Dissent & Sin Bin

[boblardo]

Obviously dissent is subjective and everyone will have a different limit but I had a situation in my fixture on saturday which I want to reflect on.

Almost half time, probably around the 42/43 minute mark and a blue player (9) in the penalty area goes to challenge for the ball with the red GK. Red GK makes a howler and ball bounces over his leg, blue 9 swerves the leg and then goes down. No real claims from anyone for a penalty except the aggrieved blue 9. I wave playon but then hear some quite clear frustation "XXXX in XX, he could have taken my arm off" that sort of thing.

The game by this time had gone up the other end of the pitch and fizzles out for a Goal kick to blues at which point I give the blue 9 a stern look and remind the captain there are sin bins in operation. At half time as we walk off the captain speaks to 9 and I also approach to "explain" how i saw it and to mind his language.

Just before starting the 2nd half a spectator says "You're generoud ref, surely thats a sin bin?"

This was the first sign of dissent (turns out it was the only incident too!) but in my view the game had progressed up the field to stop the game at this point and go back to deal with the dissent would have disadvantaged the red team and i didn't feel it worthy enough to do that without risking my match control. FWIW he was good throughout the remainder of the game.

I was praised for my handling of the fixture from both coaches after the game but I guess there are a few questions

I am hoping, fitness allowing, to get back on the promotion scheme next season and I am not sure how an observer would have seen this

1) If i had stopped the game the red team would have probably felt quite aggrieved and my match control shot had I only gone back for a yellow. however, given the language used OFFINABUS wouldn't have been unjust, but the game wasn't really "asking for it"

2) Is there a stepped approach for dissent or us it black and white?

3) this was the 1st instance of dissent in the game, i get that this could have gone the other way ie by not dealing with it i was encouraging in making the next incident harder to deal with but as per point 2, some fouls are worthy of a caution but they soon tot up?

Any comments or thoughts

 

[JamesL]

I am still adopting a stepped approach to this.
Of course players and spectators are going to plant seeds of, "shouldn't that be a sin bin" , because now it is to their advantage.
A caution was of no real significance before unless they could draw the player into making another cautionable offence, or the player was already cautioned. Now the player sits out 10 minutes and they have a supposed tactical advantage.
I think the sin bin works a treat with the stepped approach.
I used it on several games so far, called captain in, said look, this guys getting close, you know if he carries on it's 10 minutes out, sort it out or It'll be a sin bin. On all of the occasions I have heard no more dissent. With the exception of one game where I followed through and sin binned a player.
I also make it clear to skipper that this is a team warning not individual so its his whole team he needs to look after

 

[one]

Obviously dissent is subjective and everyone will have a different limit but I had a situation in my fixture on saturday which I want to reflect on.

Almost half time, probably around the 42/43 minute mark and a blue player (9) in the penalty area goes to challenge for the ball with the red GK. Red GK makes a howler and ball bounces over his leg, blue 9 swerves the leg and then goes down. No real claims from anyone for a penalty except the aggrieved blue 9. I wave playon but then hear some quite clear frustation "XXXX in XX, he could have taken my arm off" that sort of thing.

The game by this time had gone up the other end of the pitch and fizzles out for a Goal kick to blues at which point I give the blue 9 a stern look and remind the captain there are sin bins in operation. At half time as we walk off the captain speaks to 9 and I also approach to "explain" how i saw it and to mind his language.

Just before starting the 2nd half a spectator says "You're generoud ref, surely thats a sin bin?"

This was the first sign of dissent (turns out it was the only incident too!) but in my view the game had progressed up the field to stop the game at this point and go back to deal with the dissent would have disadvantaged the red team and i didn't feel it worthy enough to do that without risking my match control. FWIW he was good throughout the remainder of the game.

I was praised for my handling of the fixture from both coaches after the game but I guess there are a few questions

I am hoping, fitness allowing, to get back on the promotion scheme next season and I am not sure how an observer would have seen this

1) If i had stopped the game the red team would have probably felt quite aggrieved and my match control shot had I only gone back for a yellow. however, given the language used OFFINABUS wouldn't have been unjust, but the game wasn't really "asking for it"

2) Is there a stepped approach for dissent or us it black and white?

3) this was the 1st instance of dissent in the game, i get that this could have gone the other way ie by not dealing with it i was encouraging in making the next incident harder to deal with but as per point 2, some fouls are worthy of a caution but they soon tot up?

Any comments or thoughts

It sounds like you are already arguing against an assessor's advise and TBH there are arguments for and against either way.

