Giving yellows

[Runner Ref]

Got a question tangentially related to this.

Was observed yesterday and the observer told me that it's better to issue a yellow card first and then take a name and talk to the player after the issuing as opposed to taking their name and talking to the player before showing the yellow. Thoughts on this? Doesn't seem like a logical order but I suppose if an assessor was saying it to me then it's a legitimate process?

I actually got marked down on this as a L3 some years ago. Had teams names written down in my book, so showed him the card first and then made a note in book.

These days I think they're a little more open to different ways of issuing cautions. For me if I'm observing, I'm more interested in the referee taking control of the situation and adapting. Sometimes a quick card will be needed, other times slow it down and take the name. I'd say the main risk of showing the card first is that player is more likely tonwalk off, as they'll assume their part in the process is done.

 

[OldNavyRef]

I was originally taught. Call player over to a neutral spot. Ask their name briefly explain your decision then issue/raise whatever card.

That was the textbook procedure we all got taught on my course.

I don't follow that though, as I write my caution on my card. So I instantly get the card out. Call the player to a neutral location. Then ask name, quick why they earned the card. Then raise it.

But I don't know if in the situation you were in the observer was implying a quick caution would possibly have defused a potential situation.

 

[Gabriel]

Got a question tangentially related to this.

Was observed yesterday and the observer told me that it's better to issue a yellow card first and then take a name and talk to the player after the issuing as opposed to taking their name and talking to the player before showing the yellow. Thoughts on this? Doesn't seem like a logical order but I suppose if an assessor was saying it to me then it's a legitimate process?

I'd guess it would depend where you are. If you are in England you will have been told on your course that it's name first, only exception is where showing the card first would prevent a potential mass con in a heated game. Anywhere else, I'm not able to say. Also, I tend to use a bit of common sense. If it's a caution for delaying the restart, quick card otherwise you as the ref are creating more of a delay. In most situations it depends on the temper of the game to be perfectly honest.

 

[RustyRef]

Got a question tangentially related to this.

Was observed yesterday and the observer told me that it's better to issue a yellow card first and then take a name and talk to the player after the issuing as opposed to taking their name and talking to the player before showing the yellow. Thoughts on this? Doesn't seem like a logical order but I suppose if an assessor was saying it to me then it's a legitimate process?

What then happens if you show the card then the player walks away and won't come back? You've then escalated from a bog standard caution to something potentially more serious.

Probably down to where you are refereeing, but that doesn't sound like great advice to me.

 

[cooperd5]

I agree. Player name first, card second.
Why would an observer have an opinion on this? Seems simple enough either way

 

[Jed]

Got a question tangentially related to this.

Was observed yesterday and the observer told me that it's better to issue a yellow card first and then take a name and talk to the player after the issuing as opposed to taking their name and talking to the player before showing the yellow. Thoughts on this? Doesn't seem like a logical order but I suppose if an assessor was saying it to me then it's a legitimate process?

That to me seem an awful procedure. That’s just asking for a player to walk away without giving u their name. Name,explain,further action (if necessary), card. that’s what I use.

 

[Viridis1886]

What then happens if you show the card then the player walks away and won't come back?

Second caution for dissent?

 

[george.g]

Second caution for dissent?

At that point it's a SinBin, which looks even messier under current rules.

I'd go USB or Delay Restart, as we're not kicking off till I have his name.

Actually did this earlier this season, went to caution a manager for dissent. Began taking his name, failed to provide 3 times, gave him a final warning or told him it would be a caution for Unsporting Behaviour, and he refused again. Silly bugger picked up another yellow

 

[RustyRef]

Second caution for dissent?

I knew what the outcome would be, my point was more that it would have been avoidable.

 

[OldNavyRef]

At that point it's a SinBin, which looks even messier under current rules.

I'd go USB or Delay Restart, as we're not kicking off till I have his name.

I've always seen people go for dissent by action, and din bin.

I wonder what is the correct one here. Because you could argue delaying restart. But I think it is a sin bin.

 

[Gabriel]

I've always seen people go for dissent by action, and din bin.

I wonder what is the correct one here. Because you could argue delaying restart. But I think it is a sin bin.

From next season, when even 2 sin bins will be a red, I'd go sin bin. But if it happened before that deadline, I'd go USB or delaying restart to just get them off. Not my problem then.

 

[OldNavyRef]

From next season, when even 2 sin bins will be a red, I'd go sin bin. But if it happened before that deadline, I'd go USB or delaying restart to just get them off. Not my problem then.

I personally would go for dissent so C2(SB).

I think that is their main driver. They are undermining you with their actions. Attempting to take away your control.

