Difficult match

[Arbiter]

Why is it that we are accepting a player disrespecting a match official this way. This is not about pride or ego. This is about a culture shift. As long as we accept (ignore) it, it will keep happening. We cant have it both ways. One the one hand we complain about authorities not take action when it happens, on the other hand when it happens to us, we don't take actions.

Because we have to choose which hills we die on. A quiet word of abuse can be difficult to accept, but it would also be difficult to accept a sending off for a reason that nobody but you and player know. Still, sometimes, quiet abuse can be necessarily sendings off. In another thread, I wrote about the need to balance the severity of the comment with the need for publicity. "You're stupid" requires significantly more publicity than, say, a racial slur. So, in essence, the severity of the comment will determine how public the comment needs to be to be addressed.

 

[one]

Because we have to choose which hills we die on

Great analogy. The difference between my line of thinking and yours, I have not accept this as losing battle, not accepting death and not ready to choose a hill.

 

[Arbiter]

Great analogy. The difference between my line of thinking and yours, I have not accept this as losing battle, not accepting death and not ready to choose a hill.

Not that you will definitely figuratively die--since through skill and charm you can absolutely manage to pull it off--but that you have to choose whether or not this particular incident is worth dying for. Basically "would I be happy to lose my game management and everything that goes with it over sending someone off for this comment?"

As I mentioned in my above post, that's the idea of severity versus publicity. There are some comments, absolutely, that I would be prepared to die over (though once I explain to the captain why his left back has been sent off, I almost never do die, largely because I choose grievous comments to send them off over); there are others where I think "to address this through a booking would cause more trouble than it would be worth."

 

[Ben448844]

Because we have to choose which hills we die on. A quiet word of abuse can be difficult to accept, but it would also be difficult to accept a sending off for a reason that nobody but you and player know. Still, sometimes, quiet abuse can be necessarily sendings off. In another thread, I wrote about the need to balance the severity of the comment with the need for publicity. "You're stupid" requires significantly more publicity than, say, a racial slur. So, in essence, the severity of the comment will determine how public the comment needs to be to be addressed.

Theres plenty of room for manoeuvre between ignoring and showing a red card imo. Im not looking to die on a hill, im looking to address the dissent in a matter fitting of whats been said. If somebody wanders behind me and says "pathetic" whilst sloping off (as mentioned earlier) I will address it with the player. Obviously you have to 'read the room' so to speak, but people who make snide comments behind your back are highly unlikely to become a problem when pulled up on it. Im afraid i can't ignore it, maybe its a pride thing, but equally that doesn't mean i inflame the situation either. I suppose its a very personal reaction and we all have different ways of dealing with such situations

 

[Arbiter]

Theres plenty of room for manoeuvre between ignoring and showing a red card imo. Im not looking to die on a hill, im looking to address the dissent in a matter fitting of whats been said. If somebody wanders behind me and says "pathetic" whilst sloping off (as mentioned earlier) I will address it with the player. Obviously you have to 'read the room' so to speak, but people who make snide comments behind your back are highly unlikely to become a problem when pulled up on it. Im afraid i can't ignore it, maybe its a pride thing, but equally that doesn't mean i inflame the situation either. I suppose its a very personal reaction and we all have different ways of dealing with such situations

You don't have that luxury. Dissent, if heard, is to be cautioned. OFFINABUS, if heard, is to be sent off. Alternatively, you can choose not to hear it and not have to do anything.

 

[Ben448844]

You don't have that luxury. Dissent, if heard, is to be cautioned. OFFINABUS, if heard, is to be sent off. Alternatively, you can choose not to hear it and not have to do anything.

We use the stepped approach. We warn. We vary what we consider OFFINABUS etc. I can only speak for grass roots of course but I'm not looking for red cards for snidey comments directed to me from behind my back, but I'm not going to ignore.

 

[lincs22]

I feel that you need to just not hear the comment. We are teaching "safe endings" to game, so nothing gained for a YC. You cannot be certain it was to you, so doing it can only more issues.

If it had been OFFINABUS and a RC, then action would be required.

 

[Ben448844]

I feel that you need to just not hear the comment. We are teaching "safe endings" to game, so nothing gained for a YC. You cannot be certain it was to you, so doing it can only more issues.

If it had been OFFINABUS and a RC, then action would be required.

This is where football gets it wrong in my opinion. We shouldn't accept verbal abuse and we shouldn't be teaching people to accept it. And by ignoring it we are most definitely accepting it.

My age group of players are all either retired or about to retire from football. I often encourage them to take up the whistle. The usual response is "its not worth the ****". I cant argue with them because we accept the **** and on occasion are taught to accept it. Its a funny old game.

Maybe its a personality thing but i cant accept it. it only encourages further verbals. Its hard to contextualise this on a written forum but this does not mean I argue with players or inflame situations because i don't, quite the opposite. But I cannot just stand there and ignore it. I'll ask if they'd like to repeat it now they have my attention. That usually stops it in its tracks. Fortunately its a rare event, but I'm not there to treated like a verbal punchbag. We are supposed to be respected, its not alot to ask.

