Playing Devil’s advocate, is there anything wrong with that?
Liverpool v Wolves
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Don't think so, it is almost an unwritten rule that most referees follow. If I'm going to be sending someone off for a second caution I'd want it to be for something meaningful. If I'm 75/25 on whether to issue a caution for a first offence I'm fine with chancing that, if it is for a second caution I'd want it to be much more like 90/10.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
A couple of ways to look at it.
Option 1, is as Rusty Ref alluded to.
Option 2 is to note that a caution is a warning to the player that behavior has to improve if the player wants to continue playing and the player is on thin ice and held to a higher standard. And viewing option 1 as giving players on a caution permission to misbehave, which makes no sense at at all (per this perspective).
The Game has certainly chosen option 1--with a possible exception when the first caution was "orange" in nature.
Yeah, rightly or wrongly, in my game on Saturday I had 2 cautions for a player for tackles that were very similar. Player running down the wing in an advanced position with the ball, on the break, defender takes him out as he's about to cut in towards space in penalty area.
First one had most elements of DOGSO and was a deliberate foul. I went for a caution due to the question mark of a defender also in the middle that I thought had the opportunity to get across to challenge but DOGSO was definitely on the table.
Second caution was an attempt for the ball unlike the first, but was still a foul. Enough to be SPA for me. I did contemplate whether or not it needed a caution or if I could give him a very public final warning, but then thought back to how close his first card was to being a red and decided the second caution was appropriate.
Maybe this sort of thought process is wrong, but I'd be lying if I said the first one didn't influence my decision.
one
RefChat Addict
I would love to see a demerit point system trialed.
Accumulate 200 points and you lose your license.... I mean you get sent off.
I know it will have lots of operational and implemetation challenges. But I feels it being closer to a sliding scale would be much fairer.
For example, low level dissent is 25 points. Easy to give and accumulate.
- Stock standard careless foul = 0 points
- Warning worthy or borderline yellow foul= 25, 50 or 75 points
- Stock standard yellow = 100 points
- "Orange card" foul, 125, 150 or 175 points
- Stock standard red = 200
Accumulate 200 points and you lose your license.... I mean you get sent off.
I know it will have lots of operational and implemetation challenges. But I feels it being closer to a sliding scale would be much fairer.
For example, low level dissent is 25 points. Easy to give and accumulate.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I do it, you do it. We are human. You don't want to be the referee giving a soft second yellow.
The issue is. If you are a manager, or a player. How frustrating would it be. Being tackled or tackling in a certain way. Some weeks you get booked. Other ways you don't.
The referee has such a big influence.
Sometimes players can get a yellow card without really taking a risk. Example being a defender on a caution chasing an attacker and he accidentally clips his ankle. Not an intentional action but could still be SPA.
