Wolves vs Arsenal

[Ryanj91]

And he's right, it is. He doesn't say he wants to see every tiny moan cautioned. He goes on to say:

"When you see Premier League players shouting and swearing in the face of a referee go unpunished it is infuriating."

It's absolutely clear that what Ryan doesn't like is blatant, serious dissent going unpunished. He doesn't say or imply that he is "certain that all dissent MUST be cautioned".

Exactly this. Bad tackle, yellow card, players surrounding referee, player being cautioned is in the referee's face, raging, clearly swearing and calling him names (possibly even red card) and the referee, usually 99% of the time, doesn't bother doing anything about it. This should be a classic double yellow.

What I find interesting is admin here and others have essentially agreed its down to TV broadcasting etc or paying fans as to why certain yellows aren't given or players aren't sent off (Kane v Robertson for example) all to keep 11 v 11.

Another curveball. So are we OK with 'cheating' and manipulation of the game to benefit certain 'big teams' just to allow big teams to continue to have 11 on the pitch?

There is one member who is a city fan who gets ridiculed about his views. Well what if his 'conspiracy' is right?

Probably just opening a can of worms here , but if you allow some aspects of 'cheating'/rule bending (however you see it) for TV purposes, there probably is more higher up?

To clarify, I do not disagree with the decision in this game, nor do I think Oliver is cheating.

 

[RustyRef]

Exactly this. Bad tackle, yellow card, players surrounding referee, player being cautioned is in the referee's face, raging, clearly swearing and calling him names (possibly even red card) and the referee, usually 99% of the time, doesn't bother doing anything about it. This should be a classic double yellow.

What I find interesting is admin here and others have essentially agreed its down to TV broadcasting etc or paying fans as to why certain yellows aren't given or players aren't sent off (Kane v Robertson for example) all to keep 11 v 11.

Another curveball. So are we OK with 'cheating' and manipulation of the game to benefit certain 'big teams' just to allow big teams to continue to have 11 on the pitch?

There is one member who is a city fan who gets ridiculed about his views. Well what if his 'conspiracy' is right?

Probably just opening a can of worms here , but if you allow some aspects of 'cheating'/rule bending (however you see it) for TV purposes, there probably is more higher up?

To clarify, I do not disagree with the decision in this game, nor do I think Oliver is cheating.

It isn't about big teams vs small teams, and I would argue that some of the so called smaller EPL teams are worse than the bigger clubs when it comes to dissent.

As has been said many times before, you are doing more than refereeing a game of football at that level, you are managing an event. No one is going to thank you for "ruining the game" when you send a player off after 5 minutes because he swears at you. It would need a concerted effort across all top level referees Worldwide, and that isn't going to happen for the reasons I've said before.

I've mentioned this before as well, but a L3 in the South East area who had been at that level a long time, decided that he was fed up at getting moaned at and adopted a zero tolerance approach. He had loads of cautions for dissent and reds for OFFINABUS, was demoted that season and then got immediately demoted from L4. And that wasn't just club marks, observers were also hammering him because they didn't see any attempts to manage games and situations, the cards just came out. If it is very obvious dissent or OFFINABUS you will probably get backed, but when few or no people have heard it you are surprising everyone and that is never going to end well. Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, will kill your club marks than dissent cautions where you haven't tried to manage it, well apart from an OFFINABUS red card that wasn't for very, very public and extreme language. And I would say that the "managing the event rather than a game" starts in England when you get to L3, that's when almost all players are semi-pro and the attendances start to ramp up, it isn't just in the professional game.

And when you get onto live TV games the pressure ramps up even further (and remember every EPL game is broadcasted live, just not shown in the UK). As for that matter are most EFL games since iFollow came in. Can you imagine if Michael Oliver sends off Harry Kane for a comment that only he hears, OK as referees we might understand it, but the general football supporter base would go into meltdown.

 

[Trip]

Rusty, not every referee is looking to get to L3, or is worried about their club marks. Some of us just enjoy refereeing at grassroots and would like that to be as pleasant an experience as possible.

I totally understand why referees at higher levels do things differently. I also understand why some grassroots referees are infuriated by the impression that gives to grassroots players who watch on TV.

 

[RustyRef]

Rusty, not every referee is looking to get to L3, or is worried about their club marks. Some of us just enjoy refereeing at grassroots and would like that to be as pleasant an experience as possible.

I completely understand that, but the post I responded to was around why cards aren't shown at the top level.

 

[Mooseybaby]

I get the whole "it's a show" thing at highest levels, however as a paying customer, I want to watch a game, not see players get away with blatant timewasting and mouthing off at officials. It's the inconsistency of the application of the law around dissent at highest levels that really winds me up (which makes it much harder for grassroots refs). 99% of the time it's ignored, today Lingard got a (deserved) yellow for mouthing off about a late foul near half way, and yet guaranteed next week someone will be flagged offside, give the AR a mouthful and kick the ball 50 yards down the pitch and the referee will do absolutely nothing!

 

[Russell Jones]

Law defines dissent as “publicly disagreeing with the referees decision”

Seeing as you’re so certain that all dissent MUST be cautioned, are you cautioning every player that disagrees with your decisions?

“Ref, that’s never a foul!”
Are you managing that or cautioning?

Will, not all disagreement with an official's decision is "public". That's why (mild) verbal disagreement is often easier / better managed rather than cautioned. Whereas non verbal (sarcastic clapping, kicking ball away, slamming ball on the ground in frustration etc) is a much easier 'sell' for a caution to all concerned.

I actually think it's really important that we as officials differentiate between the disagreement that can and should be dealt with through a stepped approach and dissent which by law definition is cautionable, in the same way as a reckless challenge is ... now, where things tip over from Careless to Reckless or disagreement to Dissent is very much 'in the opinion of the referee'. But let's not talk about 'managing dissent' as that unhelpfully muddies things

 

[one]

I think the problem many grassroot referees have is that most top flight or higher level referees just manage a disagreement despite knowing it is very much so in the dissent realm, public and all. Then just justify it by saying it wasn't public, or it wasn't at dissent level which everyone knows it's just a cop out. It just makes it so much harder for the lower level lesser experienced grassroot referees in their games. On top of that it contributes to the current poor culture that blames referees for everything.

 

[Big Cat]

zero tolerance approach

Well, yeh, that's always gonna be a disaster. Even being averagely sensitive to dissent is not gonna work cos you'll stick out like a belisha beacan
But I don't care what level I'm at, I'm not gonna shove dissent under someone else's carpet to protect my marks