A&H

Second Cautions

Gabriel

Gabriel

Well-Known Member
I have noticed this more and more recently in professional games; why are referees so reluctant to show a second YC to a player? I know football is meant to be 11v11 but a yellow is a yellow. I know I have been guilty of this once, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind cautioning a player about their behaviour and then not following it up with a dismissal when they do it again. Any ideas why it is?
 
The Referee Store
Is it a real reluctance, or just a perception?

There is a prevailing myth or mindset among many in football that a player who has been cautioned *must* be cautioned for a second infraction regardless of what it is.

I don’t ascribe to this at all. Each offence is and should be judged on its own merits and severity and viewed if not quite in isolation, but in the wider context.

Warning a player after a caution that they are close to another is a hugely underrated management tool. They might not get so involved, or they’re “in your pocket” for the remainder of the game.

Or they refuse to listen, charge in again and nobody can argue when they end up being sent off. And those who do argue can be shut down quickly by saying “they were warned.”
 
Tealeaf said:
Is it a real reluctance, or just a perception?
Click to expand...
I agree that some people perceive this incorrectly about second cautions. However, there are some occasions whereby a blatant second bookable offence is not cautioned. These are the occasions I was referring to.
 
es1 said:
Wharton the other week for palace, clear reckless challenge

Havertz dive yesterday

Two that immediately spring to mind
Click to expand...
There we a few in that arsenal game. Havertz and Gabriel both on a booking the

- Havertz dive. There’s no question in my mind that the referee is going to card him and then hesitates
- Gabriel dissent when he thinks he should have a penalty. Runs a good 20 yards to shout in the referees face, accompanied with hand genstures
- Havert delaying the restart. Brentford throw, he picks up the ball off the field, runs onto the field and drops it

In the 96th minute, Brentford centre back is then carded for dissent when appealing the goalkeepers time wasting. Centre back wasn’t on a booking and it’s an easy flash of the card

all for me would have been cautioned had they not already been carded. We also see it week in week out where keepers on a caution continue to time waste, but have we ever seen a second caution to a goalkeeper?

I don’t agree that all second cautions have a reluctance from referees, however I do think there is when it comes to dissent and delaying the restart because they are immediately labelled ‘soft’ or ‘harsh’ by onlookers
 
The havertz one would be a good hypothetical test case for a retrospective punishment discussed on a few previous threads.
 
It probably is a bit like giving a penalty vs a free kick, for most referees the former needs a higher degree of confidence than the latter. Giving a caution isn't on its own a game changing decision, giving a second caution probably is so referees want to be more sure, even if just subconsciously.

Using the Havertz example from yesterday, it is pretty sure that Rob Jones's view was very restricted, he was looking through multiple people, I think he's be guessing to give a caution there.
 
I do think there is sometimes too much reluctance to give the 2CT at the professional level, especially early in a match. And you’ll never see a 2CT for time wasting to a GK for the exact same amount of time wasting as the first one. But I definitely agree with @RustyRef that refs are appropriately going to want more certainty when it is going to result in a send off—especially if the first one was a softer caution. Just as there are softer fouls we may call in the midfield to settle a match or enhance control, there are softer cautions we give when needed for match control—but we don’t give those softer fouls to create PKs and we shouldn’t give those softer cautions as 2CT.
 
Yesterday during Wolves vs Fulham, Tony Harrington bottled at least 3 opportunities to send the same player off for a 2CT, which ultimately resulted in the TA's occupants becoming impatient and several being booked during arguments because Harrington lost control of the bad challenges.
 
