Dissent/comments towards CARs

Hi all,
Finished off last weekend with an entertaining and end to end U12 game. All was going very well for me with both managers very happy all day.
About 5 minutes to go and whites put in a possible winner until flag goes up from yellow CAR. Uproar from players and parents but nothing overly excessive. However, coach assisting white manager Is furious and I hear and see him yelling " he's a blatant bloody cheat. ****ing disgrace." louder than anyone else in the area. In the moment I knew the comments were directed towards the lino and not myself. I didn't act on it then but have been thinking it over the last few days and was wondering if a caution would've been necessary or indeed the acceptable action.
What do we think the correct action should have been or was I right in leaving it?

For the 90 minutes that club assistant referee is part of my team.

So what would you do if that language was directed at you?

If he had said you were a blatant cheat and a F*ING disgrace what sanction would you give?

JamesL said:

For the 90 minutes that club assistant referee is part of my team.

So what would you do if that language was directed at you?

If he had said you were a blatant cheat and a F*ING disgrace what sanction would you give?

Click to expand...

If it is directly at myself, of course its a red for OFFINABUS. I assume that we give those same boundaries to anything said to CARs however as it wasn't said directly I wasn't sure whether it would be OFFINABUS or just a dissent caution.

IslandRef said:

If it is directly at myself, of course its a red for OFFINABUS. I assume that we give those same boundaries to anything said to CARs however as it wasn't said directly I wasn't sure whether it would be OFFINABUS or just a dissent caution.

Click to expand...

If you say one option is dissent caution then by definition it means you agree it was about one of the match officials as dissent is always against match officials. Would any match official be offended if they are told directly or indirectly that they are "blatant bloody cheat. ****ing disgrace."? Absolutely.

Once you establish it's about a match official (yourself, nar or car) it's an easy red.

Easy Red for me

So long as you heard what was said and you did, straight red.

IslandRef said:

Hi all,
Finished off last weekend with an entertaining and end to end U12 game. All was going very well for me with both managers very happy all day.
About 5 minutes to go and whites put in a possible winner until flag goes up from yellow CAR. Uproar from players and parents but nothing overly excessive. However, coach assisting white manager Is furious and I hear and see him yelling " he's a blatant bloody cheat. ****ing disgrace." louder than anyone else in the area. In the moment I knew the comments were directed towards the lino and not myself. I didn't act on it then but have been thinking it over the last few days and was wondering if a caution would've been necessary or indeed the acceptable action.
What do we think the correct action should have been or was I right in leaving it?

Click to expand...

This should have been a RED. The use of "cheat" and "disgrace" are trigger words. Also given this was a U12's match, the coaches are expected to set any example. He should be in the Car Park....

The other argument is that you didn't take action, so he thinks it OK. So, may do the same next week to a youth referee; when apart from it still be a RED, it could be argued that it is safeguarding issue, as he is trying to influence that youth referee's decision in his teams favour.

I sit in the manage camp completely against the grain. There is definitely a huge element of YHTBT. Also I don't know how direct the comments were. But I think if we are handing out reds every time someone says, or insinuates a CAR is cheating. We will be handing out a lot of reds.

Referring to the CARs as being part of your referee team is true, but you can't treat them like a neutral which is how you would treat your refereeing team. I don't think you should be defending a CARs neutral credibility (e.g. if they get called a cheat) in the same way as a Neutral. It doesn't have the same meaning.

They can be biased, they can be cheats, they sometimes cheat a lot, they aren't always interested, their skills/fitness/experience can be awful and they are easily influenced by shouts. They can deliberately instigate match changing situations and they can try and get players sent off by playing up to being abused.

I did a few friendlies in pre-season and I witnessed on a few occasions the substitutes running the line getting redressed for being too honest with the flag.

Now I am not saying your CAR was or was not cheating. The opposition is only going to react one way if they score a goal and CAR rules it out.

Typically if a someone took offense to the CAR, I would gauge how direct and abusive it was. The bench telling me the CAR is a cheat isn't going to make me kick into action in the same way I would if it was a neutral, I would most likely manage it.

However, if they are being very direct to the CAR, I will take action. Obviously thresholds slightly vary and if I think the CAR is deliberately fuelling it, I will use common sense.

I would float this one (remember this is a new example): You are a manager of your kids U12s. You see 100% your players onside right at the end of the game (not even close), your team scores the winner and CAR flags it. You will be frustrated and you will likely tell the referee you think they are cheating. Or that their decision is an awful one. Is that a red? (Queue the straight yes replies )

OldNavyRef said:

I sit in the manage camp completely against the grain. There is definitely a huge element of YHTBT. Also I don't know how direct the comments were. But I think if we are handing out reds every time someone says, or insinuates a CAR is cheating. We will be handing out a lot of reds.

Referring to the CARs as being part of your referee team is true, but you can't treat them like a neutral which is how you would treat your refereeing team. I don't think you should be defending a CARs neutral credibility (e.g. if they get called a cheat) in the same way as a Neutral. It doesn't have the same meaning.

