RefSix

Giving players information.

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
Often a player who gets the ball but still fouls, would have fouled regardless of whether they got the ball, usually because they make a sliding challenge that either goes through the opponent to get to the ball later or takes the whole lot at once.

That immediately brings it hovering around reckless - there is no regard at all for the safety of the opponent - and hence why it is most likely to get a card.

Also related is the tackle that gets the ball but doesn't contact the opponent because they took evasive action. Only because PIADM is an IFK offence and not called out specifically as USB does it not always merit a caution, but this is borderline, the "see-through card" (everything except the actual colour) should be applied.

This is not the same as saying getting both ball and player is a foul. Getting the ball in a way that shows due care, but that for unrelated reason ends up making contact or bringing the player down, is merely part of the physical game.
This may be an age thing, I was never looking for reasons to automatically book someone, stepped approach and all that. But to seriously believe that a sliding tackle is usually a yellow is frankly laughable. Most players aren’t thugs, they’re decent honest guys out for a bit of fun and fitness, just like us really. They don’t go into many tackles predetermined to hurt someone. If you think they do then maybe sensible refereeing needs you to take a reflection on what you are actually doing each weekend. That’s just sounds like drone revenue raising for your County FA. Yes, there are cardable tackles, but I’d say, keep your powder dry for the deserving ones! You would be a very lonely referee at the games I was involved with with that default trigger point!
 

Nij

Well-Known Member
This may be an age thing, I was never looking for reasons to automatically book someone, stepped approach and all that. But to seriously believe that a sliding tackle is usually a yellow is frankly laughable. Most players aren’t thugs, they’re decent honest guys out for a bit of fun and fitness, just like us really. They don’t go into many tackles predetermined to hurt someone. If you think they do then maybe sensible refereeing needs you to take a reflection on what you are actually doing each weekend. That’s just sounds like drone revenue raising for your County FA. Yes, there are cardable tackles, but I’d say, keep your powder dry for the deserving ones! You would be a very lonely referee at the games I was involved with with that default trigger point!
Wow, you're actually illiterate. That or just not bothering to read anything you respond to.

I only talked about disciplinary action for tackles that were fouls. I don't say anything about carding for tackles that are not fouls.

I included a paragraph specifically to say that not all tackles that get the player are fouls, and never have I said all sliding tackles are cautionable by default.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
This may be an age thing, I was never looking for reasons to automatically book someone, stepped approach and all that. But to seriously believe that a sliding tackle is usually a yellow is frankly laughable. Most players aren’t thugs, they’re decent honest guys out for a bit of fun and fitness, just like us really. They don’t go into many tackles predetermined to hurt someone. If you think they do then maybe sensible refereeing needs you to take a reflection on what you are actually doing each weekend. That’s just sounds like drone revenue raising for your County FA. Yes, there are cardable tackles, but I’d say, keep your powder dry for the deserving ones! You would be a very lonely referee at the games I was involved with with that default trigger point!
Tbh I think it is just a case of you mis understanding and not interpreting the content of the posts. Nobody is saying it's a default position. Nobody is looking for cautions.
What we are saying is that, usually, these types of offences are reckless, @Nij gave a better description why.
Yes, there will be ones where no sanction is needed but in my experience these types of fouls are reckless. Its an observation, not an attempt at laying out fact.
It does deopend on the games you are reffing I suppose. I am reffing players that are getting paid, in front of paying spectators and the clubs expect the game to be refereed as per lotg. A caution is a caution, and all participants accept and want that. I'd be more likely to have a difficult game for not cautioning an offence and 'managing' than I would for dealing with it as expected.
You arent the only one, everyone has been at the arse end of football too. I wasn't one of the chosen academy boys you detest so much, I have got to L4 on my own standing and initiative and trust me, I also know how to manage a game between 22 hungover chaps who just want a scrap.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Tbh I think it is just a case of you mis understanding and not interpreting the content of the posts. Nobody is saying it's a default position. Nobody is looking for cautions.
What we are saying is that, usually, these types of offences are reckless, @Nij gave a better description why.
Yes, there will be ones where no sanction is needed but in my experience these types of fouls are reckless. Its an observation, not an attempt at laying out fact.
It does deopend on the games you are reffing I suppose. I am reffing players that are getting paid, in front of paying spectators and the clubs expect the game to be refereed as per lotg. A caution is a caution, and all participants accept and want that. I'd be more likely to have a difficult game for not cautioning an offence and 'managing' than I would for dealing with it as expected.
You arent the only one, everyone has been at the arse end of football too. I wasn't one of the chosen academy boys you detest so much, I have got to L4 on my own standing and initiative and trust me, I also know how to manage a game between 22 hungover chaps who just want a scrap.
I'm with you. If I'm blowing for a foul tackle in which the ball has been won, it implies/infers that I've deemed it reckless or dangerous. The players also understand this approach, otherwise the exclamation, 'i got the ball ref', will hold more clout

Edit: This phrase is one i've stuck with since starting out...
Me to player: 'You're interested in the ball, I'm interested in player safety' ..... YC bye bye
We're all looking for short phrases to kill a conversation and crack on
 
