Referee Losing Match Control

[AmitM]

Hi All
Had my first open age match yesterday, and was on the line. It was a pre-season match with 2 step 5 teams and the ref who was meant to do it unfortunately got injured in the morning before the game, so we had a L6 in the middle as no replacement L4 could be found. His match control wasn't very good and the game was going downhill with the dissent, and the ref wasn't dealing with it properly (in my opinion!). So, I was wondering if there's anything we can do on the line to try and keep the match control as it was getting very very hard to sell decisions to the players by the end? (The players weren't too bad with me. though. The managers were lovely and knew it was my first OA game and that I'm 16, so made it very clear to the players to keep the abuse to a minimum with me)
Thanks all

 

[socal lurker]

- they're responsible for their own actions.

Of course they are. I don’t think anyone questions that. Even the best refs on their best days can have a game spiral downwards. But it also isn’t surprising that some refs have more games spiral than others. As refs, I think we owe it to the Game to work on tools to help games not go down those drains. From games I’ve watched go south, there were often things the ref did or failed to do that helped the spiraling along. For me, nothing about saying refs can do better is to blame the ref or excuse the players--it’s all about learning how to better manage games. We all learn from our own mistakes; wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.

 

[GraemeS]

Of course they are. I don’t think anyone questions that. Even the best refs on their best days can have a game spiral downwards. But it also isn’t surprising that some refs have more games spiral than others. As refs, I think we owe it to the Game to work on tools to help games not go down those drains. From games I’ve watched go south, there were often things the ref did or failed to do that helped the spiraling along. For me, nothing about saying refs can do better is to blame the ref or excuse the players--it’s all about learning how to better manage games. We all learn from our own mistakes; wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.

I'm with you on dissent (referees set the bar on what is acceptable communication), but I don't buy the idea that players are lunging in with legbreakers or swinging elbows at opponents because they're annoyed at the way that opponent is being allowed to talk to the referee.

Outside of that, what could these referees who have "lost control" have done better then? If players are getting frustrated because the referees foul detection is poor (and if this happens repeatedly in that referee's games) then yes that's a problem - but it's a problem with a ref having poor foul judgement, not because of a conscious decision the ref is making.

"Match Control" comes from getting decisions correct and hoping players accept that and don't lose their heads. The number one cause of poor "match control" is poor decisions - a referee can explain and communicate perfectly and if the decision are wrong in the first place a) players will get annoyed regardless and b) it doesn't take away from the fact that the law requires them to still be grown up enough to accept wrong decisions without imparting their own sense of justice.

 

[Will_A]

"Match Control" comes from getting decisions correct and hoping players accept that and don't lose their heads.

Correct decisions alone are not enough to maintain match control.

Match control comes from a combination of positioning, credibility, consistency, decision making, empathy, communication, body language, confidence, whistle tone, pro-activeness, appearance, knowledge of law, personality and probably several other factors I’m missing!

You might get every decision spot on but your positioning and communication is pants. Players will argue and challenge you whether your decision is correct or not!

 

[RustyRef]

Take players out of the equation completely, we all know that referees are not responsible for the behaviour of players.

But from a refereeing perspective, there is absolutely no doubt that the actions of a referee, or more likely the lack of actions, can lead to player behaviour getting worse. If you ignore a bad foul it is highly likely the player will do it again, if you warn him the chance of it happening again drops significantly, if you caution him it drops even more, and if you send him off it becomes zero.

 

[Kent Ref]

In nearly 30 years of reffing i can only remember 3 of my games "getting out of hand". And in those games i had yellows and reds beforehand.

Sometimes, just sometimes, cards and control are lost because some players simply don't want to play football. They want to fight or abuse the referee or other players.

I agree that 99% of the time a game with a referee not doing his job the problems get worse and worse but sometimes it's out of your hands as a referee and "it was going to happen, regardless"..

The 3 games i mention are the only 3 abandonments i have ever had to do in that time. The last one was about 15 yeas ago.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm with you on dissent (referees set the bar on what is acceptable communication), but I don't buy the idea that players are lunging in with legbreakers or swinging elbows at opponents because they're annoyed at the way that opponent is being allowed to talk to the referee.

Dissent isn’t the only part of control. So is calling fouls and recognizing necessary discipline. When refs aren’t calling fouls that players expect, it can increase the physicality of the game. That can be because the ref is misreading the game, or because the players have unrealistic expectations. The first requires the ref to better read the game; the second becomes a communication challenge. (And sometimes it is a problem without a good solution, typically where teams have very different expectations of what should be permitted, so the ref can be seen as too restrictive and too loose at the same time, which is particularly tough to manage and keep a lid on.)

 

[Macca]

I'll give an example from one of my games last season where my inaction allowed a game to completely blow up. If I acted at earlier, it would have been just another forgettable game.

89th min. Reds, who are winning 2-1, are pinned back by Blue with ball out for a throw to Blue about 30 yard from Red goal line. Shouts at the time of a Red player down in the Blue penalty area right beside the keeper. Every other player is in the Blue half. I shout to take the throw as Red striker is allowed to be there, and I decide to keep an eye on the striker and goalkeeper.
Well, what do you know - next thing roars from around the ground. Keeper on the ground and striker standing over him - not in a threatening way though.

Point is I should have gone down to red striker before the throw in and told him to move away from the keeper. I didn't because I reasoned they were trying to waste time with me having to travel the length of the pitch in the 89th minute, and that he wasn't doing anything particularly wrong - just standing in the box.

