Question of impartial ...

[Charlie Jones]

Got one from my game yesterday and it got me thinking ... game was pink v blue - pink player make a passing comment of 'have you got a blue shirt under your top?!'

now, it was said once and I didn't quite catch the player (had a good mind who it was, but not certain) he then says it 10-15 minutes later and I catch him. I pulled him in with the captain and explained that I hadn't seen quite see it was him the first time so gave benefit of the doubt but that this would be his first and last warning - next time he'd be off.

did I do correct? would anyone have gone down the caution route if he did it again - would anyone have give him a RC/YC without warning?

bearing in mind, 1st league game of the season and all was having a good time, no aggro at all

 

[Padfoot]

Seen people binned for that comment.

They are effectively calling you a cheat without using the actual word.....they know it, you know it......they are relying on you not walking them because they didn't use the cheat word.

No warnings, no second chances, get shot of them.

 

[A Freethinker]

Similar situation on Saturday...guy chirping nothing abusive just constant drivel 92 minutes walks past me and goes..."get a red shirt on ref"....eh hello can I have a word please YC next comment like that and you will be shopping with the Mrs next weekend. I YC for dissent as it was an indirect or implied cheat call if he had of said it directly he was walking!

 

[Padfoot]

Similar situation on Saturday...guy chirping nothing abusive just constant drivel 92 minutes walks past me and goes..."get a red shirt on ref"....eh hello can I have a word please YC next comment like that and you will be shopping with the Mrs next weekend. I YC for dissent as it was an indirect or implied cheat call if he had of said it directly he was walking!

So, because he did everything but use the word "cheat" you felt comfortable with a caution? He called into question your impartiality and stated that you were biased towards the other team......but because omitted one word, it changes the whole context of what he was saying?
Of course it doesn't.....but it does allow referees an easy way out of the red card.

And as long as referees continue to take the easy way out......the abuse will continue......

 

[forest96]

I consider myself quite a lenient referee, particularly towards dissent, but this is a red card for me.

This isn't a stupid comment to anyone listening about "playing against 12" or something like that - this is a direct comment to your face calling your impartiality into question. As Padfoot suggests, it's calling you a cheat without using the word. It's 'offensive, insulting and/or abusive language' and it's a red in my book.

I could just about back a yellow for dissent and the mother of all b*****kings, but it doesn't sit comfortably with me.

 

[Russell Jones]

passing comment of 'have you got a blue shirt under your top?!'

For me, the player is on really dangerous ground here. But, as ever, rather than than viewing the words said in isolation of the context, I'd be taking (at least) two factors into account. Firstly, how 'publicly' this was said and secondly 'the non verbal' part of what was "said".

To give two extreme examples. Said quietly in passing to me with a smile on his face and a cheeky grin ... then I'm genuinely not offended and likely to respond with either a quiet word or even with similar in return "The way you're playing you might as well have a blue one on". Said aggressively at me from twenty yards away in earshot of many others ... I'm going Red, as it would be, as others have said, an obviously implied accusation of cheating.

We definitely need to be vigilant for this kind of comment. But any analysis of specific words used by players that ignores the volume, aggression and acompanying body language is for me only looking at half the story ....

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I've binned for it..... his little ****y face was a picture..... butter wouldn't melt and all that!

Had the manager over pleading with me to show leniency...... just book him he said!

Had a friend in the crowd too that heard it and said he knew what was coming!

 

[A Freethinker]

So, because he did everything but use the word "cheat" you felt comfortable with a caution? He called into question your impartiality and stated that you were biased towards the other team......but because omitted one word, it changes the whole context of what he was saying?
Of course it doesn't.....but it does allow referees an easy way out of the red card.

And as long as referees continue to take the easy way out......the abuse will continue......

This wasn't the easy option I could have ignored him Padfoot, however given the context of the game, the fact it was in the last two minutes of a game where there had been no bad tackles no other cautions and was IMHO a cautionable offence as opposed to a direct cheat shout which would have went red.

So you refer to context of someone saying something and omitting a word what would you give for 'ref, you're a xxxxx' insert a word or ignore the comment, go yellow? Or take it in the context of the way it was said? I took what he said and as I didn't find it offensive I cautioned him and I believe within the spirit of the game and in the opinion of the referee I am allowed to interpret it anyway I like?

 

[Charlie Jones]

Seen people binned for that comment.

They are effectively calling you a cheat without using the actual word.....they know it, you know it......they are relying on you not walking them because they didn't use the cheat word.

No warnings, no second chances, get shot of them.

Not read everything else just yet, but thanks for that Padders - I thought I'd have been right too, but one of those 'deer in the headlights'

 

[Charlie Jones]

@A Freethinker @forest96 @Russell Jones thanks guys - it was actually said quite vocally both times (hence not actually pin pointing the culprit on round one) and as I said - I did tell him in my very public b******ing that if I'd identified him the first time round then this would be me writing his name in my book

but I do agree with you all, straight red, first time of actually identifying him - just little 'not sure what to do' moment so went safe

thankfully, im sure you'll all be pleased to hear, the game went on without a peep (besides a penalty - which the only shouting that took place was the captain to the offender!) - the player in question was the picture of angelic players and had a near full compliment of handshakes come full time

 

[JamesL]

This is one of those I think that rightly or wrongly boils down to tolerance. What one person finds offinabus someone else may not find it that. Again, rightly or wrongly.
An interesting one I had recently, which i admit only resulted in a b******ing for the team captain was "There's two teams ref".
Now this really ought to have been a caution, at least. I honestly though am struggling to imagine writing the misconduct report for offinabus on this one, and would be interested what others thoughts are on that?

