A&H

Dissent.....and the FA

Padfoot

Padfoot

The Persecuted One
Interesting article in January's Refereeing magazine from the FA.

All about how to improve those pesky Club Marks.........it actually suggests that when dealing with dissent, it doesn't necessarily need a caution and by implication not cautioning will improve your club mark.

If it's 'dissent' it's a caution.....mandatory under the LOTG......if it's not 'dissent' then it's not a caution. Simples really.

No wonder so many promotion seeking candidates are weak on dissent etc if this is the 'advice' that is being given!
 
The Referee Store
At our RA meeting last week we had a training session regarding dealing with dissent and OFFINABUS, would say it's definitely opened my eyes as to what dissent actually is under the LOTG.
 
I think that is a little out of context @Padfoot. If you read into the whole paragraph it suggests that actually not every question/comment from a player merits a caution because not every question/comment constitutes dissent. It is however saying that some action, be it a quiet/public word or potentially involving captains should be taken in order to show that you are dealing with it. If every comment from a player resulted in a caution then I doubt many matches would be finishing with a full 90 on the clock...it is however important that in situations of dissent, especially persistent comments from individuals, are dealt with appropriately ie. everyone understands the action you will you take.
 
That almost sums up out meeting @HantsRef , mainly different ways of dealing with different comments made at different volumes different distances away. Although some on here would say that dissent of any form should be cautioned end of, I largely agreed with what was said and discussed and that no every moment of "dissent" warrants a caution.
 
@jack.prescott Exactly! No two incidents of dissent are going to be identical! Just like 'swearing' or the use of OFFINABUS language...just because the striker has blasted his shot 10 yards wide of the goal and shouts "f*** sake" does not mean that he should be sent off. It was born out of frustration of his own mistake and the language is purely directed at himself.

Yes dissent needs to be dealt with, but there are ways and means beyond just issuing a caution for every incident which will aid refereeing as a whole, far beyond just 'improving clubmarks.' Where possible, go through the motions (ie. stepped approach to some extent) and then that gives far more reason to caution if and when a player has not taken on board what you have previously said.
 
Even if a player swears at you, it doesn't always require a red card for OFFINABUS. Before I get slated for saying that I'll give you an example that came up at the meeting. Red striker goes down softly in the area and claims a penalty, you decide no offence has been committed and as the ball is cleared you travel up the field, as you run past him the red centre mid runs alongside you and says "referee, that's clearly a f*****h pen! Are you going to give us anything!"

The unanimous decision in the room was to caution the red midfielder for dissent. The change in the law a fair few years ago means the wording "foul and abusive" is no longer included, this means that swearing in itself is no longer an offence and therefore, dependant on the other words used, can simply be met with a caution. As society changes, refereeing and law must do the same, swearing is more common and acceptable than it has been in the past so we must be more tolerant towards it, up to a point.
 
jack.prescott said:
Even if a player swears at you, it doesn't always require a red card for OFFINABUS. Before I get slated for saying that I'll give you an example that came up at the meeting. Red striker goes down softly in the area and claims a penalty, you decide no offence has been committed and as the ball is cleared you travel up the field, as you run past him the red centre mid runs alongside you and says "referee, that's clearly a f*****h pen! Are you going to give us anything!"

The unanimous decision in the room was to caution the red midfielder for dissent. The change in the law a fair few years ago means the wording "foul and abusive" is no longer included, this means that swearing in itself is no longer an offence and therefore, dependant on the other words used, can simply be met with a caution. As society changes, refereeing and law must do the same, swearing is more common and acceptable than it has been in the past so we must be more tolerant towards it, up to a point.
Click to expand...

One of the best posts/explanations I have seen on here. 100% agree!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top