Delaying the restart is the easiest to sell as far as I’m concerned
2 soft yellows?
- Thread starter Standard
- Start date
- Status
Between dissent and delaying the restart of play, I believe the situation described is the latter.
Dissent is excessive protest at a decision of a match official. Here a goal was scored and the opposition player booted the ball onto the adjacent field, delaying the restart. What decision made by the match official has he protested against? I hate to be so narrow in my description of dissent and I'm sure it widens to a variety of scenarios, but none are applicable here in my view.
Delaying the restart of play? Absolutely, he has booted the ball away and it will take a while for someone on his team to go fetch it, or for someone on the other team to rise above and go fetch it.
Could it have been managed? Ideally yes, but that's another topic and we don't know the context of why a 2nd yellow was given. Only the ref on the day knew what the game needed at that moment.
In reality any player on a yellow knows they are on thin ice, they aren't babies, if they boot the ball away they know full well getting a 2nd yellow is a real possibility. He may even think twice at being so arrogant and disrespectful towards the game and opposition next time.
Dissent is excessive protest at a decision of a match official. Here a goal was scored and the opposition player booted the ball onto the adjacent field, delaying the restart. What decision made by the match official has he protested against? I hate to be so narrow in my description of dissent and I'm sure it widens to a variety of scenarios, but none are applicable here in my view.
Delaying the restart of play? Absolutely, he has booted the ball away and it will take a while for someone on his team to go fetch it, or for someone on the other team to rise above and go fetch it.
Could it have been managed? Ideally yes, but that's another topic and we don't know the context of why a 2nd yellow was given. Only the ref on the day knew what the game needed at that moment.
In reality any player on a yellow knows they are on thin ice, they aren't babies, if they boot the ball away they know full well getting a 2nd yellow is a real possibility. He may even think twice at being so arrogant and disrespectful towards the game and opposition next time.
I was thinking of the situation where a referee gives a decision and it is protested. Nothing then comes of the free kick and a defending player then hoofs the ball away whilst reminding you that you were wrong. I've certainly had that on many occasions over the years. That for me is dissent, they are protesting against the initial award of your decision even though nothing came of it.
I think ultimately though C4 or C2 is supportable. This came up a lot during the sin bin training, and the advice was very much that if the ball is booted a long distance by a player that has recently disagreed with you then it is likely to be dissent, if it is nudged a smaller distance it is more likely to be delaying the restart.
I've been wondering about where a sin-bin falls in terms of "punishing the most serious offense", would you mind pointing me at the LOTG order?
It seems to me that a sin bin should be more serious than a 1st YC, but less serious than a 2nd YC - but that can't be accounted for in the LOTG, as the general principal in law (if not in real life) is that yellow card decisions shouldn't account for if a player has already been cautioned or not, so I'd be interested to clarify how the laws explain it.
The law talks about the most serious offence in terms of sanction.
So if the sanction would carry a red card, irrelevant of whether it is a SBO or one of the other 6 it becomes the more serious offence.
A 1st caution is less serious than a second and a sin bin sits in the middle.
(all in my opinion of course)
That makes complete sense in isolation, but I've always understood that in law, we're supposed to treat a second yellow the same as a first - that would seem to conflict with the above as it directly influences the decision-making process on that caution?
I don't really follow. If a player commits a 2nd caution offence that is inherently more serious than just one as the consequences/sanction are also more serious.
In my mind that's all there is to it.
We still treat the offence the same, but it is more serious by virtue of the player having already been given a caution.
one
RefChat Addict
There is nothing in law that says treat second yellow the same as first. But a yellow is a yellow, second or first.
What sanction is more serious? Nothing in law for that either. Even before sin bin. It was left to the referee to figure out the obvious that red is more serious than yellow. Now with sin bin it is still left with the referee. Clearly a red is still the more serious of all. Between a yellow or a sin-bin? For me that is situational. But still referee decides.
for OP one of the at the same time offences that can be punished is SYC which is a send off offence. That clearly Trumps sin bin. This has nothing to do with the second yellow being different to the first.
But the textbook example of dissent given to us when I did my course (at the same time when sin bins came in) was a player booting the ball away. Which technically is delaying the restart of play as well. Seeing as the offence falls in both, does this mean refs decide what is more severe, sin bin or caution, for each one? I feel like especially with OP iterating the ball was kicked away “sarcastically” he felt more offence at the dissent by action. I’m still not a fan of OP defending his sending off with “he had it coming“ either
So a player on zero bookings kicks the ball away “sarcastically.” You choose to sin bin him for dissent, because you feel a sin bin is a stronger punishment than a yellow. A minute later, a player from the other team does the exact same thing, except this time he has a booking. Because a red trumps a sin bin, you give him a second yellow for Delaying The Restart of Play and send him off. Pandemonium ensues.
Surely this isn’t right?
I think in reality, it's usually fairly clear why the ball has been kicked away. And yes, while kicking the ball away in dissent does also technically fulfil the criteria for delay of restart, and the same is true the other way round, there's usually a "reason" and an "additional consequence" whenever the ball is kicked away.
