Did this today
- Thread starter Brian Hamilton
- Start date
Why so strict?? Yes it should be a caution, but no one expects it, no one wants it, and all that will happen (imo) is the players will walk around thinking "what a jobs worth" and the likelihood of be building a rapport with them is around 0
The pitches these keepers are playing on must have their penalty spots all over the place if they need to mark the mid-point of the goal.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Brian, you say you don't warn about "offsides".
But many L4s/5s I've been out with are very proactive during match "Leave him player"; "hands down" (at corners) etc etc etc.
Many of us also try to proactively manage dissent to stop it escalating, so can't really see why those examples, and many others where warnings are given, are much different to issuing a warning in this instance
But many L4s/5s I've been out with are very proactive during match "Leave him player"; "hands down" (at corners) etc etc etc.
Many of us also try to proactively manage dissent to stop it escalating, so can't really see why those examples, and many others where warnings are given, are much different to issuing a warning in this instance
I think that this is an interesting one. In reading the responses so far you have 2 camps. Those that follow the LOTG to the letter and those who referee with a little more context. In all essence Brian is spot on that this should be a caution, after all it says it in the LOTG, and frankly well done for picking up on it.
My only question would be (to everyone not just Brian) those who see this as, well it is in the LOTG so it must be a caution, do you do this every single week, with every single mandatory caution? For me as long as you are being consistent throughout all the laws, then Brians initial response is spot on.
For example, Myself, like the vast majority on here(IMO), cannot claim to respond to mandatory cautions in the same way. For example, yesterday, U18 match great match nothing malicious throughout the game, Blues 4-1 up, 10 mins to go, in the attacking 3rd, white defender pulls a player back by his shirt, deliberate attempt to break up the play (professional foul if you will) a "Mandatory" yellow. Did I caution him? ... No. In the CONTEXT of the match it would have been unnecessary. A word with the player, a warning that it is a cautionable offence, please don't do it again, its been a great match so far let play football bla bla bla... job done, mabnaged the situation, everyone happy, blue freekick and away we go.
If you are not being consistent every game in every situation, then the argument that I did it because it was mandatory is incorrect IMO. For me the argument is, as for Brian case anyway, I did it because of the context of the game required it, it was part of the game management and it seemingly worked, a method I believe is shared among a lot of referee's.
My only question would be (to everyone not just Brian) those who see this as, well it is in the LOTG so it must be a caution, do you do this every single week, with every single mandatory caution? For me as long as you are being consistent throughout all the laws, then Brians initial response is spot on.
For example, Myself, like the vast majority on here(IMO), cannot claim to respond to mandatory cautions in the same way. For example, yesterday, U18 match great match nothing malicious throughout the game, Blues 4-1 up, 10 mins to go, in the attacking 3rd, white defender pulls a player back by his shirt, deliberate attempt to break up the play (professional foul if you will) a "Mandatory" yellow. Did I caution him? ... No. In the CONTEXT of the match it would have been unnecessary. A word with the player, a warning that it is a cautionable offence, please don't do it again, its been a great match so far let play football bla bla bla... job done, mabnaged the situation, everyone happy, blue freekick and away we go.
If you are not being consistent every game in every situation, then the argument that I did it because it was mandatory is incorrect IMO. For me the argument is, as for Brian case anyway, I did it because of the context of the game required it, it was part of the game management and it seemingly worked, a method I believe is shared among a lot of referee's.
micky2001
Well-Known Member
I'm the kind of ref who will do everything by the LOTG even if it means I'm a hate figure with some players/clubs. I would be quite willing to caution for this infringement it I seen it.
There are referees who are not as consistent as others and this gives Joe Public who watches or plays the game the idea that marking the field is ok and acceptable since it isn't beng punished. When it is punished, the "strict" refs are the ones who get it.
I know of a referee who IMO is exceptionally good. He is correct almost all of the time and makes really ballsy decisions when other refs may "bottle" it. He is loathed by many teams because of his no nonsense approach to the LOTG which are there to be followed.
A player came in at HT without his permission and later committed a cautionable offence. The ref cautioned him for entering without permission then another caution for the foul, so the three card trick. Correct in law but caused chaos and the game had 5/6 reds if I remember correctly. Remember speaking to a few others after who said they would have just given the caution for the entering without permission and waived the yellow for the foul because it would have been easier for them.
There are referees who are not as consistent as others and this gives Joe Public who watches or plays the game the idea that marking the field is ok and acceptable since it isn't beng punished. When it is punished, the "strict" refs are the ones who get it.
I know of a referee who IMO is exceptionally good. He is correct almost all of the time and makes really ballsy decisions when other refs may "bottle" it. He is loathed by many teams because of his no nonsense approach to the LOTG which are there to be followed.
A player came in at HT without his permission and later committed a cautionable offence. The ref cautioned him for entering without permission then another caution for the foul, so the three card trick. Correct in law but caused chaos and the game had 5/6 reds if I remember correctly. Remember speaking to a few others after who said they would have just given the caution for the entering without permission and waived the yellow for the foul because it would have been easier for them.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
IMHO the LOTG give you all the context you need. Therefore, you have those that referee to the LOTG or those that don't.
You've now become last weeks ref.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I think there is a subtle difference between ignoring it and warning about imminent punishment.
