Verbal offences whilst ball is in play

[wazztie16]

Do you think, if referees started giving IDFK and cards for players committing verbal offences whilst ball in play, would the abuse by players stop?

This would, imo, show that the referee has a greater understanding of that part of law than the players likely will, and once teams start getting a few players in the sin bin or sent off, they would change their ways?

Would that go against refs at level 4?

Just curious to know, as I've given a sin bin before whilst level 7 for a verbal offence whilst ball was in play.

Thoughts please.

 

[GraemeS]

Define "verbal offences"? Are we talking dissent/OFFINABUS, verbally distracting or something else?

If we're saying dissent then sure - but it needs to be planned and backed up by the authorities up and down the pyramid. A ref going on a one-man campaign to stamp out dissent isn't going to do much other than have a bad time every week as players are surprised by a harsher stance than they are used to.

One of the weird patterns I've notice with a number of non-playing offences (including dissent) is that they often come in twos. Players will see you punish dissent and assume that it's you trying to show how tough you are, and that they can now do what they want. It's only when the second card comes out that they realise you're setting your bar there for the entire game and start playing ball.

Having said all that, I think the fear of club marks dropping is overblown. Nothing annoys an otherwise-reasonable team more than opponents getting away with poor behaviour. Teams that don't like refs will mark you poorly regardless of what you do. Teams that are more sympathetic to refs will generally mark you pretty well and be ok with a few decision going against them unless you're letting their opponents consistently dissent your decisions or kick their players up in the air. If you're worried about club marks, it's always better to be a little stricter than it is looser in my experience.

 

[JamesL]

I don't understand the question really.

If dissent is committed with ball in play then the restart is idfk. Have done this myself this season.

You have to consider who the idfk benefits though and who has the ball and where the ball is Vs where the idfk would then be from and also how serious the dissent is.

2nd @GraemeS - not dealing with dissent will lead to poor marks from both. Were being told that clubs are actually complaining referees aren't dealing with their own teams nevermind opposition players.

 

[wazztie16]

More so dissent/offinabus than distraction, but let's bring distraction into it as well...

I've given for that (albeit in u15, player in wall shouted something VERY LOUD, so loud that even the benches heard it clearly and agreed with my decision, as ball being kicked at a fk just outside the penalty area, meant the next fk was 10 yards forward).

I agree that going rogue won't bring any benefits to the referee, it needs to come from above. I just don't think it could be that difficult to send out an email etc to all current referees outlining the current law surrounding verbal offences, and ask referees to do their best to familiarise themselves as much as possible with it (main issue being location of restart imo).

Good point re club marks, you really do have to be careful sometimes.

But I genuinely think this could be a great way of cutting down on dissent etc.

 

[wazztie16]

I don't understand the question really.

If dissent is committed with ball in play then the restart is idfk. Have done this myself this season.

You have to consider who the idfk benefits though and who has the ball and where the ball is Vs where the idfk would then be from and also how serious the dissent is.

2nd @GraemeS - not dealing with dissent will lead to poor marks from both. Were being told that clubs are actually complaining referees aren't dealing with their own teams nevermind opposition players.

I appreciate there is a lot to consider, it would likely make the job more tiring for referees.

Maybe a slight delay to see if there's an advantage and if so, deal with it at the next stoppage (I'd need to go back and check law to see if that's an option, can't recall ottomh), or a slight delay to wait for a neutral area to stop play?

Is there any way I can help you understand the question better?

 

[JamesL]

I appreciate there is a lot to consider, it would likely make the job more tiring for referees.

Maybe a slight delay to see if there's an advantage and if so, deal with it at the next stoppage (I'd need to go back and check law to see if that's an option, can't recall ottomh), or a slight delay to wait for a neutral area to stop play?

Is there any way I can help you understand the question better?

Advantage can be applied where any offence occurs with the ball in play.

I just don't really understand why you are suggesting it? AFAIK referees are using it, at least I am. It's there as an option. If a verbal offence is committed with the ball in play, then, it no advantage acn be applied it's an idfk where the offence occurs.

You're post sounds like you're pioneering a new concept but its one thats been around a long time.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

More so dissent/offinabus than distraction, but let's bring distraction into it as well...

I've given for that (albeit in u15, player in wall shouted something VERY LOUD, so loud that even the benches heard it clearly and agreed with my decision, as ball being kicked at a fk just outside the penalty area, meant the next fk was 10 yards forward).

I agree that going rogue won't bring any benefits to the referee, it needs to come from above. I just don't think it could be that difficult to send out an email etc to all current referees outlining the current law surrounding verbal offences, and ask referees to do their best to familiarise themselves as much as possible with it (main issue being location of restart imo).

Good point re club marks, you really do have to be careful sometimes.

But I genuinely think this could be a great way of cutting down on dissent etc.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Sending out a message reminding referees to do their job sadly won't work, as the acceptance of dissent (and worse) continues to grow.
Referees and observers in my local Step 5/6 league have been told that failure to do something about it will result in a developmental comment from the observer, and a mark adjustment in most instances - but on Sunday morning the referee at Dog and Duck reserves v Red Lion will totally ignore dissent and will ignore OFFINABUS also.

 

[wazztie16]

Advantage can be applied where any offence occurs with the ball in play.

I just don't really understand why you are suggesting it? AFAIK referees are using it, at least I am. It's there as an option. If a verbal offence is committed with the ball in play, then, it no advantage acn be applied it's an idfk where the offence occurs.

You're post sounds like you're pioneering a new concept but its one thats been around a long time.

I'm not trying to pioneer a new concept, more say 'if more referees used the law, would it result in less abuse in games from players'?

From the games I've watched, and been AR on, I'm genuinely struggling to remember a time I've seen another referee punish it, and that probably covers at least 60 games.

I'm talking about a single referee punishing it practically every game they do, I guess, as I know in every game I have, there's at least one opportunity for it.

 

[RustyRef]

Dissent usually happens after a decision has been made, or hasn't been made. For the former, play is stopped so the issuing of a caution doesn't need a whistle and an IDFK restart. When it happens with the ball in play the likelihood it is in relation to a decision that has gone against the offending player or their team, and in the majority of cases the opposition will now be in possession so stopping play to issue a caution would benefit the offender's team. Much better to wait for the ball to go out of play and then come back and caution.

I've stopped play to caution for dissent several times, but only when it has damaged the offending player's team. One example was I didn't give a foul for a midfielder but the ball broke to his team mate. As the midfielder got up and ran past me he screamed in my face so I stopped play to caution him, just as a cross was put into the box that was headed into the goal after I'd blown the whistle. They went ballistic, but his dissent was so public and obvious no one was in any doubt as to why I had stopped the play. Had it been more of a quiet word in my ear, and I'd taken the same course of action. I suspect my match control would have been severely challenged as no one would have understood the reason for stopping play.