 

[socal lurker]

I think there is a lot of room for us to be creating different pictures from the description in the OP, and the details of what we picture matter a lot on whether it is appropriate to ignore, say something, or go straight to a card. The louder it is, the more clear it is directed at the R, the more clear it is the player knows the R heard it, and the more likely it is anyone else heard it, the more necessary it is to take action. And the reverse is true.

But I'm also going to throw out one other factor: experienced referees also need to consider the next ref. For experienced refs, these things are easier to laugh off--we get thick skin. But what we condone, we encourage. So we need to consider how we would feel about the player doing the exact same thing next week to the newbie ref.

As I picture the OP in my head, I would say something, probably along the lines "excuse me, what did you say" or "are you speaking to me"--and then the player's response dictates what happens next.

You don't have that luxury. Dissent, if heard, is to be cautioned. OFFINABUS, if heard, is to be sent off. Alternatively, you can choose not to hear it and not have to do anything.

This is a bit pedantic and not real world. If this were literally true, every professional game would have a dozen cards. We watched WC players scream F you in the face of referees with no sanction--that's not the way the world should be, but there can be levels of dissent that are worth addressing that don't rise to the level of a caution. Referees who think their only choices with low level dissent are to ignore or caution are giving up useful tools to control player behavior.

 

[Ben448844]

I think there is a lot of room for us to be creating different pictures from the description in the OP, and the details of what we picture matter a lot on whether it is appropriate to ignore, say something, or go straight to a card. The louder it is, the more clear it is directed at the R, the more clear it is the player knows the R heard it, and the more likely it is anyone else heard it, the more necessary it is to take action. And the reverse is true.

But I'm also going to throw out one other factor: experienced referees also need to consider the next ref. For experienced refs, these things are easier to laugh off--we get thick skin. But what we condone, we encourage. So we need to consider how we would feel about the player doing the exact same thing next week to the newbie ref.

As I picture the OP in my head, I would say something, probably along the lines "excuse me, what did you say" or "are you speaking to me"--and then the player's response dictates what happens next.



This is a bit pedantic and not real world. If this were literally true, every professional game would have a dozen cards. We watched WC players scream F you in the face of referees with no sanction--that's not the way the world should be, but there can be levels of dissent that are worth addressing that don't rise to the level of a caution. Referees who think their only choices with low level dissent are to ignore or caution are giving up useful tools to control player behavior.

Its all contextual. Manchester Sunday League 20 years ago the refs used to give us players plenty of stick. Very different to how referees would speak to players who were gobby in the beautiful Hope Valley League where I finished playing and the whole culture around the game was different. Its difficult to contextualise such differences on a forum. Even the same team can require a different response in separate games.

You've got to be able to read the room. But equally there's a line where self respect kicks in, our 'line' is crossed and the situation needs to be addressed. That line is different for us all and so is our reaction. Ultimately we're aiming to stop the issue at source however we deal with it.

 

[Russell Jones]

there can be levels of dissent that are worth addressing that don't rise to the level of a caution

I'm going to risk further pedantry, though hopefully in a good cause! I prefer the approach that says that dissent is dissent and therefore a mandatory caution. However, not all disagreement / frustration with decisions is dissent. By definition, dissent is:

Dissent is strong disagreement or dissatisfaction with a decision or opinion, especially one that is supported by most people or by people in authority.

So players can mildly disagree with a decision and it is NOT dissent. Reason I prefer this thought process, is that it keeps things simple. OFFINABUS is a red card, Dissent is a yellow card but mild disagreement by a player can (and should) be managed instead

 

[Ben448844]

I'm going to risk further pedantry, though hopefully in a good cause! I prefer the approach that says that dissent is dissent and therefore a mandatory caution. However, not all disagreement / frustration with decisions is dissent. By definition, dissent is:

Dissent is strong disagreement or dissatisfaction with a decision or opinion, especially one that is supported by most people or by people in authority.

So players can mildly disagree with a decision and it is NOT dissent. Reason I prefer this thought process, is that it keeps things simple. OFFINABUS is a red card, Dissent is a yellow card but mild disagreement by a player can (and should) be managed instead

I think the majority of 'dissent' in football is managed. I can count on one hand the amount of OFFINABUS dissent I've had in my short time with the whistle (200th game this morning). I suppose its about managing what we can manage to prevent OFFINABUS occurring. Ive never experienced OFFINABUS coming out of no where but I'm sure it occasionally happens. Its about managing the process before you get to cards whenever possible. To me that involves adressing any disagreements to show management, not ignoring it imo.

