A&H

DOGSO handball, red. Then loss of control

The Referee Store
Brian Hamilton said:
The OP said it was for dissent. It doesn't seem to be dissent, just doing something the referee told me not to.
Click to expand...

The first card was for dissent.
The second was persistent infringement of the laws of the game.
There is no minimum or maximum for what constitutes as persistent but for me if you've been warned, especially very recently, and do it again, that to me shows arrogance and disrespect to both me and the laws of the game.
 
YHTBT for the reason for the card. Just like when a player kicks the ball away after a free kick, it can be dissent or delaying the restart. This is an interesting one because you have any number of possibilities. My order:
  1. The player was told before the kick to stay out. If he ran in, in a public display of defiance then its dissent.
  2. It can be not respecting the distance for obvious reasons.
  3. It can be PO considering the laws clearly states no specific number of offences constitute PO.
  4. Finally in can be USB if the referee considers what he did was unsporting.
 
I'd say, stick to what it CLEARLY is, rather than what it COULD be.

It clearly is not respecting the distance.

There could be an argument it's dissent (not saying that I agree, just saying I can understand the argument).

Keep it simple, put it down to what it clearly is. Less chance of an appeal based on incorrect application of the law.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I'd say, stick to what it CLEARLY is, rather than what it COULD be.

It clearly is not respecting the distance.

There could be an argument it's dissent (not saying that I agree, just saying I can understand the argument).

Keep it simple, put it down to what it clearly is. Less chance of an appeal based on incorrect application of the law.
Click to expand...
The appeal argument makes sense. But the flip side is match control. If there is sufficient grounds for dissent I'd go for that. Just like kicking the ball away. It's always delaying the restart but when there is a hint of anger in it I'd go for dissent. If the administors want to dismiss my opinion (in a ITOOTR case) it's their problem.
 
Well the reason for the card has no impact upon your match control. It's purely reporting :)

You're giving the card either way, just questioning how you're writing it.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Well the reason for the card has no impact upon your match control. It's purely reporting :)

You're giving the card either way, just questioning how you're writing it.
Click to expand...

Agree that a dissent caution has no 'control' impact if its not clear it's for dissent. That very reason is why I always make it clear it's for dissent (if not clear already). You'd have to make sure that everyone know you don't put up with rubbish from players. And that is why its on the top of my list above.
 
I once saw a referee caution a striker for PI because he kept getting offside, this thread has reminded me of this a little.

If he keeps encroaching keep having it retaken until either the attacking team scores or he learns his lesson. If I was observing here I think I would struggle to support the caution here, certainly if I was told it was for PI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top