Have I messed up

[Brian Hamilton]

What league is it you referee on?

Yes I'd like to know this too because all the leagues I know in the County have team sheets, even the junior leagues.

 

[Isaac]

What league is it you referee on?

Halifax Saturday league, but I also do the Huddersfield junior one on occasion.

 

[ARF]

The player may claim wrongful dismissal and you could be asked if you might have made a mistake.

No he won't - claims for wrongful dismissal specifically exclude S6 and S7.

 

[Padfoot]

No he won't - claims for wrongful dismissal specifically exclude S6 and S7.

Glad someone spotted my deliberate mistake!

 

[Kes]

This is quite league dependent, which is probably why assessors want a ceremonial caution/dismissal at our level.

On my league we have team sheets, as most should, but they are also strict to the fact that team sheet numbers must match that of the players. You can either write down the full match squad on your matchpad pre-match or just take his number and use the teamsheet to verify it post-match IF they match the team numbers.

If you're unable to do that due to the logistics of your league, it shouldn't be too much of an issue to get his name. Inform him you won't be restarting until he gives you his name and if he refuses then tell his captain you won't be restarting until you have his name and ask the captain for his name.

My league also has a strict team sheet policy, but nothing will ever stop me from following correct (and as taught) cautioning procedure. Following it correctly, ie. whistle blast, call him to you, tell him he's recieving a caution and what for, getting his name, and then insisting that he remains stood until you've shown him the card, puts YOU in charge of the situation. It also gives the player (and eveybody else) time to calm down and demonstrates that you can't be ruffled.
Suddenly whipping out a yellow card as a player rushes towards you is reactive - it's not match control (in my opinion).

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If he got RIGHT in your face and was screaming at you then I think you can justify OFFINABUS....unusual, usually it's just dissent....but depends what we're envisioning. It's probably unusual for a player to put his face an inch from yours and scream at you, but heck, if that happened I'd have no problems with the red. Tone and overall manner are part of 'abusive' after all.

Or alternatively stick to the correct caution procedure and avoid looking stupid after showing the card, then having to abandon because you didn't get his name!

Why would you abandon for not getting his name?

No they are not. If you fail to follow the correct procedure and it causes you a problem, then expect it to be reflected in your comments and your mark at Supply and Contrib.

So stupid when administration gets in the way of refereeing. A quick card could be the best way to shut this guy up. Pity that assessors (not a specific assessor, more that somebody decided that it's important that assessors approach matches this way. We're all stuck doing what we're told, after all) figure it's more important that the referee stands there and cops whatever the player dishes out so he can say 'yes, but, can I have your name please?' Referees should not be restricted in ways that can harm their match control by the box-ticking nature of assessments.

 

[Padfoot]

If he got RIGHT in your face and was screaming at you then I think you can justify OFFINABUS....usually this would be dissent.

Why would you abandon for not getting his name?

If you read the post that I was quoting, you will find that it was advocating a quick caution then obtaining the players name, stating that you wouldn't restart the game until the player had given their name.......thus risking the eventuality of an abandonment if the player refuses to comply.......


So stupid when administration gets in the way of refereeing. A quick card could be the best way to shut this guy up. Pity that assessors figure it's more important that the referee stands there and cops whatever the player dishes out so he can say 'yes, but, can I have your name please?'

Yes, its terrible that we expect referees to apply the LOTG correctly whilst carrying out their duties. We will obviously develop better referees if we simply let them make things up as they go in the interest of making life easier for themselves.

And again, if you had bothered to read Brian's post correctly you would have noticed that he said the referee would be adversely marked if the decision to depart from the correct procedure caused him further problems.

 

[lincs22]

Back to the OP, @Isaac - you did the right thing. Coming 30 yards and then getting right in your face is offensive, insulting and abusive behaviour regardless of what was said....

You are quite correct at your level to bin them for it. Don't second guess yourself, you got this right.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Yes, its terrible that we expect referees to apply the LOTG correctly whilst carrying out their duties. We will obviously develop better referees if we simply let them make things up as they go in the interest of making life easier for themselves.

And again, if you had bothered to read Brian's post correctly you would have noticed that he said the referee would be adversely marked if the decision to depart from the correct procedure caused him further problems.

Drop the attitude, Padfoot

While the LOTG do permit abandonment for any reason, I really fail to see a reason for abandonment over what is purely an administrative issue (and not being able to report the name is purely an administrative issue with the league, nothing related to online). Although I'm happy to stand corrected if you can advise which page of the LOTG specifically makes abandonment an appropriate response to not getting a player's name (you did just insist it's applying the LOTG, after all)

As for your childish comments over 'if I had bothered to read BH's post correctly'....nothing I said disagrees with what he was saying that a referee would be marked down for not abiding by a certain caution procedure. In fact, I was quite clear that my issue was with the overall restrictive method of assessment that can detrimentally affect a referee's match control. To do with the assessment approach. So, for all your chest thumping to try and one-up somebody on here, you seem to have deviated onto a tangent from what I was saying. In short, your entire post managed to respond to mine while doing your best to berate me and attempt to put me down but completely missed everything I said.

You can apologise on this thread or via PM, I'll accept either.