Last edited:

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I'm with you. If I'm blowing for a foul tackle in which the ball has been won, it implies/infers that I've deemed it reckless or dangerous. The players also understand this approach, otherwise the exclamation, 'i got the ball ref', will hold more clout

Edit: This phrase is one i've stuck with since starting out...
Me to player: 'You're interested in the ball, I'm interested in player safety' ..... YC bye bye
We're all looking for short phrases to kill a conversation and crack on
Missing a step............What happen to "careless"?
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
In the same way that professional refereeing is different to grass roots (pointing at the ball mentioned earlier being the obvious example), grass roots refereeing is also different. SPA at u10s for a pulled shirt with the attacking team on the break, who's actually going to show a yellow card in that situation? 75 mins gone in a pub league match and it's 6-0 to the home team. Same situation, none of the home team make a fuss, who's going to give the yellow?

Whilst we are all there to apply the LOTG, we should all have a bit of common sense and spirit of the game towards the level we're at and the context of the game imo. At 0-0 or even 3-0 it's a yellow for SPA. 6-0 and the other team have given up,nobodies expecting a yellow and there's no aggression in the game, just have a word. I'll get shot down for an opinion like this but my point is that it's a different game at different levels and robotic and stringent applying of the laws doesn't happen at the very top for obvious reasons and it doesn't happen at the bottom either.

SFP and Violent Conduct is always a red in any context obviously. It's the smaller stuff that differs through the league's. And at grass roots tough OA Sunday League matches, who's sweating the small stuff?
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
In the same way that professional refereeing is different to grass roots (pointing at the ball mentioned earlier being the obvious example), grass roots refereeing is also different. SPA at u10s for a pulled shirt with the attacking team on the break, who's actually going to show a yellow card in that situation? 75 mins gone in a pub league match and it's 6-0 to the home team. Same situation, none of the home team make a fuss, who's going to give the yellow?

Whilst we are all there to apply the LOTG, we should all have a bit of common sense and spirit of the game towards the level we're at and the context of the game imo. At 0-0 or even 3-0 it's a yellow for SPA. 6-0 and the other team have given up,nobodies expecting a yellow and there's no aggression in the game, just have a word. I'll get shot down for an opinion like this but my point is that it's a different game at different levels and robotic and stringent applying of the laws doesn't happen at the very top for obvious reasons and it doesn't happen at the bottom either.

SFP and Violent Conduct is always a red in any context obviously. It's the smaller stuff that differs through the league's. And at grass roots tough OA Sunday League matches, who's sweating the small stuff?
Brilliant though out post @Ben448844 .100% agree. Virtual High 5!!! ;)

So if it dosen't happen at the top and it dosen't happen at the bottom then why are refs playing harsh judge and jury in the middle. Yes, they'll pipe up and say there is an expectation! But from who? CFA's, Assessors, LOTG, themselves? I'm not saying cards are always harsh, some certainly are not, its the expectation that a certain type tackle is usually a card. If that was the case then that would be written into law like a punch etc.
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
I think that those (including myself) who often lean towards a yellow for a foul tackle where the ball is taken first are thinking about credibility / expectations. If a player wins the ball first but in a careless manner then selling the foul at all is often tricky. However when it tips over into reckless it makes it much easier to sell both the foul AND the YC. Likewise it is harder (though by no means impossible) to sell a red card when the ball is played first.
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I think that those (including myself) who often lean towards a yellow for a foul tackle where the ball is taken first are thinking about credibility / expectations. If a player wins the ball first but in a careless manner then selling the foul at all is often tricky. However when it tips over into reckless it makes it much easier to sell both the foul AND the YC. Likewise it is harder (though by no means impossible) to sell a red card when the ball is played first.
Really? Is there a sliding scale of which laws you must misinterpret as you get promoted through the levels or what?.......ball first or player first.......three things, was it careless or reckless or with excessive force?
End of discussion.
Move on........
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Really? Is there a sliding scale of which laws you must misinterpret as you get promoted through the levels or what?.......ball first or player first.......three things, was it careless or reckless or with excessive force?
End of discussion.
Move on........
I agree. From my experience, officiating at grassroots level is far more straightforward than at semi professional level where you (if you wish to succeed) need to bear in mind the expectations of not just players but managers, club officials, fans and Observers ........
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I agree. From my experience, officiating at grassroots level is far more straightforward than at semi professional level where you (if you wish to succeed) need to bear in mind the expectations of not just players but managers, club officials, fans and Observers ........
And therein lies the problem.........two tier refereeing........principally caused by the infamous "club marks".....absolute horse crap.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The two are not independent. Ball or player first Vs CRUEF. Ball or player first is a consideration in determining CRUEF. It even exists in the published list of consideration by FIFA. As an example, when a player plays the ball first, it is less likely (not not always the case) for the player to be showing disregard to the danger to an opponent.

