The Ref Stop

Threats of physical violence to opponents.

Homer Ref

Homer Ref

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
OK, what's your take on a player threatening to attack another player after the game. Is this violent conduct or OFFINABUS?

I experienced this at the weekend in a youth game and there was no real way to decide what it was given the LOTG for this situation.

Your thoughts?
 
The Ref Stop
For me It doesn't satisfy the criteria for VC, but it can fit OFFINABUS.

I would also consider USB if I think they are not actually serious and just saying it to intimidate. Also other favourable factors.
 
I think it probably fits Adopting an agressive attitude (caution) best, but a lot would depend on exactly what was said, how it was said, and how the other party reacted (or didn't).

Or 2 quickfire cautions under @FirsFox40 's C1 code of BE...
 
JamesL said:
It's violent Conduct. Threatening, or committing brutality is the same in the respect that it is an act of brutality.
Click to expand...
I think now VC is very clearly defined in the laws it is more than a push to say it applies here. It needs them to use or attempt to use excessive force or brutality, threatening isn't either of those. Anyone that knew what they were doing could drive a bus through a VC charge at an appeal hearing where all participants have said there was no actual contact.

I'd put it as OFFINABUS, there can't really be any argument that it is abusive.
 
RustyRef said:
I think now VC is very clearly defined in the laws it is more than a push to say it applies here. It needs them to use or attempt to use excessive force or brutality, threatening isn't either of those. Anyone that knew what they were doing could drive a bus through a VC charge at an appeal hearing where all participants have said there was no actual contact.

I'd put it as OFFINABUS, there can't really be any argument that it is abusive.
Click to expand...

UK law, threatening violence, is classed as assault. Assault is inherently violent.

Threatening to be violent is conducting ones self in a violent way.

I agree that offinabus can stick, but to say threatening violence is not using brutality - brutality is an act that is.... Deliberately violent. If someone threatens to attack someone that is both deliberate and an act of violence.

Violent Conduct says nothing about contact, in fact if someone swings a punch and misses they are still guilty of violent Conduct.
 
JamesL said:
Violent Conduct says nothing about contact, in fact if someone swings a punch and misses they are still guilty of violent Conduct.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with contact, it's about actions. The example you've given is an action, hence VC. Threatening language is just that - language. Unless the player has done something physical to threaten the opponent as well, it's OFFINABUS.
 
JamesL said:
UK law, threatening violence, is classed as assault. Assault is inherently violent.

Threatening to be violent is conducting ones self in a violent way.

I agree that offinabus can stick, but to say threatening violence is not using brutality - brutality is an act that is.... Deliberately violent. If someone threatens to attack someone that is both deliberate and an act of violence.

Violent Conduct says nothing about contact, in fact if someone swings a punch and misses they are still guilty of violent Conduct.
Click to expand...
UK Law if not LOTG
 
JamesL said:
UK law, threatening violence, is classed as assault. Assault is inherently violent.

Threatening to be violent is conducting ones self in a violent way.

I agree that offinabus can stick, but to say threatening violence is not using brutality - brutality is an act that is.... Deliberately violent. If someone threatens to attack someone that is both deliberate and an act of violence.

Violent Conduct says nothing about contact, in fact if someone swings a punch and misses they are still guilty of violent Conduct.
Click to expand...
As someone who has sat on, and even chaired, disciplinary hearings I can say with much certainty that the player would have a much greater chance of getting off a VC charge than an OFFINABUS charge. They would just argue it was said in the heat of the moment, they never had any intention to carry it out, and that there was at never any point any physical contact. Whereas that argument falls foul for OFFINABUS as the acts of actually speaking the words is the offence.

I had it myself years ago when a sent off player, where I had advised the referee to send him off for an off the ball act of VC, said to me as he walked past me and said "you're going in the boot of my car". The other team's manager was next to me asked him what he meant and he repeated it, adding that he'll never been seen again. You don't really get a much more sinister threat of violence than that, but when I asked The FA, via CFA, for guidance they said it can only be OFFINABUS as no physical action actually took place. He was still charged and banned for threatening a match official, whereas there would have been a very good chance of him getting nothing had I reported it as VC.
 
Basically, I reported what was said, and left it to the SYFA to decide on it themselves. I must admit a 3 match ban for saying something is excessive. In the end though, the player is the only one to blame for refusing to keep their mouth shut.
 
RonnieM said:
OK, what's your take on a player threatening to attack another player after the game. Is this violent conduct or OFFINABUS?

I experienced this at the weekend in a youth game and there was no real way to decide what it was given the LOTG for this situation.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
It happens a lot!

At all the levels I do. But I often hear quotes from managers or captains who have been around the block to the tune of "we will be best mates in the clubhouse in a bit".

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. But if it is something sinister I'll have a serious word with them. Probably go down the dissent route if it is persistent. But I hear players at it all the time. I feel you mostly can manage them, especially if it is messing with your match control.

I have gripped players a few times to have a word. Basically: "if you slip into a challenge now, or if you get unlucky, you have stated intent and I will think you have gone in to hurt him and will send you off", I've done this with a captain present.
 
OldNavyRef said:
It happens a lot!

At all the levels I do. But I often hear quotes from managers or captains who have been around the block to the tune of "we will be best mates in the clubhouse in a bit".

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. But if it is something sinister I'll have a serious word with them. Probably go down the dissent route if it is persistent. But I hear players at it all the time. I feel you mostly can manage them, especially if it is messing with your match control.

I have gripped players a few times to have a word. Basically: "if you slip into a challenge now, or if you get unlucky, you have stated intent and I will think you have gone in to hurt him and will send you off", I've done this with a captain present.
Click to expand...
Dissent? 🤔

Dissent can only be commited against a match official and if it is towards a match official and involves a threat of violence, that is not dissent either.
 
RustyRef said:
As someone who has sat on, and even chaired, disciplinary hearings I can say with much certainty that the player would have a much greater chance of getting off a VC charge than an OFFINABUS charge. They would just argue it was said in the heat of the moment, they never had any intention to carry it out, and that there was at never any point any physical contact. Whereas that argument falls foul for OFFINABUS as the acts of actually speaking the words is the offence.

I had it myself years ago when a sent off player, where I had advised the referee to send him off for an off the ball act of VC, said to me as he walked past me and said "you're going in the boot of my car". The other team's manager was next to me asked him what he meant and he repeated it, adding that he'll never been seen again. You don't really get a much more sinister threat of violence than that, but when I asked The FA, via CFA, for guidance they said it can only be OFFINABUS as no physical action actually took place. He was still charged and banned for threatening a match official, whereas there would have been a very good chance of him getting nothing had I reported it as VC.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously trying to be smart... I stand by that the definition of VC allows for the threatening of violence to be violent Conduct but agree that offinabus is easier to stick.
 
I do think the fact we can’t make VC stick for a violent threat is a bit of a depressing example of the failures of our disciplinary system.

A lot of the threats are legitimate and chilling, more than warrant a longer ban.
 
Most verbal threats of physical violence usually contain a couple of "Fs" and a "C" thrown in so generally easier to view and sell as OFFINABUS at the time.
I totally get where @JamesL is coming from but it's not VC under the LOTG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top