Assessors also have "different limits". For me, better assessors allow you some flexibility no matter what their own limit or tolerance is. But in that case, not matter what you choose, to manage or to bin the player, you better make sure it is going to work for you. Otherwise, not only it would work against you in the game, it would also work against you in your assessment.

 

[JamesL]

It sounds like you are already arguing against an assessor's advise

Assessors also have "different limits". For me, better assessors allow you some flexibility no matter what their own limit or tolerance is. But in that case, not matter what you choose, to manage or to bin the player, you better make sure it is going to work for you. Otherwise, not only it would work against you in the game, it would also work against you in your assessment.

There was no observer yet, the way I read it. He is asking for what an observers opinion might be onanaging first signs of dissent.
My view is the stepped approach is still relevant.
My opinion is the bar for dissent hasn't changed. The punishment for being guilty has. However, spectators and participants of the game have taken this to be a new bar set for dissent tolerance when I don't believe there has been anything to suggest that, apart from perception beind the reasons for introduction.
I too am happy to be put right but as I say so far, getting hold of low level dissent and threatening use of the bin is as effective at reducing it, if not more so than actually using it.

 

[boblardo]

Correct @JamesL - No observer present so yes am just trying to get a feel for what an observers opinion maybe. I like the stepped approach and using the captains where possible, even mention it during the preamble in the centre circle

 

[Mintyref]

Sounds to me like you got it spot on. Specially as it did not deteriorate, you effectively managed it.

 

[one]

There was no observer yet, the way I read it. He is asking for what an observers opinion might be onanaging first signs of dissent.

Realise that. My first sentence was tongue in cheek, the rest was what the opinion might be. It depends on the observer.

I am with you on your reasoning but only if you can make it work for you. And it sounds like you have.

Managing dissent is not one size fits all. Different referees manage it differently. Even the same referee should not take the same approach in every game. Its about being able to adapt. For example the stepped approach may be your goto option but you should be able to read every game and its atmosphere well enough to realise that in some games it is not the best approach.

So in the OP, it sounds like what he did worked for him. But the same incident in a different game (or another incident in the same game) may not. As an observer, I don't look at an incident like that in isolation, i look at it's impact on the whole game.

 

[JamesL]

Realise that. My first sentence was tongue in cheek, the rest was what the opinion might be. It depends on the observer.

I am with you on your reasoning but only if you can make it work for you. And it sounds like you have.

Managing dissent is not one size fits all. Different referees manage it differently. Even the same referee should not take the same approach in every game. Its about being able to adapt. For example the stepped approach may be your goto option but you should be able to read every game and its atmosphere well enough to realise that in some games it is not the best approach.

So in the OP, it sounds like what he did worked for him. But the same incident in a different game (or another incident in the same game) may not. As an observer, I don't look at an incident like that in isolation, i look at it's impact on the whole game.

The simple way I see it is, forget the punishment.
If before sin bins you would caution, caution and sin bin.
If you would use stepped approach use stepped approach.
The law for dissent has not changed, only the punishment. So, in my view the approach should be the same as it was before.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Worth repeating my first sib bin experience yesterday. Women's OA league match - I flagged a (to me) clear offside. Heard attacker say the usual 'Never offside lino' but then apparently, she said to the ref that she was going to 'report that lino'

Ended up spending the last 9 mins of the match off the fop.

 

[Russell Jones]

Worth repeating my first sib bin experience yesterday. Women's OA league match - I flagged a (to me) clear offside. Heard attacker say the usual 'Never offside lino' but then apparently, she said to the ref that she was going to 'report that lino'

Ended up spending the last 9 mins of the match off the fop.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that an additional comment like that should tip the scales into dissent territory, especially if it was said quietly enough that only the referee heard. In reality, it's entirely a player's right to report any of us should they (albeit 99 times out of 100 foolishly) decide to do so.

 

[Kes]

I don't use any "steps" for dissent. It is what it is. I'm fairly thick-skinned and like a bit of banter so I know that when something sounds (and feels) like dissent to me then that's exactly what it is and I'll card for it. Minute 1 or minute 90.

 

[Stephen]

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that an additional comment like that should tip the scales into dissent territory, especially if it was said quietly enough that only the referee heard. In reality, it's entirely a player's right to report any of us should they (albeit 99 times out of 100 foolishly) decide to do so.

