EFL OFFINABUS

[Russell Jones]

For clarity, do you agree with what they do in the EFL or not?

Would you tolerate being told to F Off 3 times when you run the line? Are you part of the problem?

I agree with the approach that punishing non verbal disagreement is more important and more sellable. I agree with the mindset that football at the higher levels should prioritise the overall spectacle rather than the sensitivities of the officials. But I’m also delighted that we’re seeing a slow but steady increase in the clampdown on obviously disrespectful / unsporting behaviour. As well as being saddened that the lot of grassroots referees is made a (little) harder by some of the examples from the higher levels. In other words, it’s a complex issue and I don’t think that oversimplifying it is helpful.

Were that to be said to me, I’d be likely to pass on that information to the referee .. the more it was accompanied by obviously dissentful body language, the stronger my advice to the referee would be. But at the end of the day, if he chose not to act on the information, I’d be totally fine with that. I’d have done my job. And if I’d already seen / heard the referee ignoring similar comments in his / her direction, I’d be less likely to mention it, as it’s my role to adjust to their tolerance level.

 

[Gabriel]

As much as I would prefer a card in this situation, my opinion has actually changed re-reading this thread. In almost all examples of dissent shown to referees on courses, there is a very obvious, non verbal element (usually throwing the ball in a tantrum).

I can’t actually think of one case where I have cautioned for dissent and it was solely for the words used, bar one where I went red for OFFINABUS, but that was extremely different as the language used hit just about every hate crime possible.

I think it was managed appropriately in this situation. As others have pointed out, in reality if this happens in a game, we probably won’t notice unless the AR calls us over to tell us. The AR didn’t do that here, so there wasn’t a need for intervention.

Probably throwing myself to the wolves here, but:
Does something need to change higher up? Probably. Was it managed appropriately under the current guidelines? 100%

 

[Runner Ref]

As a referee tutor, this is part of what we are guided to instruct new starters. As someone who runs the promotion scheme in my county, it’s how I guide the promotion candidates. It’s clearly mirrored in the advice being given by the FA to Level 3’s and Level 4’s. And it’s most definitely been the prevailing wisdom within PGMOL circles over the last few seasons. And to me, it’s almost a truism that non verbal disagreement is almost always obvious (and therefore dissent) versus verbal disagreement which may or may not be. You may choose to take a different approach in your own games .. entirely your prerogative .. but it’s most definitely a theme that currently runs through the training of referees at all levels.

So referee courses are guiding referees to ignore dissent and/or abuse?

 

[RustyRef]

So referee courses are guiding referees to ignore dissent and/or abuse?

That absolutely is not what @Russell Jones said, you are twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I would never back a referee who ignores dissent / abuse, just as I wouldn't back a referee who flashes cards around as soon as someone has any disagreement with decisions. I would want to see them acknowledge and deal with it in some way or another, that doesn't necessarily mean with a card, but they absolutely cannot ignore it. That's been the teaching in refereeing for as far as I can remember, as has that the more loud and public the protestations are the more you have to deal with them. Take the unfortunately placed microphone away in this scenario and it wasn't loud, wasn't really public, and there weren't any gestures to escalate the offence.

And bear in mind I'm a Wednesday fan so for me to say that a United player shouldn't be sent off means I REALLY think he shouldn't be sent off

 

[Paul_10]

If he said it once then maybe you can let it slide but the fact he says it 3 times AT the assistant is surely dissent at the very least. There is many good lip readers out there so even if the mics didn't pick it up, someone would of.

It's kinda sad to read referees who may want to be firm and clamp down on it could cost them progression up the ladder.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

This thread has been a bit derailed by discussions about blaming this SPECIFIC AR - which I don't do in my OP.

My point is this is yet ANOTHER clear example of this behaviour being ignored. @RustyRef is right that this comes from the top and will only change if that messaging changes, but most people here DO agree it's unacceptable and is making the lives of the vast majority of referees harder for the sake of a couple of hundred.

 

[Runner Ref]

That absolutely is not what @Russell Jones said, you are twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I would never back a referee who ignores dissent / abuse, just as I wouldn't back a referee who flashes cards around as soon as someone has any disagreement with decisions. I would want to see them acknowledge and deal with it in some way or another, that doesn't necessarily mean with a card, but they absolutely cannot ignore it. That's been the teaching in refereeing for as far as I can remember, as has that the more loud and public the protestations are the more you have to deal with them. Take the unfortunately placed microphone away in this scenario and it wasn't loud, wasn't really public, and there weren't any gestures to escalate the offence.

And bear in mind I'm a Wednesday fan so for me to say that a United player shouldn't be sent off means I REALLY think he shouldn't be sent off

Sorry, I forgot we aren’t allowed to disagree with you on here.

Rustys way or the highway

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Sorry, I forgot we aren’t allowed to disagree with you on here.

Rustys way or the highway

As a tutor, and having re-read the @Russell Jones post to which you referred, he made the point that when teaching on the initial course and when working with promotion candidates the guidance is for them to deal with dissent or unacceptable language in accordance with the laws of the game, the opposite of your version in #83.

