Open Age False names

[RustyRef]

I mean - I know this is the accepted wisdom, but I so rarely find it actually works this way.

A cautioned player will either happily accept the caution or they won't. A player who accepts it doesn't need the slow-down, and particularly if it's for some form of cynical SPA (which are most commonly when a player accepts it with a smile), you're only going to wind the other team up taking ages over a caution. And a player who isn't happy to accept the caution will only get more wound up at being asked to spell his name, being made to stand there while you explain the caution, then when he starts to walk away and you have to whistle him back...

Write-on cards where you only need to note a shirt number let you do it either way in my experience. You can flash the card quickly and then note the details after, or you can pull the card out, be clear that it is a caution but still chat to the player for a moment or two as you write the details down before showing the card if you want to. Taking names means you have to do it the slow way, which isn't always the best way.

That's fine unless you are going for promotion or are already between L4 and L2B. Flashing cards will not end well with observers unless there is a very valid reason to do so, such as to defuse a potential serious flashpoint.

 

[GraemeS]

That's fine unless you are going for promotion or are already between L4 and L2B. Flashing cards will not end well with observers unless there is a very valid reason to do so, such as to defuse a potential serious flashpoint.

Oh of course - but for some reason what keeps observers happy is a different question to what is actually a useful technique.

 

[JamesL]

Taking names means you have to do it the slow way, which isn't always the best way.

Or you do it my way...

You have to take the name, but it doesn't mean you need to actually write it down.

Name please number 7.
John doe
Thanks John. Here's your caution.

Done.

The alternative is to spend 3 or 4 mins jotting down in notepad and very briefly check it corresponds after said above discussion.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Or you do it my way...

You have to take the name, but it doesn't mean you need to actually write it down.

Name please number 7.
John doe
Thanks John. Here's your caution.

Done.

The alternative is to spend 3 or 4 mins jotting down in notepad and very briefly check it corresponds after said above discussion.

I’m terrible with names

 

[RustyRef]

Oh of course - but for some reason what keeps observers happy is a different question to what is actually a useful technique.

Not just observers though. If you just take a number and the name you report is wrong because the team sheet is wrong that will reflect badly on you as well as the club. Why: because taking the name at the time of the caution is mandatory in England, so your discipline department and RDO will know that you haven't followed procedure correctly.

 

[GraemeS]

Not just observers though. If you just take a number and the name you report is wrong because the team sheet is wrong that will reflect badly on you as well as the club. Why: because taking the name at the time of the caution is mandatory in England, so your discipline department and RDO will know that you haven't followed procedure correctly.

But the assumption there is that the manager has at no point gone to (the presumably either suspended or not registered) "Mike Jones" and told him that he's actually got to be "Dave Smith" today.

If the manager writes "Dave Smith" on the sheet and I report "Dave Smith" as the cautioned player, how does the CFA know if I've simply followed the team sheet or have asked for a name on the pitch and the player has maintained the lie? It's literally impossible for them to tell the difference - so insisting on taking names is making the referees life harder and limiting their man-management options for no real benefit.

 

[Trip]

You have to take the name, but it doesn't mean you need to actually write it down.

Name please number 7.
John doe

This is what I do. I started doing this because so many players have names which are completely foreign to me and frequently quite long. I could be there for quite a while getting the spelling right.

I always check the names after the game. Quite often the teamsheet number are wrong.

 

[CA1992]

I work on open age leagues (both Saturday's and Sunday's) where the referee gets team sheets in advance of KO - I always ask the managers beforehand to ensure that the numbers match-up to what the players are wearing (bonus if they actually do it, but worse case I've got all the names - never had a Saturday game where numbers have been wrong and rarely on a Sunday)

I then write down all the names in my book, including named team officials so when issuing cards, I go straight to the number and just ask the player to confirm the name, scribble down the time and code then issue the card. Found that works as a happy medium for me in administering quickly/efficiently, whilst also making sure I've got the right person and following the 'correct' procedure.

 

[RustyRef]

But the assumption there is that the manager has at no point gone to (the presumably either suspended or not registered) "Mike Jones" and told him that he's actually got to be "Dave Smith" today.

If the manager writes "Dave Smith" on the sheet and I report "Dave Smith" as the cautioned player, how does the CFA know if I've simply followed the team sheet or have asked for a name on the pitch and the player has maintained the lie? It's literally impossible for them to tell the difference - so insisting on taking names is making the referees life harder and limiting their man-management options for no real benefit.

I'm not talking about false names, I'm talking about incorrect numbers. You caution Dave Smith who is wearing number 7, but number 7 on the team sheet is listed as Mike Jones and you therefore incorrectly report Mike Jones who was actually wearing number 5. The CFA issue a charge for Mike Jones, but his club then have to send it back saying the cautiion was actually for Dave Smith. It creates extra work for the CFA, extra work for the club sec (although arguably deserved for getting the numbers wrong), and you might be asked for your observations as the CFA might think the club are trying to pull a fast one, especially if, as as an example, Mike Jones was one caution off of a suspension.

You can't win here, you either have to lie and say you took the name and he said it was Dave Smith rather than Mike Jones, or you have to admit that you didn't take the name.