@Padfoot - yes, you can caution, but the point of the thread was for other game management skills. If it is dissent, then it has to be a YC, but there is a level below which new referees need to learn the skills gown to manage!
Distracting a Match Official during play
- Thread starter TomThompson
- Start date
@Padfoot - yes, you can caution, but the point of the thread was for other game management skills. If it is dissent, then it has to be a YC, but there is a level below which new referees need to learn the skills gown to manage!
We're not talking about a player who's crossing the line, we're talking about a player who's doing something that we would normally consider to be fairly acceptable, but in a repetitive and irritating manner. It's literally what the stepped approach was designed for.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Once it becomes repetitive and irritating, it’s crossed the line.
Either crush it before it reaches that stage, or wait and caution it.......if you start the stepped approach once it’s at the repetitive and irritating stage you are simply giving them further chances to be repetitive and irritating!
@TomThompson don't forget that you are stopping the game for the caution. The IDFK is the restart, not the reason for the stoppage. If you could stop the game without needing to caution, you open up the game for teams to take advantage - for example, where would the restart be from - where the offence took place or where the ball was when you blew for the stoppage? Nice easy way for a team to interrupt the flow of the game, without incurring a real penalty.
The restart would be from the location of the offence. Got caught out with that myself on an assessment last year.
In terms of stopping play you make an excellent point about the tactical implications; normally this stuff can wait until play has naturally stopped.
Alternatively if it's a red card offence you could signal advantage if it exists and if that player touches the ball again, stop play, award idfk to opposition and send off.
I guess you only really want to stop play if it benefits the opposition of the offender, otherwise I suggest waiting until the next stoppage
bester
RefChat Addict
I’ve never understand the wait until the next stoppage approach to dissent unless stopping play would disadvantage the opposition.
If the next stoppage is him committing a reckless foul are you going to double yellow? If the next stoppage is his team scoring then what are the opposition going to say when you book him?
If the next stoppage is him committing a reckless foul are you going to double yellow? If the next stoppage is his team scoring then what are the opposition going to say when you book him?
Its the same principle with playing advantage. You play advantage following a reckless tackle. The next stoppage is a goal for the offending team, maybe even the offending player. Yes if he commits a second reckless tackle or other cautionable offence he is getting 2 yellows and a red.
You have to take each case on its own merit I suppose.
It should not come as a surprise to a player to see 2 cards at the same time. Simple commincation such as 'I heard that player and I'll be back' means he knows he is already in trouble. If the opposition have an advantage you shouldnt take it away from them. If the player knows hes in trouble and makes a tackle, he will know the consequences of it.
I had a great example of this last season. A player challenged for the ball on half way and thought he was fouled - he wasn't - but the ball broke for his team anyway and they had an attack running towards the opposition penalty area. It wasn't a foul so not an advantage, but he seemed to want a free kick instead of a useful attacking opportunity for his team so had a moan about it. He kept chipping as his team progressed, so as the player with the ball broke through the defence to be one on one with the keeper I had enough. I stopped play and called the ball back to half way and cautioned him for showing dissent. He then offered to kick the ball back to the opposition from the drop ball! I told him "no, it's an indirect free kick!" which amazed him. His team went from almost certainly scoring to defending a free kick pumped into the PA because he couldn't keep his mouth shut. He kept going and got a second yellow not long after.
Don't disagree with that, but it needs to be crushed using the stepped approach. As an observer I don't want to see a caution for dissent unless it is blatantly obvious to everyone. That either means it is a big, public display of dissent, or the player concerned has been set up for a fall using the stepped approach.
Struggling to give best advice on when enough is enough, there isn’t a correct answer I suppose, you could easily chuck out a yellow and it’s problem sorted, likewise you could start WW3 too...
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm not sure I would characterise it as a mistake, rather it was misinterpretation by some of what the intent of the law was. When the change was made in the 2016-17 Laws edition, the IFAB included a clarification in the FAQ at the same time, as follows:
As stated above, it was already made clear by the IFAB at the same time as the Laws change was introduced in 2016, that the restart after dissent remained as an IDFK.
And this will be even more fun, when sin bins are in next years
. Such dissent means loss of potential goal, free-kick to the opponents (at the place of the player) and him spending 10 mins watching the game 
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Then, as an observer, you would be wrong.
If a player says something to a referee, that is considered to be dissent, and the ref cautions for it, I don’t care who heard it or not.....the referee is correct to caution. Telling them otherwise is disingenuous and misleading.
Yes, it did occur to me that you'd respond as such. Therefore, when i'm observed, it's fair to say that the standard of the report will depend not only on my actions, but also who the observer is on the day... grrrreat
By the way, I prefer the show a card promptly approach
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Can see both sides of this argument.
Where @RustyRef is right, is that, especially at higher levels, it is always better, where possible, to give decisions that are expected and easily understood by players, club officials and spectators. So 'setting up' a player, whether it is for dissent, persistent infringement or whatever else is a really helpful technique.
Where you are right is that it is entirely the referee's prerogative to caution for dissent even in situations where the offence is less obvious to others. And any observer who marks you down for doing so is (IMO) being unduly harsh. As a referee you just need to be aware that this will not 'look as good' and thus be really clear about what led to the card (in law) when probed on it by clubs or observer.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Just for clarity....
If I observe a referee caution a player for an offence that isn’t immediately obvious, then ( as with all cautions) when I ask for clarification they state it was dissent (and obviously that what was said is genuinely dissent) then I am not about to tell that referee that the caution was ill advised because the dissent was not public enough.
Mainly because that runs the risk of making the referee reluctant to caution in future which may lead to bigger problems if dissent runs unchecked.
@Big Cat every observer will have their own pet hates and foibles that you will do well to try and learn!
I didn't say that I would criticise the referee for it, but rather what I would be expecting to see. If a player has crossed the line that takes him straight the top of the steps and off the top of the ladder then I would of course support the referee, having discussed in the debrief. I would also offer advice as to how he could perhaps sell it better to show it was for dissent, as if I'm confused when he gets to L3, 2B, 2A, the increasing crowds will certainly be confused.
Whilst dissent cautions are low at higher levels, they still do happen and I can't remember seeing one at National League or above where I thought "what was that for". Communication is key at those levels, and referees like Phil Dowd and Mike Dean were / are excellent at making it clear that the caution was for dissent.