RefSix

General communication

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#21
Totally agree with you. Trying to anticipate to what could happen is always a good idea, but you should never dig yourself a hole.

In addition to yours, one I usually use is related with high balls that are about to be challenged in the air, in which I shout "elbows out" to remind them that I don't want any arm used as a threatening weapon.

Most of the times it works fine for me.

If it works for you, great. Not something I would do or encourage.
Reason, if contact is then made, you have created yourself a problem. I.e. An elbow was used
You have then an expectation level to reach regarding the use of an elbow

Dont foul
Careful

These words do not leave yourself wide open...
 
#22
At the leagues I ref, players understand what I mean by "Elbows out", and if the players are smart enough, they will understand as well that I refer to a high elbow.

In Spanish it's "Sin codos", and they always understand it well.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#23
My point is if contact is made, you now have made a rod for your own back
A generic shout still affords you leaway.

And being honest, if am playing and you shouted elbows out, I would not understand.

But if it works for you, great.
 
#25
I find myself talking a fair bit but feel it helps me and the players.

General talking for example, foul last night "yes you've got the ball but you have come through the player to do so"
 
#26
I really like ”remember, play the ball”.

It works on a few levels for me: literally with crazy players chasing someone considering a hack; a mild warning in messy situations that makes it essier to whistle smaller fouls; and as a reminder after trifling contact that reassures an attacker that still has the ball that you’ve seen the previous mistimed challenge.

With these general warnings though it really varies with level. ”Play the ball” works with serious but naughty OA. ”Hands down” works for me loads with the better teenagers as holding/trained push offs/head injuries have been my hang ups in those games.

”No shirt pulling” is my fave line with the highest level OA I do because it’s those sly fouls that I want them to know I watching - and ”play the ball” would be condescending.
 
#29
Does not perpetuate the myth that getting the ball automatically makes it a viable challenge?
Interesting point... I think it is clear in context that as a ref I want players to try to play the ball and not the player... to attempt a tackle for the ball, rather than e.g. hack a player late when they know the ball has gone.

Context again. "Play the ball" works for me in serious but naughty OA where players might be looking for some afters.
The kinds of challenges where a player takes the ball and then a lot of the player - and its careless and punishable rather than applauded - tend to be a division or two higher, where "play the ball" is condescending.

I have an interesting mix at the mo:
Last night level 6 - mixed ability - matches tend to either be friendly or totally nuts as the players get easily frustrated, and they don't care about the result, or the ref. Expect the unexpected. And the beginner ARs will drop you in it when you least expect it.

Sat level 5 - serious but functional - matches are tense, pressure builds, dissent is more systematic, a lot of rehearsed BS, the ref is tool for many players who can't influence a game as they don't have the skills. Much stronger challenges. Problems with blatant elbows, trips. ARs have some weaknesses so can be picked on by players and affect match control.

Tomorrow level 4 (flag, one day whistle I hope) - serious, much faster players and play, and much tighter. Flash points happen fast but localised, strong personalities to be dealt with individually. Very little BS from the players. They will play hard but it's football. Here is where the ball plus man, ankle scrapes/stamps and fast sliders happen. The odd sharp elbow. All officials are very good, top of their game, very tidy, maybe comms and "mistakes" on any scale are very rare.

...all three have to be reffed differently IMHO, especially the in-game talking with players. At 6 and 5 there is so much contact that sometimes there's a running commentary required. At 4 not so much because the players are so much more controlled. At 5 and especially 6 a lot of my effort goes into players that I think are about to lose it or retaliate, again almost none of that at 4 - instead it's sly shirt pulling. At 6 an idiot will jump into a GK or trip someone up off the ball, at 5 it's the barge into the fence, at 4 there's a crowd and naughty stuff is usually quick and around the ball...

Do you get a mix of games like this in the UK?
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#31
Yes, and for that reason I will criticise referees who point at the ball to indicate it was a fair challenge. That is sending out all the wrong messages as you are effectively saying that winning the ball means it is a legal challenge.

It also eliminates the sheepishness when you progress to games on tv and your clips played back to you, and there you are as ref at real time, not only missing the foul, but compounding the error by pointing at mythical won ball...making you now look twice as foolish when the clip clearly shows a free kick should have been awarded...
 

one

RefChat Addict
#32
Where do you think player have learnt the phrase "but i got the ball ref"? From referees who dismiss appeals for fouls by "he got the ball" justification.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#34
Where do you think player have learnt the phrase "but i got the ball ref"? From referees who dismiss appeals for fouls by "he got the ball" justification.
Its another great example imo of why we should not go around making up our own signals, if folk just stuck to what the book says, things would be less confusing for all. My own gripe is the cutting the grass thing, I do understand its merits, but, simply not giving the foul is signal enough to all that you are not giving a foul !!
Pointing to the ball in a, won the ball, notion as stated above, really means nothing,
Seen refs too go to caution and make some kinda elbow motion to indicate what for, again, your on risky ground because I think most folk consider if an elbow has been used (and connected) then, we are strongly considering a red card?
Sometimes the best communication is the things we dont communicate...
 
#35
Its another great example imo of why we should not go around making up our own signals, if folk just stuck to what the book says, things would be less confusing for all. My own gripe is the cutting the grass thing, I do understand its merits, but, simply not giving the foul is signal enough to all that you are not giving a foul !!
Pointing to the ball in a, won the ball, notion as stated above, really means nothing,
Seen refs too go to caution and make some kinda elbow motion to indicate what for, again, your on risky ground because I think most folk consider if an elbow has been used (and connected) then, we are strongly considering a red card?
Sometimes the best communication is the things we dont communicate...
You make some very good points here.
I ref where there is a language challenge - 4-5 different languages between various teams - only 1 and a half of which I am competent in - so little signals after fouls help a lot. But agreed - elbow signal is asking for trouble.
I also never point at the ball/ground. I think it's just awkward. I do though say "ball" or "got the ball" to indicate my opinion. I think that's a fairly basic part of proactive refereeing.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#36
Yes, and for that reason I will criticise referees who point at the ball to indicate it was a fair challenge. That is sending out all the wrong messages as you are effectively saying that winning the ball means it is a legal challenge.
Completely agree. I try to be complimentary on the pitch as well which is why I always revert to 'Great tackle' rather than 'he's got the ball!'
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#38
As im only twenty games into my reffing days ive found myself explaining a lot of free kicks even when not questioned, is this common ?
A short explanation ("handball", "he tripped him", "push") or the accompanying gesture is fairly standard I think. Any more than that is probably a bad idea and invites arguments by giving players something to disagree with - as well as suggesting you're willing to have a discussion. I would try and keep it short even when asked, but don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make it clear why you gave a certain decision.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#40
As im only twenty games into my reffing days ive found myself explaining a lot of free kicks even when not questioned, is this common ?
As Big cat says he is doing. Try and work this out of your game. You're only inviting conversation and dissent.
I too am trying to cut down on how much talking I am doing and saving it for when it's needed.
Save it for the less obvious fouls or if a player politely asks what it was for.
 
Top