They can be biased, they can be cheats, they sometimes cheat a lot, they aren't always interested, their skills/fitness/experience can be awful and they are easily influenced by shouts. They can deliberately instigate match changing situations and they can try and get players sent off by playing up to being abused.

I did a few friendlies in pre-season and I witnessed on a few occasions the substitutes running the line getting redressed for being too honest with the flag.

Now I am not saying your CAR was or was not cheating. The opposition is only going to react one way if they score a goal and CAR rules it out.

Typically if a someone took offense to the CAR, I would gauge how direct and abusive it was. The bench telling me the CAR is a cheat isn't going to make me kick into action in the same way I would if it was a neutral, I would most likely manage it.

However, if they are being very direct to the CAR, I will take action. Obviously thresholds slightly vary and if I think the CAR is deliberately fuelling it, I will use common sense.

I would float this one (remember this is a new example): You are a manager of your kids U12s. You see 100% your players onside right at the end of the game (not even close), your team scores the winner and CAR flags it. You will be frustrated and you will likely tell the referee you think they are cheating. Is that a red? (Queue the straight yes replies )

Click to expand...

This is exactly my train of thought and it feels weird to be completely against the grain in this situation. It wasn't direct towards the CAR and anyone in that situation would be frustrated to a new degree so I don't think going to the back pocket would be an appropriate response in this situation and I'd much rather use a bit of empathy although I completely understand why most think this is a red.

Does this manager's language and lack of responsible behaviour not come into play here? It is a caution at least I reckon.

IslandRef said:

This is exactly my train of thought and it feels weird to be completely against the grain in this situation. It wasn't direct towards the CAR and anyone in that situation would be frustrated to a new degree so I don't think going to the back pocket would be an appropriate response in this situation and I'd much rather use a bit of empathy although I completely understand why most think this is a red.

Click to expand...

Abuse is often obvious.

I don't think saying a CAR made an awful decision, or that they are cheating is a black and white OFFINABUS.

RonnieM said:

Does this manager's language and lack of responsible behaviour not come into play here? It is a caution at least I reckon.

Click to expand...

As you have appropriately said the main argument here is probably the swearing in front of U12s and the fact he yelled it. Which for plenty of people could be justified as a red.

However, People swear, kids swear.

I think a caution would have been an appropriate course of action. Yelling "F***ing Disgrace" across a pitch is an easy sell.

If a manager says to the Referee I think the AR is cheating, then that is not the same as he is a cheat in a loud aggressive tone that everyone can hear. Also, there are usually many occasions when the CAR will say a player just called me a cheat so what are you going to do about it, whereby the response should be from the Referee I am afraid I can only have a word with him etc because I didn’t hear it. However, if a Referee hears a player calling a CAR a cheat in a loud aggressive tone etc, then I don’t think he/she has any other alternative but to red card the offender.

David G said:

If a manager says to the Referee I think the AR is cheating, then that is not the same as he is a cheat in a loud aggressive tone that everyone can hear. Also, there are usually many occasions when the CAR will say a player just called me a cheat so what are you going to do about it, whereby the response should be from the Referee I am afraid I can only have a word with him etc because I didn’t hear it. However, if a Referee hears a player calling a CAR a cheat in a loud aggressive tone etc, then I don’t think he/she has any other alternative but to red card the offender.

Click to expand...

But CARs often cheat.

I am not saying offer CARs no protection cause that is ludicrous and extremely poor refereeing.

But to pretend CARs have the same protections for their neutrality as the refereeing team is a difficult sell for me.

In the situation the OP described I would be gauging based on my gut/reaction of others/words said. If I thought it was abusive. I would dismiss.

But if it was out of frustrating then I would manage it.

(I like how you added the word "aggressive" OP never said aggressive, definitely a YHTBT)

OldNavyRef said:

But CARs often cheat.

I am not saying offer CARs no protection cause that is ludicrous and extremely poor refereeing.

But to pretend CARs have the same protections for their neutrality as the refereeing team is a difficult sell for me.

In the situation the OP described I would be gauging based on my gut/reaction of others/words said. If I thought it was abusive. I would dismiss.

But if it was out of frustrating then I would manage it.

(I like how you added the word "aggressive" OP never said aggressive, definitely a YHTBT)

Click to expand...

There are definitely some cheats but there are others who just don’t want to be there and others who are not up with play etc and not aware of the laws so it’s more ignorance/not understanding what is required rather than a blatant cheat. However, I agree with some of your comments.

If you were in the business of sending off players everytime they called a Lino a cheat during a Sunday Dog and Duck game

You’d be left with no players

I think in this situation, think context and impact on the game

The likelihood of probability is… the CAR is cheating

However, if the next pitch over has heard the cries “Lino your a f-ing cheat” then you are left with little wriggle room other than to issue a red card