I agree with this. "Never Offside Lino" may be a comment made in frustration of the moment. Of course it's dissent but if made in the heat of the moment, not loud or directed or accompanied by gestures, I'd tend to have a quick word, if that was the only dissent by that player so far, and get on with it. At any repeat I'd have a public word or call the captain in or caution, whatever was appropriate. As far as "I'm going to report the lino", I'd just ignore it, it's not really dissent in my opinion.

 

[GraemeS]

I don't use any "steps" for dissent. It is what it is. I'm fairly thick-skinned and like a bit of banter so I know that when something sounds (and feels) like dissent to me then that's exactly what it is and I'll card for it. Minute 1 or minute 90.

No steps at all? So when someone says something in response to a decision, you either ignore it or bang out a yellow?

 

[Russell Jones]

No steps at all? So when someone says something in response to a decision, you either ignore it or bang out a yellow?

That's not what he said Graeme. All he said was when someone (actually) dissents he gives them a Yellow. This is no different to saying that if someone commits a Reckless challenge, he also gets a Yellow.

Not all comments / disagreement tip over into dissent territory just like not all Careless tackles make it to Reckless.

That said, I'm a big believer in the Stepped Approach where comments are getting close to my tolerance level without yet reaching the threshold for dissent. To ignore this option altogether is just operating with one hand tied behind your back!

 

[Kes]

No steps at all? So when someone says something in response to a decision, you either ignore it or bang out a yellow?

Not what I said is it?

If somebody says something to me about a decision I've made, I'll either explain/banter back or "bang" out a yellow if I feel that it's dissent.

There's no "3 strikes and you're out rule" for verbals when I'm refereeing mate. It's the same for a reckless challenge. It's an offence in it's entirety. I'll either deal with it verbally myself because I thinks it's appropriate or I'll "bang one out".

 

[GraemeS]

Not what I said is it?

If somebody says something to me about a decision I've made, I'll either explain/banter back or "bang" out a yellow if I feel that it's dissent.

There's no "3 strikes and you're out rule" for verbals when I'm refereeing mate. It's the same for a reckless challenge. It's an offence in it's entirety. I'll either deal with it verbally myself because I thinks it's appropriate or I'll "bang one out".

"Banter back" is still not the stepped approach.

As Russell points out, there are things that are just straightforward dissent, and I've got no problem going straight to the pocket for that. But the original poster said that he didn't feel the comments in question quite crossed the line - so responding to that with "I don't use any steps" doesn't really help us work out what you're advising the OP to do in this situation?

 

[Kes]

That's not what he said Graeme. All he said was when someone (actually) dissents he gives them a Yellow. This is no different to saying that if someone commits a Reckless challenge, he also gets a Yellow.

Not all comments / disagreement tip over into dissent territory just like not all Careless tackles make it to Reckless.

That said, I'm a big believer in the Stepped Approach where comments are getting close to my tolerance level without yet reaching the threshold for dissent. To ignore this option altogether is just operating with one hand tied behind your back!

Beat me to it mate.

With the persistent comments thing, I've had that before all game long but still wouldn't label it as dissent.

"You missed that one there Ref"
"He's all over me Ref"
"Yes please Ref - we'll have that"
"How long's he gonna take Ref?"
"Can he do that Ref?"

I eventually just get a bit cheesed off with it and speak to the player. Something along the lines of "Okay mate, stop now please cos you're starting to distract me from the game. Distract me again and it's a yellow for USB".

Never failed me yet.

For me dissent is a reaction to a decision I've made (or not) and is usually said in a way that other players are meant to hear as well.

 

[Kes]

"Banter back" is still not the stepped approach.

I know it's not Graeme. That's why I said I don't use the stepped approach.

As Russell points out, there are things that are just straightforward dissent, and I've got no problem going straight to the pocket for that. But the original poster said that he didn't feel the comments in question quite crossed the line - so responding to that with "I don't use any steps" doesn't really help us work out what you're advising the OP to do in this situation?

I think I've been pretty clear in my post what it is that I do mate.

Either bat it back with some verbals or explanation of my own, yellow card (if it crosses the line) or just ignore/laugh it off. In truth, there's not much else a referee can do.

 

[Big Cat]

I think I've been pretty clear in my post what it is that I do mate.

Either bat it back with some verbals or explanation of my own, yellow card (if it crosses the line) or just ignore/laugh it off. In truth, there's not much else a referee can do.

Actually, I think talking (banter) (communicating in all ways) with the players is the first step
I'm with you however, many C2's are without warning

 

[Stephen]

"Okay mate, stop now please cos you're starting to distract me from the game. Distract me again and it's a yellow for USB".

I like it.