 

[RustyRef]

I'm going to risk further pedantry, though hopefully in a good cause! I prefer the approach that says that dissent is dissent and therefore a mandatory caution. However, not all disagreement / frustration with decisions is dissent. By definition, dissent is:

Dissent is strong disagreement or dissatisfaction with a decision or opinion, especially one that is supported by most people or by people in authority.

So players can mildly disagree with a decision and it is NOT dissent. Reason I prefer this thought process, is that it keeps things simple. OFFINABUS is a red card, Dissent is a yellow card but mild disagreement by a player can (and should) be managed instead

This is something that us observers have to be very careful with. Showing dissent is a mandatory caution in law, so if we put something like "it was good to see you calmly speak to the away 3 after 14 minutes following him showing dissent against your decision" we would be incorrect in law. Rather we have to say something like "it was good to see you calmly speak to the away 3 after 14 minutes following him verbally disagreeing with your decision"

 

[Big Cat]

166 games in.... 1 x S6
Just over half of my games have been teenagers however. No doubt it's like waiting for (offin) A BUS, they'll all come round the corner together!

 

[Ref253]

I'm going to risk further pedantry, though hopefully in a good cause! I prefer the approach that says that dissent is dissent and therefore a mandatory caution. However, not all disagreement / frustration with decisions is dissent. By definition, dissent is:

Dissent is strong disagreement or dissatisfaction with a decision or opinion, especially one that is supported by most people or by people in authority.

So players can mildly disagree with a decision and it is NOT dissent. Reason I prefer this thought process, is that it keeps things simple. OFFINABUS is a red card, Dissent is a yellow card but mild disagreement by a player can (and should) be managed instead

I'm interested where this definition has come from. In the LOTG the definition is:

Public protest or disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision; punishable by a caution (yellow card)

 

[Keeday]

No chance. I'll ask the player straight if it was directed at me or ask him why he's whispering. Never once has anyone admitted that it was aimed at me. Im not taking this type of nonsense just because I'm wearing a black uniform. Equally I'm not making a big issue of it, just giving the player an opportunity to repeat himself whilst im looking at him.

I'm not being incendiary or fuelling any fires, but equally I'm not going to take snide comments from anyone. If a player thinks I'm the worst referee in the world then I'm absolutely happy to let them say that to my face, its their opinion and I couldn't care less. But snide comments hoping I'll ignore it, no way. Also, in amateur leagues I will often be reffing these teams again later in the season and if I accept this type of verbal abuse from them once then I cant complain if it happens again and again.

Well this is clearly where we differ then because I also would not accept verbal abuse. However we both clearly have different perceptions of verbal abuse because this, for me, comes nowhere near that threshold.

 

[Ben448844]

Well this is clearly where we differ then because I also would not accept verbal abuse. However we both clearly have different perceptions of verbal abuse because this, for me, comes nowhere near that threshold.

Poor choice of words from me. Its the snidey nature of the behind the back comments in earshot that bug me im afraid. Just not the way grown men communicate with each other. Like I said, I'm not looking to card I'm managing it by ensuring the player has to look at me and repeat himself. This of course never happens but helps ensure that it doesn't happen again.

I probably accept more than most, but equally (as mentioned earlier) where you referee often (but clearly not exclusively) has a direct correlation with the amount verbals that come the referees way

 

[Darren83]

In that situation I would have just ignored it, make sure they all leave the pitch and not let it bother me. They want confrontation, dont take the bait

 

[Arbiter]

I think there is a lot of room for us to be creating different pictures from the description in the OP, and the details of what we picture matter a lot on whether it is appropriate to ignore, say something, or go straight to a card. The louder it is, the more clear it is directed at the R, the more clear it is the player knows the R heard it, and the more likely it is anyone else heard it, the more necessary it is to take action. And the reverse is true.

But I'm also going to throw out one other factor: experienced referees also need to consider the next ref. For experienced refs, these things are easier to laugh off--we get thick skin. But what we condone, we encourage. So we need to consider how we would feel about the player doing the exact same thing next week to the newbie ref.

As I picture the OP in my head, I would say something, probably along the lines "excuse me, what did you say" or "are you speaking to me"--and then the player's response dictates what happens next.



This is a bit pedantic and not real world. If this were literally true, every professional game would have a dozen cards. We watched WC players scream F you in the face of referees with no sanction--that's not the way the world should be, but there can be levels of dissent that are worth addressing that don't rise to the level of a caution. Referees who think their only choices with low level dissent are to ignore or caution are giving up useful tools to control player behavior.

Sorry for the late reply, but I would only say this: that if it doesn't rise to the level of a caution then it is not, in the opinion of the referee, yet at the level of dissent. It is something different, for the purposes of the LOTG. I would wager that it would be considered an "emotional reaction" to an incident, especially if it is short and ends quickly. IFAB have clearly given referees leeway to determine what is and is not dissent within the context of a match. My point is that if comments rise to the level of dissent (and therefore requiring a caution) the referee's only choice is to caution or to strategically not hear the comment.