 

[Kes]

The "abandonment" issue is a difficult one for sure, especially if it's for an "administrative" reason as alluded to above, but for me, the referee has to have match control and be in charge. What if a sent off player refuses to leave the playing vicinity afterwards? The whole premise of the game and having a referee is based upon strict compliance with the laws and the spirit in which they are written. Refuse to coperate with the referee? - referee refuses to cooperate with players and goes home. If this happened more often - there'd be less matches descending into chaos and drama.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Refusing to leave is actually specified under the laws. Being capable of reporting the player appropriately? It isn't. So, while your points certainly aren't bad ones, I just thought I'd highlight that one difference for your reference

I guess I'm privileged in Australia - games have teamsheets, so no need to get the name on the field. Name doesn't match the number on the teamsheet? not my problem!
Futsal is different, but you get the names afterwards.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Drop the attitude, Padfoot

While the LOTG do permit abandonment for any reason, I really fail to see a reason for abandonment over what is purely an administrative issue (and not being able to report the name is purely an administrative issue with the league, nothing related to online). Although I'm happy to stand corrected if you can advise which page of the LOTG specifically makes abandonment an appropriate response to not getting a player's name (you did just insist it's applying the LOTG, after all)

As for your childish comments over 'if I had bothered to read BH's post correctly'....nothing I said disagrees with what he was saying that a referee would be marked down for not abiding by a certain caution procedure. In fact, I was quite clear that my issue was with the overall restrictive method of assessment that can detrimentally affect a referee's match control. To do with the assessment approach. So, for all your chest thumping to try and one-up somebody on here, you seem to have deviated onto a tangent from what I was saying. In short, your entire post managed to respond to mine while doing your best to berate me and attempt to put me down but completely missed everything I said.

You can apologise on this thread or via PM, I'll accept either.

My post says his mark would be adversely affected if it caused him a later problem, not that it was a problem per se. But it's ok if you want to keep twisting my words to suit your own agenda, you carry right on.

I can't help noticing that the majority of contrary advice against that given by me and other senior referees/assessors comes from those who do not operate under the auspices of the English FA. I know we all operate under the same LotG however it would be appreciated by me and probably others, if those who report to other Associations and Federations made it clear that their advice comes from their experience of working under the competition rules, local practices and stipulations of their Association/Federation and not that of the English FA. For example Holdenman has repeatedly said he doesn't play added time in some of his games. In England we do.

 

[Chris Smith]

I have not read all of this, but I had a game ages ago as I called for a foul a player from the other team started screaming at me as he was walking behind me, as I turned around I pulled my yellow card out and when I was face to face I showed it him, he soon stopped.

I would have gone for a caution most of the time it works and you won't hear from him again after that but if he still screaming and shouting then go for the second yellow.

 

[Kes]

and not that of the English FA.

The English FA you say?!!

Wash your mouth out please Brian - that's terrible Sir.
There is is no "English FA". There is only THE FA.
Scottish FA, Welsh FA, German FA, Martian FA etc for sure but THE FA is the one and only and it's based in England. Point of fact.

Shocking.......

 

[YorkshireReferee]

No they are not. If you fail to follow the correct procedure and it causes you a problem, then expect it to be reflected in your comments and your mark at Supply and Contrib.

Just for clarification though, would you be happy to see it used if it benefitted the match and had no adverse affect?

 

[lincs22]

Just for clarification though, would you be happy to see it used if it benefitted the match and had no adverse affect?

There are limited times and reasons to use a "quick card". Difficult to list, but it would be when it enhanced your match control more than following required procedure.

 

[Isaac]

Back to the OP, @Isaac - you did the right thing. Coming 30 yards and then getting right in your face is offensive, insulting and abusive behaviour regardless of what was said....

You are quite correct at your level to bin them for it. Don't second guess yourself, you got this right.

Thanks, hearing it from an assessor makes me a lot more confident

 

[Padfoot]

This is quite league dependent, which is probably why assessors want a ceremonial caution/dismissal at our level.

On my league we have team sheets, as most should, but they are also strict to the fact that team sheet numbers must match that of the players. You can either write down the full match squad on your matchpad pre-match or just take his number and use the teamsheet to verify it post-match IF they match the team numbers.

If you're unable to do that due to the logistics of your league, it shouldn't be too much of an issue to get his name. Inform him you won't be restarting until he gives you his name and if he refuses then tell his captain you won't be restarting until you have his name and ask the captain for his name.

Drop the attitude, Padfoot

While the LOTG do permit abandonment for any reason, I really fail to see a reason for abandonment over what is purely an administrative issue (and not being able to report the name is purely an administrative issue with the league, nothing related to online). Although I'm happy to stand corrected if you can advise which page of the LOTG specifically makes abandonment an appropriate response to not getting a player's name (you did just insist it's applying the LOTG, after all)

As for your childish comments over 'if I had bothered to read BH's post correctly'....nothing I said disagrees with what he was saying that a referee would be marked down for not abiding by a certain caution procedure. In fact, I was quite clear that my issue was with the overall restrictive method of assessment that can detrimentally affect a referee's match control. To do with the assessment approach. So, for all your chest thumping to try and one-up somebody on here, you seem to have deviated onto a tangent from what I was saying. In short, your entire post managed to respond to mine while doing your best to berate me and attempt to put me down but completely missed everything I said.

You can apologise on this thread or via PM, I'll accept either.

Think you'll be waiting a long long time for any apology you might imagine you are entitled to.

As you can see from the first quote highlighted in bold......you have just told the captain you're not restarting the match until you get his name.....so if you don't get his name.....=what are you going to do? Climb down from your previous position and restart the game (destroying any credibility you might have had up to that point) or be true to your word?

All because you couldn't follow the mandated procedure for a caution?

 

[Padfoot]

Back to the OP, @Isaac - you did the right thing. Coming 30 yards and then getting right in your face is offensive, insulting and abusive behaviour regardless of what was said....

You are quite correct at your level to bin them for it. Don't second guess yourself, you got this right.

Is it not S6 at any level then? Or only at grassroots?

 

[Kes]

OFFINABUS is for use of that type of language. As far as I can deduce from the OP, the language/gestures used did not fall within the remit of OFFINABUS.
It should have been a caution for USB (C1 or C2). ??