A&H

Orange Card

D

Darius

RefChat Addict
I feel this is a topic that may incur a meme of Jacko eating popcorn but I thought of the following whilst doing the garden earlier...,

Is it possible for an 'Orange Card' offence that is exactly the same in both to be a yellow card in one scenario and a red card in another, and still be 100% correct for both. This doesn't mean if something is a mandatory red not giving that.

I'll try show you what I mean with an example;

A player already on a caution commits a foul which is his 3rd one in 5 minutes.

SCENARIO A - His side are losing 7-0 in the 89th minute. You pull him to one side and advise him that if he farts again he'll get sent off.

SCENARIO B - His side are winning 2-1 with 15 minutes to go and you've already cautioned 6 players. The last one being an opposition player for persistent. Tempers are starting to be raised. (This is the definition of Orange!)

SCENARIO C - Same as the above, except you've dismissed an opposition player for 2 cautions already. You can't manage it and you dismiss the player.

I thought it was an interesting talking point and would like to know views?
 
The Referee Store
An 'orange' card typically refers to a foul challenge that is right on the border between reckless and serious foul play and so you could sell either colour card....not the scenarios you describe.

The scenarios you describe are much more representative of the difference between weak refereeing and doing the job properly.
 
Unfortunately, and perhaps for the first time ever, I have to agree with Padfoot.

My understanding of an orange card was two or more referees seeing the same challenge as either reckless or excessive force depending solely on their opinion.

The situations above for me suggest a referee deciding on a red or yellow dependant on the circumstances of the game rather than the offence committed.
 
An orange card is a 'straight red' scenario, rather than second yellow.

As said above, I think it occurs when multiple referees view the same scenario with differing opinions. As we've previously found out, I don't know who said it, but someone on here did once say that orange cards don't exist, merely a red card situation bottled by a ref.
The biggest problem with 'orange cards' is under assessment. Ref views it as yellow, assessor disagrees and thinks it's red, marks lost. I have, unfortunately, been the ref in this situation. AR on same side (almost identical view) to assessor agreed with me and AR on opposite side (similar view but further away to me) agreed with assessor. 4 officials (L3, L4, 2x L5 & 13yrs, 8yrs, 20+yrs experience), 2v2. Assessor's report came in, I got 63. Cheers!
 
Ok so I must not use terminology incorrectly.

However ignore the use of the phrase orange card, the question I suppose is....Is it ever CORRECT for a card to be given/not given or 'upgraded' due to a match context/temperature?

Or as Padfoot says is it weak refereeing?

(You can also ignore the scenarios if you want!)
 
DanCohen17 said:
An orange card is a 'straight red' scenario, rather than second yellow.

As said above, I think it occurs when multiple referees view the same scenario with differing opinions. As we've previously found out, I don't know who said it, but someone on here did once say that orange cards don't exist, merely a red card situation bottled by a ref.
The biggest problem with 'orange cards' is under assessment. Ref views it as yellow, assessor disagrees and thinks it's red, marks lost. I have, unfortunately, been the ref in this situation. AR on same side (almost identical view) to assessor agreed with me and AR on opposite side (similar view but further away to me) agreed with assessor. 4 officials (L3, L4, 2x L5 & 13yrs, 8yrs, 20+yrs experience), 2v2. Assessor's report came in, I got 63. Cheers!
Click to expand...
Must have been a lot more in the report than a red/no red decision. That might cost you a maximum of 5 marks, which puts you on 68 at best.
 
Awful refereeing in my opinion

There's not 3 sets of laws

LOTG: tense cup final edition
LOTG: dog and duck basement division edition
LOTG: last minute winner edition

Etc etc
 
Saw an orange card a week or so ago. A friend of 10 years standing, who I'd never seen referee, had an incident near the halfway line. From my position, which ever way the referee went was fine. From the assessor's position, 10 yards further up the touchline, it was shaded slightly yellower. It was the only major talking point of the game. The assessor backed the referee's caution but told him he would also have supported a red. That's is an orange card.
 
HertsFinest said:
Awful refereeing in my opinion

There's not 3 sets of laws

LOTG: tense cup final edition
LOTG: dog and duck basement division edition
LOTG: last minute winner edition

Etc etc
Click to expand...
You still being a L7 referee, you would see things that way. You can't referee Dog&Duck the same way you referee Step 5 Contributory League football.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
You still being a L7 referee, you would see things that way. You can't referee Dog&Duck the same way you referee Step 5 Contributory League football.
Click to expand...

Not saying that at all. But not giving a red card because of the situation in the game is clearly wrong

And to add, both the OP scenarios and my subsequent ones were about different situations in a game of the same level. Not talking about Sunday league vs professional game

But then far be it from you to actually read what I've written. More see my name, have a sly dig.
 
Last edited:
I just want to point out - and I'm sure the mods will back me up on this - that the exact conversation I wanted to start has started. So can everyone not get carried away so the thread doesn't get locked!

Thanks!
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Must have been a lot more in the report than a red/no red decision. That might cost you a maximum of 5 marks, which puts you on 68 at best.
Click to expand...
Docked me marks (you are indeed correct about 5) for AOL, but also used the same incident in MC, plus 2 further, smaller point-scoring, categories. A very poor assessment, in terms of context and the way it was written. Couldn't appeal due to politics!

Darius said:
I just want to point out - and I'm sure the mods will back me up on this - that the exact conversation I wanted to start has started. So can everyone not get carried away so the thread doesn't get locked!

