
Blue Player: "It was high boot ref, you can't give a free kick against us for trying to head the ball!"
Me: "Yes I can, now let's get on with he game. Kick to reds."
Blue Player: "But it was high boot ref. Their player almost kicked him in the head"
Me: "Exactly - because his head was so low. Let's go."
Blue Player: "But it was high boot ref..."

From then on there were little comments, huffs, tuts which I tried to either ignore or deal with. I booked one player for dissent after he had sarcastically said for the third time "so I was OK to head that one was I ref?" when making unopposed headers- I had previously told him to keep it to himself and told his captain to tell him to keep it to himself.

Now I know I was right, I confidently explained myself but neither team could really cope with the concept that putting your head in the exact spot that someone is preparing to kick might be considered dangerous and so this undermined, in their minds, lots of my other decisions.

I would make exactly the same decision if the situation arose again and I dealt with the low level muttering and one player's dissent but the game was less enjoyable for me and probably for the players because of my decision. I am not sure what else I could do...

 

[Monotone Whistle]

It's funny, but when I've been AR to some senior referees, as part of the pre-match instructions they have always said that on penalty decisions there has to be an appeal first.....

Discuss.

 

[Jack M]

It's funny, but when I've been AR to some senior referees, as part of the pre-match instructions they have always said that on penalty decisions there has to be an appeal first.....

Discuss.

I have heard that as well. It is probably to ensure the game runs smoothly without players constantly getting confused. Because it is a KMD, most refs I have been out with have always maintained that if there are no appeals, no penalty

 

[Padfoot]

It's called 'refereeing for club marks'!

Basically it's about no surprises....even if you see an obvious infringement, if no one else sees it, then don't give it. Otherwise players/management won't understand why you've given it, and may adversely affect your match control and subsequently your club marks.

 

[Kes]

Fortunately this has happened in the 87th minute rather than the 7th so not too difficult to get through to the end but I have had similar situations where I have given decisions which players find incomprehensible and it has made the game much more challenging than it should have been.

A good example is that I recently gave an IFK for playing in a dangerous manner against a player who stooped very low to head a ball forcing his opponent to pull out of the challenge to avoid kicking him in the head. There were the inevitable calls of "high foot" and astonishment on both sides when I gave the kick against the player going for the header. I was 100% right in law but my game would have been easier if I had either ignored the incident or given the IFK to the player heading the ball. This was early in the second half and for the rest of the game there was a general reaction against many of my decisions - nothing that could really be called dissent but a general level of disgruntlement as if by that one decision, which the players all felt (incorrectly) was wrong, I had shown that I was a terrible referee.

I have a thick skin and just got on with the game (although did book one player for his failure to keep his thoughts to himself) but I would be interested in other referees' experience of this and if they have any advice or techniques for dealing with this sort of thing.

Totally agree. Good post.
The above is what also (in my own opinion of course) makes a complete mockery of the "club marks" system.
Player ignorance is the single most contributory factor to the ruination of a grass roots match in my experience so far. Having ability in your feet, doesn't necessarily mean you have anything "up top".

Edit: Sorry, didn't realise Padders had beaten me to my first point.

 

[Kes]

Of course I explained myself. The conversation went something like this:
Blue team in unison: "High boot, ref!"
Me: "Peeeep! Indirect free kick to red - dangerous play."
Blue player: "No ref, it's the other way. It was them that had the high boot."
Me: "The kick is for playing in a dangerous manner, because your player was trying to head it so low down he was putting himself in danger."
Blue Player: "But it's high boot ref, you have to give it to us!"
Me: "His foot was in a perfectly safe place, your player has put himself in danger and prevented red from safely playing the ball so it is an indirect free kick to red."
Blue Player: "It was high boot ref, you can't give a free kick against us for trying to head the ball!"
Me: "Yes I can, now let's get on with he game. Kick to reds."
Blue Player: "But it was high boot ref. There player almost kicked him in the head"
Me: "Exactly - because his head was so low. Let's go."
Blue Player: "But it was high boot ref..."
...

Yep.
It can make you feel like saying "okay gents - you win, here's the whistle, crack on, come and get me when you've finished...."

The other favourite is "But how is that not a red ref? he was the last man".
Ref: "A caution only gents, we're just past the half way line, no obvious goalscoring opportunity there".
"But that's not right ref, their defender was the LAST MAN!!"..... etc etc.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Yep.
It can make you feel like saying "okay gents - you win, here's the whistle, crack on, come and get me when you've finished...."

The other favourite is "But how is that not a red ref? he was the last man".
Ref: "A caution only gents, we're just past the half way line, no obvious goalscoring opportunity there".
"But that's not right ref, their defender was the LAST MAN!!"..... etc etc.

Fulham v Middlesbrough at weekend, Stearman commits a foul in his own half and the referee decided it was DOGSO. Talk Sport reporter said, and I quote "The referee has been left with no choice there as despite being in his own half he was still the LAST MAN and by the laws of the game he has to go" !!!!!!

 

[Joshrowe6019]

I had a Men's Sunday League game yesterday, between 2 bottom teams of bottom division, (Orange v Yellow (who only had 10 men), 3-0 to Orange after 87 minutes with no previous incidents.

Yellow corner, Orange CB holding Yellow player by the arm with both hands, preventing him from jumping for the header. I had a clear uninterrupted view and gave the penalty, much to the apparent bemusement of everyone. The Orange captain asked what I had given it for, as even the yellows hadn't appealed. Whilst I was explaining the decision, Orange no. 6 shouts at his captain "Leave him X, he just wants to feel relevant" I called him over and cautioned him for dissent, again to the bemusement of everyone apart from me.

Yellow scored the penalty, game ended 3-1, with no further incidents. However I felt that any authority or respect I had built up over the previous 87 minutes had evaporated within that 30 seconds. What made matters worse was the yellows calling for me to get on with the game because they "didn't want to miss the start of the United game." Would you say I was too hasty with the card, and do you have any tips for maintaining authority in a situation like this?

Sounds like you handled it well!
I had the same on sunday one player Constantly asking how long had been played and could we cut short the first half as he wanted to get away and watch the Cup Final,I told him to get subbed off if he really wanted to get away and watch it as i was not going to cut anything short etc,10 mins into the second half he gets subbed off.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I disagree on the caution. If your first incident is 87 minutes in and one numpty shoots his mouth off, I'd have brought the captain in and got him to tear a strip of gobby. It's not a mandatory, it's very much IOOTR and I'd have managed it.

/lightsbluetouchpaperandretirestohisdeckchairwithpopcorn

 

[Padfoot]

I disagree on the caution. If your first incident is 87 minutes in and one numpty shoots his mouth off, I'd have brought the captain in and got him to tear a strip of gobby. It's not a mandatory, it's very much IOOTR and I'd have managed it.

/lightsbluetouchpaperandretirestohisdeckchairwithpopcorn

Going to disappoint you here.....

I couldn't argue against that approach......if it's been a tame match with no other cards then you could get away with a bollocking for that particular comment.

Likewise, I wouldn't argue against a caution either.

 

[DB]

Oh Padders you do make me wonder....