We should be looking to punish the reason - so agree that in the situation described, the reason was dissent and should be punished with a sin bin, regardless of the fact that it also incidentally happened to delay the restart as well.
Are you telling me you have never influenced your decisions based on the way someone acts during the game, even sub-consciously
It's entirely reasonable and consistent to hold someone on a shorter leash if they're giving you signs that they're looking for trouble.
It's not reasonable to knowingly punish them for a different offence than the one they have actually committed just because you want the harsher post-match penalty to apply.
If a player commits an offence, your choices are to punish them for that offence, or not punish them for that offence and maybe warn them they're pushing their luck. Punishing them for something different than what they actually did is not a legitimate option.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
It's a situation where YHTBT. Based on what you've said it feels like any of 3 courses of action are supportable:
C2 Sin Bin for Dissent - a delayed dissent for the decision you didn't give a moment or two before.
C4 Second Yellow for Delaying the Restart - Possibly a bit harsh, I tend to think of this as where an opponent wants to grab the ball and get it down to start playing and the offender has kicked it. If none of the kicking off team is showing any signs of urgency in getting the ball back, it's potentially a harder 'sell' though.
Manage It - be clear that you're adding the time on (especially if the losing team aren't showing urgency in getting back for the kickoff) and that he really shouldn't be an idiot as he's on a caution. That way you've set him up for anything else.
In general, as a referee you don't want to be giving players, parents and coaches any surprises, however that does not mean you ignore the LOTG and shirk your responsibilities, however where you can it's far better to set the player up, so when you do go for the sanction everyone expects it. There's no better feeling as a referee when you issue a sanction and the coaches/players/spectators say "the Ref warned you and you chose not to listen!".
C2 Sin Bin for Dissent - a delayed dissent for the decision you didn't give a moment or two before.
C4 Second Yellow for Delaying the Restart - Possibly a bit harsh, I tend to think of this as where an opponent wants to grab the ball and get it down to start playing and the offender has kicked it. If none of the kicking off team is showing any signs of urgency in getting the ball back, it's potentially a harder 'sell' though.
Manage It - be clear that you're adding the time on (especially if the losing team aren't showing urgency in getting back for the kickoff) and that he really shouldn't be an idiot as he's on a caution. That way you've set him up for anything else.
In general, as a referee you don't want to be giving players, parents and coaches any surprises, however that does not mean you ignore the LOTG and shirk your responsibilities, however where you can it's far better to set the player up, so when you do go for the sanction everyone expects it. There's no better feeling as a referee when you issue a sanction and the coaches/players/spectators say "the Ref warned you and you chose not to listen!".
Justylove
RefChat Addict
Consistency is critical as you progress. Teams won't necessarily get consistency week to week, but during the course of the game are in charge of you as the referee need to show consistency to both teams.
We've all had the really irritating player that you're looking for an excuse to card, however you've got to mindful of doing that in a fair manner. This is where the stepped approach is your friend. Set the annoying player up for the sanction, because if you don't, then the expectation is that you will issue the same sanction to any other player that does the same. If you've stepped them up with a warning, that gives you a little more wiggle room.
one
RefChat Addict
It actually is. The player on a yellow know he is on one and the consequences.
Use your example with a different caution. One player fouls SPA, he stays on because it's his first. Another does the same but he is off because he is on a yellow already. Is this right? Absolutely.
I can also give you examples of same thing being punished differently at different circumstances. Verbally distract an opponent in the centre you get cautioned. Do the same to an opponent about to score an obvious goal, you get sent off.
The reason your example doesn't feel right is because sin bin is new and players don't know.
Quite possibly. However repeatedly in this thread you’ve talked about how the player deserved a red for being annoying in the game before and now you mention this.
If you were genuinely convinced by the fact he delayed the restart of play, which is a big push, then that’s fine, but as you’ve heavily hinted throughout this thread, the only reason you really did it is because he was doing it for dissent.
We‘ve gone from “am i correct in law“ to “the player was annoying me so I chose to send him off.” More than anything, your attitude towards this is worrying me.
one
RefChat Addict
Yes.
one
RefChat Addict
Disagree here with a simple example. SFP that DOGSO. It's clear the reason is to deny the goal but you punish the more serious SFP.
Context means everything I agree, we could say that for a million things. “You f*cking c*nt” said to an opponent is quite likely to result in a red. Said as a term of endearment when a teammate scores a goal, you're less likely to send off.
But look at the examples used. Distracting an opponent in the centre and distracting an opponent through on goal are different things. Swearing at a teammate and opponent are different things. And in your first example, they are the same thing but you’ve shown the same punishment.
In this case, the EXACT same thing has happened a minute apart. And you’ve chosen for one to sin bin and the other to yellow, with the latter resulting in a second yellow. Selling that decision is extremely hard.
I get it’s a rare example, but consistency is key, And if we’re seen to choose a different punishment at will for a player we’re not going to look the best in my opinion. Just can’t wrap my head around it
- Status