So simply put, yes you do consider if 'he got the ball first' but no, just because he got it first it doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The issue I have with complaints about pointing to the ball is that players and fans do understand that it can still be a foul/foul with a yellow or a red when a player takes the ball and the man. They know that,even though they may claim otherwise to defend themselves when it's gone against them. The idea that a ref points at the ball to indicate a fair tackle means that the players then think all tackles where the ball is won is fair game is complete nonsense. The ref is pointing at the ball to indicate that its been won because the other aspects of the tackle have also been fair and therefore doesnt need communicating imo. To then suggest that the next foul where there's a reckless tackle where the ball has been won cannot be sold as a yellow is untrue. The player who's done it knows why he's being carded and knows that the days of going through people to get the ball are long gone.

I sometimes think that we refs believe that players are thick or that they have no understanding of the laws. I played all my life and I played with some absolute knuckle heads. They've been coached, played and watched football all their lives. They know how they can and can't tackle, they see it on tv every week if not every day.

I'm comfortable pointing to the ball for a clean tackle and then issuing a red card 2 seconds later for the next tackle where the player wins the ball but goes in with excessive force. Absolutely nobody thinks that I can't give a red because he won the ball and I pointed to the ball on a tackle 2 seconds later. They'll use it as a defence at the time for sure but they aren't daft. I know observers won't like it but that doesn't worry older refs like me. People will disagree and that's absolutely fine, but it's my experience in the game,and I have alot of experience in playing,far more than I do officiating. I'm also comfortable with the opposing argument to pointing towards the ball. I get it I really do. But to me I believe that players are far more aware of what types of tackles warrant what type of sanction regardless off whether the ball was won or not. And I played in the South Manchester Sunday Leagues for 15 years with and against players who were horrible. But in the pub after the game, they knew when they'd got away with one or why they were sent off regardless of winning the ball
 
Last edited:

ChasTutorObserver

New Member
The issue I have with complaints about pointing to the ball is that players and fans do understand that it can still be a foul/foul with a yellow or a red when a player takes the ball and the man. They know that,even though they may claim otherwise to defend themselves when it's gone against them. The idea that a ref points at the ball to indicate a fair tackle means that the players then think all tackles where the ball is won is fair game is complete nonsense. The ref is pointing at the ball to indicate that its been won because the other aspects of the tackle have also been fair and therefore doesnt need communicating imo. To then suggest that the next foul where there's a reckless tackle where the ball has been won cannot be sold as a yellow is untrue. The player who's done it knows why he's being carded and knows that the days of going through people to get the ball are long gone.

I sometimes think that we refs believe that players are thick or that they have no understanding of the laws. I played all my life and I played with some absolute knuckle heads. They've been coached, played and watched football all their lives. They know how they can and can't tackle, they see it on tv every week if not every day.

I'm comfortable pointing to the ball for a clean tackle and then issuing a red card 2 seconds later for the next tackle where the player wins the ball but goes in with excessive force. Absolutely nobody thinks that I can't give a red because he won the ball and I pointed to the ball on a tackle 2 seconds later. They'll use it as a defence at the time for sure but they aren't daft. I know observers won't like it but that doesn't worry older refs like me. People will disagree and that's absolutely fine, but it's my experience in the game,and I have alot of experience in playing,far more than I do officiating. I'm also comfortable with the opposing argument to pointing towards the ball. I get it I really do. But to me I believe that players are far more aware of what types of tackles warrant what type of sanction regardless off whether the ball was won or not. And I played in the South Manchester Sunday Leagues for 15 years with and against players who were horrible. But in the pub after the game, they knew when they'd got away with one or why they were sent off regardless of winning the ball
Which begs the question "Why point at the ball?" After all, you don't point to your shoulder when a fair charge occurs. A simple alternative for a fair tackle which involves contact with the ball but not the opponent is to call "Fair tackle" or just move to the next phase.
I regularly see players surrounding the referee when a teammate is being cautioned or dismissed after taking the man and the ball, always referring back to an earlier tackle when the referee demonstrated "got the ball" and correctly allowed play to continue.
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Which begs the question "Why point at the ball?" After all, you don't point to your shoulder when a fair charge occurs. A simple alternative for a fair tackle which involves contact with the ball but not the opponent is to call "Fair tackle" or just move to the next phase.
I regularly see players surrounding the referee when a teammate is being cautioned or dismissed after taking the man and the ball, always referring back to an earlier tackle when the referee demonstrated "got the ball" and correctly allowed play to continue.
But they crowd the referee referring to other incidents with handball, a nudge in the back from a high ball, dangerous play when a boot is raised etc etc. There are always alternatives to the communications used during individual incidents. I don't see how it's wrong to point at the ball though. It's an excellent use of communication in certain circumstances.

Again it's about context. Are you ever going to point at the ball during a heated game? Probably not if you've anything about you. But if it's a tackle in the penalty area in the last minute of a close game, it's an excellent way of communicating. Context and circumstance. Not robotic refereeing
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Strange thing when a gaggle of members are seemingly opposed to one another, yet I agree with all arguments on both sides of the fence :confused:
Even when they're correcting my posts :mad: :rage:
 
Last edited:
Top