Just wondering if anyone on here has trialed zero tolerance towards dissent in their games and done away with the 'stepped approach', and if so, how it affected their games.
I am not the biggest fan of the stepped approach anymore to be honest, but I do understand why it works. For example I can see zero tolerance leading to a player receiving a 'cheap' caution for dissent and then one stone wall caution-able tackle later and he is a goner.
The reason I ask, is that I was assistant the other week in a quarter-final (open age) to a referee who stated during his pre-match, that he had a zero tolerance towards dissent and was especially protective of his assistants with regard to dissent. There were two dissent cautions (one for either team) within the first four minutes and not a single peep except appeals from any of the players for the remainder of the game.
I have to say I was amazed at how well it worked. I think like a lot of things in football, new methods become old methods relatively quickly (eg the respect campaign). The players are now fully aware of how 'we' operate with regard to dissent. They are fully aware that they get a couple of cheap shots, with no real comeback.
I quizzed the referee after the game about how well it works for him in other games. He stated that it works better in some games than it does in others. He stated that he didn't care if he ended up with 12 cautions for dissent in a single game, because it was a cancer within the game that required eradicating and that referees as a group have become their own worst enemy by standing by and just letting it happen.
Viva la revolución !!!!!
I am not the biggest fan of the stepped approach anymore to be honest, but I do understand why it works. For example I can see zero tolerance leading to a player receiving a 'cheap' caution for dissent and then one stone wall caution-able tackle later and he is a goner.
The reason I ask, is that I was assistant the other week in a quarter-final (open age) to a referee who stated during his pre-match, that he had a zero tolerance towards dissent and was especially protective of his assistants with regard to dissent. There were two dissent cautions (one for either team) within the first four minutes and not a single peep except appeals from any of the players for the remainder of the game.
I have to say I was amazed at how well it worked. I think like a lot of things in football, new methods become old methods relatively quickly (eg the respect campaign). The players are now fully aware of how 'we' operate with regard to dissent. They are fully aware that they get a couple of cheap shots, with no real comeback.
I quizzed the referee after the game about how well it works for him in other games. He stated that it works better in some games than it does in others. He stated that he didn't care if he ended up with 12 cautions for dissent in a single game, because it was a cancer within the game that required eradicating and that referees as a group have become their own worst enemy by standing by and just letting it happen.
Viva la revolución !!!!!
. Critical piece is to clearly differentiate between verbals that are frustration, dissent and Offinabus. When it's non verbal dissent (kicking ball away, sarcastic clapping, throwing ball into ground in frustration etc) it's normally very obvious and straightforward to go straight to a card. 
...