Gabriel said:
I have noticed this more and more recently in professional games; why are referees so reluctant to show a second YC to a player? I know football is meant to be 11v11 but a yellow is a yellow. I know I have been guilty of this once, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind cautioning a player about their behaviour and then not following it up with a dismissal when they do it again. Any ideas why it is?
Click to expand...
Can't spoil the spectacle. LOTG are not the emphasis
 
socal lurker said:
I do think there is sometimes too much reluctance to give the 2CT at the professional level, especially early in a match. And you’ll never see a 2CT for time wasting to a GK for the exact same amount of time wasting as the first one. But I definitely agree with @RustyRef that refs are appropriately going to want more certainty when it is going to result in a send off—especially if the first one was a softer caution. Just as there are softer fouls we may call in the midfield to settle a match or enhance control, there are softer cautions we give when needed for match control—but we don’t give those softer fouls to create PKs and we shouldn’t give those softer cautions as 2CT.
Click to expand...
Yesterday a gk was warned for timewasting - first offence. GK did it again - yellow card. Did it a third time - warned (again).

There's definitely a reluctance to issue second warranted yellows league two and upwards.
 
Mentioned earlier here but I would widen the concept.

As referees, rightly or wrongly we exercise a higher degree of cautious when in comes to decisions that have a big impact on the game outcome. That goes the same for penalties , goals, red cards / second yellow, or things that immediately leads up to those.

For example , if a player has been an a55 all game, I would have much less hesitation to give a second yellow to very late in the game with little impact to the game outcome than say in the first half. Or defensive free kicks having a lower threshold than attacking free kicks.

And of course there is always the subconscious self preservation. I make the decision that gives me the least grief.
 
I get this sometimes, where I do the stepped approach, give someone a yellow. If I yellow for repeated fouling, for rapport reasons I inform the player that their warnings has reset etc.

This then leads to the player committing more fouls. Opposition players/coaching team then start getting upset as they perceive the player to already be on their last warning and I'm bottling sending them off.
 
I remember being told the stepped approach is build up to the first yellow, then once they get the yellow, start over.

Obviously excluding reckless and SPA.
 
OldNavyRef said:
I remember being told the stepped approach is build up to the first yellow, then once they get the yellow, start over.

Obviously excluding reckless and SPA.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting the very next offence has to be off, but I wouldn't ever start the stepped process again. That's exactly what it is a stepped approach...
You've had a word in passing, you've publicly b*llocked them, you've shown a yellow card, we're unlikely to repeat any of these steps... what is the the next step?
If they're still offending at this point what does resetting achieve? Except some really (rightly imo) p*d off opposition who are more likely to take the law into their hands instead
 
JamesL said:
I'm not suggesting the very next offence has to be off, but I wouldn't ever start the stepped process again. That's exactly what it is a stepped approach...
You've had a word in passing, you've publicly b*llocked them, you've shown a yellow card, we're unlikely to repeat any of these steps... what is the the next step?
If they're still offending at this point what does resetting achieve? Except some really (rightly imo) p*d off opposition who are more likely to take the law into their hands instead
Click to expand...
Definitely a common sense approach. But I am learning.

So I usually reset it in my head and inform the player, that once I issue the card we start over. Normally because fouling is part of some players game. But my games are different from yours.

I tend to focus on rapport. Also nobody typically wants to see reds at my level, so if I can prevent soft reds, I try my best to.

(not shying away from them entirely and I did recently issue a second yellow for a SPA which went down terribly).
 
Agree with @JamesL the caution is supposed to tell them to stop the behavior. That’s the message you want to send—not that they have a fresh start and can ahead and take cheap shots. (I also agree with James that doesn’t mean the next foul is a send off—but it should get a stern message that the player is already on a caution and playing with fire.
 
When I issue a caution, as part of my warning I make it very clear that that is what it is. I am not embarassed to say I once sent an 11 year old off for 2 yellows in less than 2 minutes. I used the stepped approach, and then after the yellow they committed the most obvious SPA offence possible. They'd already started walking. This is the way it should be.
 
OldNavyRef said:
Definitely a common sense approach. But I am learning.
Click to expand...
Yes, and my post was intended to be supportive and guide you away from what is potentially really poor advice you've had elsewhere.
Even if you are doing it in your head (I don't agree but for arguments sake), don't tell the player. Asking for trouble if you ask me. 👍🏻
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top