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Yes, agree with Darius. This has the potential to, and should, be a thoroughly good thread with all sorts of conversation within it! Please don't be personal at all and I'm sure we'll be fine! We are watching ;)
 
Orange card is, as said, a borderline card.
Take DOGSO for an example. a player Running straight on goal with only the keeper to beat and is fouled by the keeper is a clear DOGSO.
Say that player takes drastic action to evade the keeper. Runs across goal, along the edge of the PA. Is fouled. No longer heading towards goal, no OGSO.
2 points on the scale. Then you have every possible angled run between those two. At one point it starts reaching the area where you could make the argument one way or another whether it's an OGSO. That's the area where it starts being an orange card.
The tempo of the game definitely has an impact when deciding on cards. There's always a point where it's clearly a card, always a point where it's clearly a not, and everything in between. That 'in between' is where our discretion lies. Thus, the severity of the incident isn't the only consideration. Previous behaviour of the player. Mood of the game. Nature of the match. Mood of that particular part of the game. So on and so forth. . It's not weak refereeing - if the players emotions and aggression aren't consistent from one game to the next, or one 10-min period in the match to the next period - thus referees can't be 100% consistent in all subjective areas of the law.
If it's 15-0 down in an U/14 match and in the final minute a player sprints across to challenge an opponent and leads with the elbow, you better still be pulling out that red. But for less clearcut decisions, there's scope to consider the context in determining which decision to make.
 
A good example of "orange" cards are those in the FIFA Futuro DVDs that fall right on the edge of reckless/excessive force. They've been touched on above, but the Futuro DVDs have a foul severity exercise where you place 12 incidents on the scale of "no foul" to "omg how did that not kill the guy?"

Each segment (No foul, careless, reckless, excessive force) has 3 "slots" for an incident, and the ones on the borderlines are typically those that can go either way, often depending on a) angle of view, and b) match temperature
 
DanCohen17 said:
Docked me marks (you are indeed correct about 5) for AOL, but also used the same incident in MC, plus 2 further, smaller point-scoring, categories. A very poor assessment, in terms of context and the way it was written. Couldn't appeal due to politics!

Yes, agree with Darius. This has the potential to, and should, be a thoroughly good thread with all sorts of conversation within it! Please don't be personal at all and I'm sure we'll be fine! We are watching ;)
Click to expand...
That is plain wrong. An error should not bring double penalty. That alone is grounds to appeal.
 
HertsFinest said:
Not saying that at all. But not giving a red card because of the situation in the game is clearly wrong

And to add, both the OP scenarios and my subsequent ones were about different situations in a game of the same level. Not talking about Sunday league vs professional game

But then far be it from you to actually read what I've written. More see my name, have a sly dig.
Click to expand...
Your point wasn't clear from what you posted.

I'd still say you have to apply law accordingly in each situation, put much better by Bloodbeard above.

As far as a sly dig based on your name is concerned, you think too highly of yourself. (Now that's a sly dig ;) )
 
Brian Hamilton said:
That is plain wrong. An error should not bring double penalty. That alone is grounds to appeal.
Click to expand...
Too long to go into here (and way off topic), but due to circumstance, that wasn't going to happen. My 'polite' WhatsApp response to the assessor (sent me a WhatsApp asking if that assessment was 'all good'), after I'd genuinely politely acknowledged his email, probably didn't help my own cause, but I felt a serious amount of relief after it!
 
As referees progress, part of how they will be assessed is their ability to:

"Identify the temperature/mood of the game and responds effectively when this changes".

For me, this suggests that the same challenge can (and SHOULD) be viewed differently dependent on the match situation. Obviously, this can be all too easily used as an excuse to 'manage' an un-manageable situation or 'bottle' a straightforward card. But used in the right way, I think it's an invaluable skill (and one of my biggest development points for the season ahead)
 
Russell Jones said:
As referees progress, part of how they will be assessed is their ability to:

"Identify the temperature/mood of the game and responds effectively when this changes".

For me, this suggests that the same challenge can (and SHOULD) be viewed differently dependent on the match situation. Obviously, this can be all too easily used as an excuse to 'manage' an un-manageable situation or 'bottle' a straightforward card. But used in the right way, I think it's an invaluable skill (and one of my biggest development points for the season ahead)
Click to expand...

This shouldn't really apply to challenges, if its reckless then caution and if it's excessive force/dangerous then dismiss, regardless of the temperature or mood,,,,they are mandatory sanctions.

You will get yourself in a world of hurt if you try to sell a reckless challenge as careless just because it's been a nice game so far...

Where it could apply is offences like delaying the restart, not retreating etc or when you choose to play, or not, advantage.

For me it's about the referee being able to increase/decrease their involvement according to the 'temperature' of a game.....not whether they can find an excuse to avoid a card because everyone's been really nice to each other!
 
Padfoot said:
This shouldn't really apply to challenges, if its reckless then caution and if it's excessive force/dangerous then dismiss, regardless of the temperature or mood,,,,they are mandatory sanctions
Click to expand...

I agree, some challenges fall so clearly into one or other of these categories that it would be incorrect to sanction them in any other way. However, as others have already said, challenges fall across a whole spectrum of severity and thus inevitably some will fall on the borderline of careless / reckless and reckless / dangerous. It is these borderline challenges where I believe there is scope to flex the punishment depending on the temperature of the game
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top