 

[Runner Ref]

As a tutor, and having re-read the @Russell Jones post to which you referred, he made the point that when teaching on the initial course and when working with promotion candidates the guidance is for them to deal with dissent or unacceptable language in accordance with the laws of the game, the opposite of your version in #83.

Which is not what happened in the OP. Dissent and/or OFFINABUS was quite clearly ignored.

But Russell and others have stated that the higher echelons are basically told to ignore this, in fear of upsetting people

 

[RustyRef]

Sorry, I forgot we aren’t allowed to disagree with you on here.

Rustys way or the highway

I've said you need to stop misquoting things and spouting nonsense, not that you can't disagree with me. Those two things are very different and mutually exclusive.

You've just done it again, saying that @Russell Jones said referees ignore it for fear of upsetting people. Yet the first use of the words upset or upsetting in this topic were guess what, by you in post #89.

 

[Runner Ref]

I've said you need to stop misquoting things and spouting nonsense, not that you can't disagree with me. Those two things are very different and mutually exclusive.

You've just done it again, saying that @Russell Jones said referees ignore it for fear of upsetting people. Yet the first use of the words upset or upsetting in this topic were guess what, by you in post #89.

I was the first one to literally use the word upset, yes. But look at post 59. Here it is inferred. And if it wasn’t inferred, what does imagining the response of the footballing world mean?

I also asked what the below means. What exactly are they guided to instruct new starters?

As a referee tutor, this is part of what we are guided to instruct new starters. As someone who runs the promotion scheme in my county, it’s how I guide the promotion candidates. It’s clearly mirrored in the advice being given by the FA to Level 3’s and Level 4’s.

 

[RustyRef]

I was the first one to literally use the word upset, yes. But look at post 59. Here it is inferred. And if it wasn’t inferred, what does imagining the response of the footballing world mean?

I also asked what the below means. What exactly are they guided to instruct new starters?

As a referee tutor, this is part of what we are guided to instruct new starters. As someone who runs the promotion scheme in my county, it’s how I guide the promotion candidates. It’s clearly mirrored in the advice being given by the FA to Level 3’s and Level 4’s.

I didn't say it isn't what is instructed, I said that he didn't say it was to avoid upsetting people, you just made that bit up.

You aren't a Sun journalist for your day job are you?

 

[Runner Ref]

I didn't say it isn't what is instructed, I said that he didn't say it was to avoid upsetting people, you just made that bit up.

You aren't a Sun journalist for your day job are you?

So if it’s not about upsetting people, what does post 59 mean?

No, I’m Dale Johnson. Your normally love quoting me when it suits.

 

[RustyRef]

So if it’s not about upsetting people, what does post 59 mean?

No, I’m Dale Johnson. Your normally love quoting me when it suits.

More that it would surprise people and cause confusion rather than upset them.

We'll let @Russell Jones clarify what it meant, he after all posted it. If he comes back and says it was to avoid upsetting people then I will admit I was wrong.

 

[Runner Ref]

More that it would surprise people and cause confusion rather than upset them.

We'll let @Russell Jones clarify what it meant, he after all posted it. If he comes back and says it was to avoid upsetting people then I will admit I was wrong.

So we don’t sanction something as it would surprise people and cause confusion? Much like the Crystal Palace disallowed goal did?

 

[Kent Ref]

More that it would surprise people and cause confusion rather than upset them.

We'll let @Russell Jones clarify what it meant, he after all posted it. If he comes back and says it was to avoid upsetting people then I will admit I was wrong.

I admit i took the posting of @Russell Jones exactly as RR did.

 

[Kent Ref]

That absolutely is not what @Russell Jones said, you are twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I would never back a referee who ignores dissent / abuse, just as I wouldn't back a referee who flashes cards around as soon as someone has any disagreement with decisions. I would want to see them acknowledge and deal with it in some way or another, that doesn't necessarily mean with a card, but they absolutely cannot ignore it. That's been the teaching in refereeing for as far as I can remember, as has that the more loud and public the protestations are the more you have to deal with them. Take the unfortunately placed microphone away in this scenario and it wasn't loud, wasn't really public, and there weren't any gestures to escalate the offence.

And bear in mind I'm a Wednesday fan so for me to say that a United player shouldn't be sent off means I REALLY think he shouldn't be sent off

Why don't your ever clearly disagree with our elite colleagues? If you think this asst got it wrong say it. But i think you said you'd tell him to "get on with it" as a maximum punishment.

This assistant is clearly of the mindset that he hears nothing for 90 minutes.

But what does he does when he hears racist language in a game? Does he ignore that and say nothing? No - he reports it to the referee. After all the PGMOL / FA this that's a lot more important.

Double standards?

 

[RustyRef]

Why don't your ever clearly disagree with our elite colleagues? If you think this asst got it wrong say it. But i think you said you'd tell him to "get on with it" as a maximum punishment.

This assistant is clearly of the mindset that he hears nothing for 90 minutes.

But what does he does when he hears racist language in a game? Does he ignore that and say nothing? No - he reports it to the referee. After all the PGMOL / FA this that's a lot more important.

Double standards?

I'm not even going to begin to describe why comparing a racist comment to someone using a mild swear word to an assistant referee is wrong on so many levels. If you can't see that I have concerns for your priorities.