That was MY point - we issue verbal warnings all the time - so why not in this instance?
micky2001
Well-Known Member
@PinnerPaul i think the difference is that when you are warning someone, it is because the infringement either hasn't happened or has the potential to become worse. When someone flys into a tackle, you don't have the chance to give them a warning, you have to caution. Similarly, simce a player has made a mark and you catch him do it at the end, you have to punish since he has already done it.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Fair enough Brian, that is sound reasoning and you are 100% correct in law of course.
I'm still in the warning first, caution if he persists, camp though!
Out of interest... Can any of the 'by the book' camp understand the 'give em a warning' camp's point of view??
As a warning guy myself I can understand why the 'by the book' camp do what they do, after all the good book says this is a caution able offence...
As a warning guy myself I can understand why the 'by the book' camp do what they do, after all the good book says this is a caution able offence...
Personally, Callum, I'm not all that bothered about what other refs do.....control the controllables and do the best job that I can could be my motto if I had one
But if I had the choice between correctly cautioning every mandatory offence or deciding, on a case by case basis, those that I will and those that I won't, I'd opt for the first scenario every time
No bothered... Merely interested
SM
The avuncular one
The problem is when refs apply their own take on mandatory (I am resisting the urge to capitalise that) cautions.
They are as the name indicates, mandatory.
Teams are often screaming out for consistency. If there is no consistency on the mandatory cautions, we are all jiggered when we need to apply law based on our opinion of what we have seen
They are as the name indicates, mandatory.
Teams are often screaming out for consistency. If there is no consistency on the mandatory cautions, we are all jiggered when we need to apply law based on our opinion of what we have seen
I can 100% agree that the game does need consistantcy and can understand that by me not giving a mandatory yellow every time doesn't provide this, and accept my failings as a refereeat junior/youth level.
I will refer this topic back to the age old debate of officiating games at a younger age groups. at U9's, 10's etc etc can you honestly say you have given the mandatory yellow everytime? is there not one single occasion when you haven't given one in your entire career as a referee? i am certain there will be one occasion when you have responded leniently with the LOTG, and if you haven't i owuld genuinly be interested in watching some of you games for some learning points.
For me, the answer for consistency is simpleand it lays with the leagues. They need to get the referee's together before the season and prep them of the expectations, be it referee to the letter of the law, and filter this to the players and manage expectations at little better perhaps. Then there is no excuse for being last weeks ref.
For me, alot of refereeing is about managing the game, about ensuring the consistancy is with the heat of the game, i.e slowing the game down when the heat rises etc... this is all part of game management, and for me not issueing a caution in the 85th minute for something and nothing is simular.
I am still learning, and its great to hear the feebdback from everyone! all very interesting POV.
I will refer this topic back to the age old debate of officiating games at a younger age groups. at U9's, 10's etc etc can you honestly say you have given the mandatory yellow everytime? is there not one single occasion when you haven't given one in your entire career as a referee? i am certain there will be one occasion when you have responded leniently with the LOTG, and if you haven't i owuld genuinly be interested in watching some of you games for some learning points.
For me, the answer for consistency is simpleand it lays with the leagues. They need to get the referee's together before the season and prep them of the expectations, be it referee to the letter of the law, and filter this to the players and manage expectations at little better perhaps. Then there is no excuse for being last weeks ref.
For me, alot of refereeing is about managing the game, about ensuring the consistancy is with the heat of the game, i.e slowing the game down when the heat rises etc... this is all part of game management, and for me not issueing a caution in the 85th minute for something and nothing is simular.
I am still learning, and its great to hear the feebdback from everyone! all very interesting POV.
I get the caution. I can totally understand why people choose to caution for this and why Brian has cautioned for this. But the idea that we are there to follow the LOTG rigorously and 100% by the book is garbage, particularly at grassroots level.
Seriously, how many times do people let 'trivial' things that are in the LOTG go at grassroots level or even above? Undershorts the same colour as shorts? Sock tape being a different colour to socks? Pitch dimensions? Lines on the pitch? Six seconds IDFK rule for a keeper handling in possession? Atmospheric pressure of the ball? OFFINABUS even? The amount of times we hear clear OFFINABUS in a game at all sorts of levels but the referee does nothing.
And I don't buy this 'you are doing it to keep players happy' or 'you are doing it to be popular'. It's got nothing to do with keeping players happy. Believe me, I could not care if I walk off that field and everyone thinks i'm the biggest so-and-so in the world. It has happened before and it will happen again, it is part of the job. Yes there are some referees who would rather keep people happy, but then again I think that the application of a mandatory caution such as this still needs a degree of common sense, particularly at grassroots.
You simply cannot go out on a Sunday and enforce the LOTG by the book as nine times out of ten you wouldn't get the game started. And if anyone on here says they have never made a decision based on their own 'interpretation' of the laws accompanied by a healthy dose of law 18, or have never chosen to overlook a 'trivial' law in favour of match control then you are talking nonsense.
You heretic, heedmatt 
Why not scrap the lotg all together....
Just wondering, has any referee who believes that the lotg should not be applied verbatim ever written to their county to protest these ill thought out lotg....the longest journey and all that.....anyone?
Why not scrap the lotg all together....
Just wondering, has any referee who believes that the lotg should not be applied verbatim ever written to their county to protest these ill thought out lotg....the longest journey and all that.....anyone?
