The Ref Stop

Card Procedure

The Ref Stop
DavidObs said:
You haven’t killed anyone but you are very disrespectful with the language you use - bad advice, dumb. You are not helping yourself. If you disagree with something, that’s fine, but there is a way in which to do it so not to alienate people & that’s to be constructive and fair minded with the language you use. And I’ve not seen any comments to say a Referee should be forced to do anything, let alone the technique for showing red/yellow cards.
Click to expand...
The original post described a referee being told to slow a game down, jog 50 yards, carry out a slow caution procedure and then jog 50 yards back into position. In order to punish time wasting! If you can explain to me in what way that isn't bad advice, I'm all ears?

And the reality is, that bad advice happened because procedural cautions are expected as the default, and so people don't think properly about when to change their approach. Players see flash cards on TV and so the full procedure feels slow, amateurish and pedantic when we do it. It forces us in closer contact with players who are likely to be aggrieved at getting a yellow card. Making referees do this takes away their ability to use their own style and instincts to do the right thing for the games they're in.

And don't be pedantic about referees being "forced" to do things. If a referee wants to progress, they can't go around ignoring development advice. If observers are criticising and even marking down referees for quick cautions, they're effectively forcing the old procedure to stick around.
 
RustyRef said:
In your opinion, but it is the requirement at the level you operate at.
Click to expand...
And?

As you know, I have very little interest in discussion being shut down by things that exist purely because no one has bothered to think about changing them. If it's a bad and outdated method which is defaulted to even when clearly not appropriate, why are you suggesting I can't say that?
 
GraemeS said:
And?

As you know, I have very little interest in discussion being shut down by things that exist purely because no one has bothered to think about changing them. If it's a bad and outdated method which is defaulted to even when clearly not appropriate, why are you suggesting I can't say that?
Click to expand...
Is it up to a referee to change anything at all though? Are we not there to enforce the LOTG and see that teams play fair and in the spirit of the game? It is the old Law 17 that is I think gives the OP the right to flash the card the way they did. Can we not just agree on that it is common sense and what the game would expect? I wouldn't have approached it in the same way, but I am not as experienced as the OP is and I feel that experience carries value but not the weight to change. Let us just say that when they have changed the various laws they weren't thinking about us referees or consulting the most experienced ones, but about giving a more spectator and tv friendly commercial product. Lest we forget that VAR has become an income stream on its own, with fees to show it, even though it was meant to be about making the game fairer.

Let's just not get weighed down here about change and just accept it as a difference in opinion of what common sense approach is?
 
I would never do flash cards.

If a player if 50 yards away i show my watch being stopped very deliberately and i shout it too.

I eventually meet the player halfway and i go through the procedure.

That way justice is served and the non-offending team know the clock has stopped.
 
Kent Ref said:
I would never do flash cards.

If a player if 50 yards away i show my watch being stopped very deliberately and i shout it too.

I eventually meet the player halfway and i go through the procedure.

That way justice is served and the non-offending team know the clock has stopped.
Click to expand...
Understood, but in the OP there is the added issue of the goalkeeper breaking up play when the opponents are seeking an equaliser.
In matches where the referee is confident they know the goalkeeper's name, pointing at the goalkeeper and a card flashed from midfield sounds like good game management.
 
GraemeS said:
And?

As you know, I have very little interest in discussion being shut down by things that exist purely because no one has bothered to think about changing them. If it's a bad and outdated method which is defaulted to even when clearly not appropriate, why are you suggesting I can't say that?
Click to expand...
Of course people have bothered about changing things, but things are changed when considered prudent to do things. This doesn’t mean that guidance etc can’t be changed earlier & perhaps slow at times, but that’s just the way it is. At the end of the day if things work for you in the way that you do them & it has had a positive impact with players/the game, then any Match Day Coach/Observer should be able to identify this & praise.
 
Last edited:
GraemeS said:
The original post described a referee being told to slow a game down, jog 50 yards, carry out a slow caution procedure and then jog 50 yards back into position. In order to punish time wasting! If you can explain to me in what way that isn't bad advice, I'm all ears?
Click to expand...
We all supported a quick process for this C4
 
There's a time and place for a quick caution, and the same goes for an old school process one. Cautions are in essence a communication tool for us to let the player and everyone else know they have overstepped a mark. They're also there as a tool for us to control a game. A slowed down caution can be the difference between a game spilling over and it not, as it gives time for players (and us) to cool their heads.

As you progress it will become more acceptable for quick cards, especially for instances mentioned in the OP.

If I was observing/coaching someone, I'd accept either approach as long as the referee could justify it and no match control was lost. But you do have to be very wary at grassroots of lack of or incorrect teamsheets.
 
I don't feel that either approach is incorrect (quick card or procedural).
However, as MDC at this level any advice I give is really be based around the referee's confidence in the team sheets. This season alone, I know of three incidents where reports submitted on names taken later from a team sheet, using shirt numbers, have met with discrepancies, i.e. player wrongly identified after the game.
I'm sure that every weekend at lower levels, players wear a shirt numbered differently from the team sheet. At levels 6, 5 and higher the accuracy of team sheet content is far more reliable. How many of you have noticed two players wearing the same shirt number at grass roots level?
I don't feel that the MDC in question is necessarily giving outdated advice as suggested in previous posts. More likely trying to offer good advice, but perhaps not explained in the best way.
Not all advice is outdated either in content or the person delivering it and such generalisations are less than appropriate.
 
Referee220378 said:
Thanks guys appreciate it.

Wasn’t sure on the terminology, I was informed I was being assessed so therefore presumed he was an ‘assessor’

Irrelevant really, but appreciate the general consensus that a ‘flash card’ was appropriate.
Click to expand...
Both Chas and Rusty's advice is spot on.
Whoever told you that you were being "assessed" was talking pants.
There is no such thing as an "assessor" any more and hasn't been for a few years now. That's why they're called Observers.
Observations are only undertaken from Level 5 to 4 and upwards.
 
GraemeS said:
And?

As you know, I have very little interest in discussion being shut down by things that exist purely because no one has bothered to think about changing them. If it's a bad and outdated method which is defaulted to even when clearly not appropriate, why are you suggesting I can't say that?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting you can't say anything. But you aren't going to change the regulations and guidelines by having a moan on a refereeing forum, and I was talking about what the requirements actually are at the level you officiate in. Flash cards are not permitted at grass roots levels unless there is a valid reason, that is factual and not an opinion.

And there will be occasions where they are merited, the OP being a case in question as clearly slowing the game down further would be exactly what the offending team want. But they aren't supportable for bog standard cautions like SPA, reckless, dissent, etc.
 
GraemeS said:
I would question why David jumped down my throat after my initial post saying it was bad advice then?
Click to expand...
As your post directly followed his, I'd guess there was an (easily understandable) misunderstanding as to whether the 'bad advice' you were referring to was his advice or that of the MDC in the OP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top