 

[Charlie Jones]

that for me @James Long would be a public telling off too - for me it is one of those annoying quips that I usually put to bed with a 'watch what your implying'

 

[Tino Best]

There's two teams ref".

Thats a loud word to the player to wind his neck in, wouldn't caution for that the first time I heard it.

 

[Padfoot]

This wasn't the easy option I could have ignored him Padfoot, however given the context of the game, the fact it was in the last two minutes of a game where there had been no bad tackles no other cautions and was IMHO a cautionable offence as opposed to a direct cheat shout which would have went red.

So you refer to context of someone saying something and omitting a word what would you give for 'ref, you're a xxxxx' insert a word or ignore the comment, go yellow? Or take it in the context of the way it was said? I took what he said and as I didn't find it offensive I cautioned him and I believe within the spirit of the game and in the opinion of the referee I am allowed to interpret it anyway I like?

This is one of those I think that rightly or wrongly boils down to tolerance. What one person finds offinabus someone else may not find it that. Again, rightly or wrongly.
An interesting one I had recently, which i admit only resulted in a b******ing for the team captain was "There's two teams ref".
Now this really ought to have been a caution, at least. I honestly though am struggling to imagine writing the misconduct report for offinabus on this one, and would be interested what others thoughts are on that?

You were called a cheat......and you are happy to caution for it?

That's why the abuse will never stop. Dressing it up whatever way eases your conscience doesn't alter the fact that you failed to dismiss a player for a dismissable offence..........hide behind "tolerance" or "i wasn't offended..." (show me where it says you have to be...?) all you want.....you let yourselves down, and you let your colleagues down.

All because of the "spirit of the game"?

 

[Mintyref]

There are only two options here, red card or a red card, simples!

 

[Russell Jones]

That's why the abuse will never stop. Dressing it up whatever way eases your conscience doesn't alter the fact that you failed to dismiss a player for a dismissable offence..........hide behind "tolerance" or "i wasn't offended..." (show me where it says you have to be...?) all you want.....you let yourselves down, and you let your colleagues down

A red card for "there's two teams ref"?!?! Even for you Padders that's a frankly remarkable position to take. Personally, if I heard about a colleague sending off for that statement, I would instead feel that it was HIM letting down his fellow referees, by perpetuating the myth that we are an officious, overly authoritarian bunch with no real empathy for the game ....

 

[JamesL]

Hide behind "tolerance" or "i wasn't offended..." (show me where it says you have to be...?) all you want

Ok devils advocate here - so if you dont have to be offended do you/did you dismiss every player that ever swears/swore, whether at you or otherwise? Because by your logic you should.
Similarly, where does it say that if a referee's inpartiality is questioned then this is a dismissable offence... answer is doesnt specifically. It says that referees decisions should be respected and it says a player must not use offinabus language, well whether you think it or like it or not this is open to interpretation and is dependent on tolerance levels of the individual referee.
I am not saying whether this is wrong or right, nor am I saying my actions were correct of how I handled that situation I am just saying that tolerance plays a massive factor, always has, always will.

 

[RustyRef]

A red card for "there's two teams ref"?!?! Even for you Padders that's a frankly remarkable position to take. Personally, if I heard about a colleague sending off for that statement, I would instead feel that it was HIM letting down his fellow referees, by perpetuating the myth that we are an officious, overly authoritarian bunch with no real empathy for the game ....

I agree, and if that was me I wouldn't even be going for a card and rather would be going back with something like "I know, and the other one is playing better than yours".

For suggesting I had got on, or should put on, a certain coloured shirt then a card of some description is coming out. What colour it is would depend on factors like volume, nature of game, etc. If other players have heard it and leaving him on is likely to cause me problems with match control then he goes.

 

[ARF]

As Rusty has said, for me the manner in which the comment is made depends what colour card the player is getting - if made as a quiet, off-the-cuff remark because a particular decision hasn't gone his/her way, then I can see how it could be deemed dissent rather than OFFINABUS. However, if said/shouted loudly enough for others to hear it, or said in an aggressive manner (in your face, finger-pointing etc.) then there's no wiggle room there - they're gone.

 

[WilliamD]

I started a thread very similar last year on this. Based on that + above I'm now firmly in the camp of "how was it said". If it's a run by bit of banter and there has been nothing else from the player - red is harsh (I know calling us a cheat is not banter - you know what I mean here!). Nobody on the field would even know what was going on and you'd be toast on credibilty. But that's about as lenient as I would get..if it's a serial dissenter through the game or it's loud and aggressive it's over - hit the showers. Lesson learned.

I think this comes up because players know it's on the line and they think they are being clever. Other than my personal exception above (which I doubt I will get away with from everyone here) @Padfoot is right - we need to deal with this or we are saying it's ok to call us a cheat.