So I personally think it would be the easiest sell and the most correct in law.

I highly doubt they are not giving your name to C4 (even though by ignoring you they are).

Putting it under C1 is just wrong for me, as the best fit of the C1s is C1(UB), which isn't a good fit, when the behaviour is clearly dissent.

 

[george.g]

Last thing I want is that player returning to the FoP though. So, if I can remove them on a second caution, and be correct in law (which I think it is), I will.

 

[OldNavyRef]

Last thing I want is that player returning to the FoP though. So, if I can remove them on a second caution, and be correct in law (which I think it is), I will.

I don't get this logic.

Typically sin binned players return with a different attitude. Sin bin is a good tool and in the mentioned situation probably the best suited tool.

But just wanting to red players because you can find a way to justify doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Gabriel]

I don't get this logic.

Typically sin binned players return with a different attitude. Sin bin is a good tool and in the mentioned situation probably the best suited tool.

But just wanting to red players because you can find a way to justify doesn't sit right with me.

I can understand this and I don't exactly enjoy having to consider red cards. However, not providing a name is problematic and as such I don't want to waste my time trying to sort it out. I just carry out the disciplinary action I feel to be appropriate and let the club and CFA deal with the rest.

 

[george.g]

I don't get this logic.

Typically sin binned players return with a different attitude. Sin bin is a good tool and in the mentioned situation probably the best suited tool.

But just wanting to red players because you can find a way to justify doesn't sit right with me.

I think SinBins are wholly ineffective. I have found them to be a hinderance to match control, with them only working a good 1 in 3 times. The rest either lead to further aggravation among a team, or no change in a team's behaviour in general.

I use them because I have to, but they're fundamentally flawed, and basically make disent out to be a non-cautionable offence in the eyes of players, as they know an SB + C doesn't equal RC.

Sounds as though you've had different experiences with them, and I'm pleased if they are a success for you, but for me, they're a headbanger to use, and I'd rather we just removed them so I didn't have to!

 

[JamesL]

I think SinBins are wholly ineffective. I have found them to be a hinderance to match control, with them only working a good 1 in 3 times. The rest either lead to further aggravation among a team, or no change in a team's behaviour in general.

I use them because I have to, but they're fundamentally flawed, and basically make disent out to be a non-cautionable offence in the eyes of players, as they know an SB + C doesn't equal RC.

Sounds as though you've had different experiences with them, and I'm pleased if they are a success for you, but for me, they're a headbanger to use, and I'd rather we just removed them so I didn't have to!

Personally think they are a fantastic tool... Often the threat of enough to improve behaviour.

Would love to have them at step 3 and 4 too.

 

[OldNavyRef]

I think SinBins are wholly ineffective. I have found them to be a hinderance to match control, with them only working a good 1 in 3 times. The rest either lead to further aggravation among a team, or no change in a team's behaviour in general.

I use them because I have to, but they're fundamentally flawed, and basically make disent out to be a non-cautionable offence in the eyes of players, as they know an SB + C doesn't equal RC.

Sounds as though you've had different experiences with them, and I'm pleased if they are a success for you, but for me, they're a headbanger to use, and I'd rather we just removed them so I didn't have to!

Yeah @george.g they work really well for me (so far).

But there has been a quite a few threads on here, where the opinion is split. So I am not going to debate that as it is subjective for sure.

I think ifab at my level would expect you to go for dissent over delay the restart (my opinion and happy to be corrected). As I personally think it is dissent over everything else.

 

[george.g]

James/Navy - Think SinBins are brilliant when they work, and the threat is sometimes really useful. I'd argue more so at Saturday football, as teams seem to care a bit more about the result, and the b*llocking from the manager when they get sent for 10, rather than Sunday when football is *generally* more social.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but for perspective, 6 days ago I had a game. SinBinned 2 lads, sent the skipper off for OFFINABUS and cautioned a sub for dissent. Did it improve behaviour? No. I was chased off the pitch, had a bottle kicked at me and the player responsible for both had to be physically restrained by multiple teammates while I locked myself in my dressing room.

If there was ever proof to me that SinBins are ineffective at changing player behaviour - it would be that.

However, that being said - I acknowledge this is a freak thing that happens with certain teams and individuals, and isn't a thing that is clearly the fault of SinBins. I just personally regret SinBinning, had I ignored the dissent, I can tell you now, I wouldn't have had a player try and strike me while screaming threats!

 

[george.g]

Would love to have them at step 3 and 4 too.

FWIW, I would only advocate them under the proposed SB+YC = RC system, otherwise I think we'd have untold confusion amongst speccies + club officials.