I was wrong. While I was not responsible for the actions of the striker, I could have got control of the situation and defused the situation before it became what it did.

 

[one]

I was wrong. While I was not responsible for the actions of the striker, I could have got control of the situation and defused the situation before it became what it did.

Assuming we are saying the game/situation is out of control now, may I ask which statement do you think is more accurate.

- You caused the game to get out of control
- The striker and/or keeper caused the game to get out of control

 

[GraemeS]

5 replies since my post yesterday:

1 basically agrees with me.

1 contains theory about what match control is, but about half of @Will_A 's list is just different ways of saying "get the decision right" or helping you be able to do so, and I don't think a lot of the other things are relevant. If a player is a knucklehead who turns up looking for a fight or is easily provoked, you having excellent control over your whistle tone or turning up in the newest and smartest kit isn't going to stop him punching someone who's annoyed him.

And 3 that read like they disagree with me but then explicitly use examples of the referee making a poor decision. @RustyRef : "If you ignore a bad foul...", @socal lurker: "When refs aren’t calling fouls that players expect..." and @Macca gives us an example where a player is doing nothing wrong, then out of nowhere decides to commit an offence.

I don't agree for a second that in that context it would have been correct to stop play, jog 80 yards, try to convince the striker to step a yard away then jog 80 yards back into position, hoping the striker never thinks to just step back towards the keeper again. That would have been wildly over-officious in a context where the most important thing for the game was to keep things moving. Keep an eye on them yes, send the striker off if he does something that requires it (aka, get the decisions right) and your "match control" will be better than it would have been if you'd wasted 30 seconds to try and prevent it.

 

[Will_A]

1 contains theory about what match control is, but about half of @Will_A 's list is just different ways of saying "get the decision right" or helping you be able to do so, and I don't think a lot of the other things are relevant. If a player is a knucklehead who turns up looking for a fight or is easily provoked, you having excellent control over your whistle tone or turning up in the newest and smartest kit isn't going to stop him punching someone who's annoyed him.

So you think if you turn and get the decision right but don’t communicate effectively, have a piss-weak whistle tone, unsure body language and old scruffy kit that the players are gonna respond well to you?

Good luck.

Whistle tone and appearance alone won’t work but everything listed in my previous post contributes to the players, coaches and spectators having confidence in you as the referee.

 

[GraemeS]

So you think if you turn and get the decision right but don’t communicate effectively, have a piss-weak whistle tone, unsure body language and old scruffy kit that the players are gonna respond well to you?

Good luck.

Whistle tone and appearance alone won’t work but everything listed in my previous post contributes to the players, coaches and spectators having confidence in you as the referee.

Respond well to me? I've already accepted that referees set the bar for dissent, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Do I think a piss weak whistle and scruffy kit is the cause of players lunging in at each other in games where "the ref's lost control" starts being shouted? No, I don't. Players being idiots and poor decisions winding them up is I think the sum total of why that happens. At a reeeeeeal stretch, I might accept that can happen if good decisions are being communicated unclearly, but even then I think you wouldn't have any issues if the players had innate discipline.

 

[Kes]

I'll give an example from one of my games last season where my inaction allowed a game to completely blow up. If I acted at earlier, it would have been just another forgettable game.

89th min. Reds, who are winning 2-1, are pinned back by Blue with ball out for a throw to Blue about 30 yard from Red goal line. Shouts at the time of a Red player down in the Blue penalty area right beside the keeper. Every other player is in the Blue half. I shout to take the throw as Red striker is allowed to be there, and I decide to keep an eye on the striker and goalkeeper.
Well, what do you know - next thing roars from around the ground. Keeper on the ground and striker standing over him - not in a threatening way though.

Point is I should have gone down to red striker before the throw in and told him to move away from the keeper. I didn't because I reasoned they were trying to waste time with me having to travel the length of the pitch in the 89th minute, and that he wasn't doing anything particularly wrong - just standing in the box.

I was wrong. While I was not responsible for the actions of the striker, I could have got control of the situation and defused the situation before it became what it did.

I don't agree that you were "wrong".

Sounds like the GK clearly didn't like the attention he was receiving and decided to "engage" with the striker but that's by the by ...

You're not a school teacher or a policeman. If players want to behave like that then all you can do is respond correctly as per the LOTG.

I myself as a referee will always try to manage a "situation" if I'm able but for me these days, far too much is made of this "what did you as the referee do?" scenario. Since we've taken on this additional "preventative action" responsibility over the years it seems that the referee can now be blamed directly or indirectly for virtually anything that happens during a game of football. Indicative of the blame culture which is prevalent throughout society now - it's always somebody else's fault. I don't pander to it. I make myself responsible for the LOTG and many of the other attributes of a good referee which have already been mentioned up thread - but I will never make myself responsible for the behaviour and actions of other adults in what is meant to be after all, a game.

 

[Will_A]

Respond well to me? I've already accepted that referees set the bar for dissent, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Do I think a piss weak whistle and scruffy kit is the cause of players lunging in at each other in games where "the ref's lost control" starts being shouted? No, I don't. Players being idiots and poor decisions winding them up is I think the sum total of why that happens. At a reeeeeeal stretch, I might accept that can happen if good decisions are being communicated unclearly, but even then I think you wouldn't have any issues if the players had innate discipline.

My post was about match control, not individual challenges. You’d mentioned in a previous post that match control is as simple as getting the decisions right.

There may be an element of communication that can help to prevent a SFP tackle in some circumstances but you’re quite right that if a player has decided he’s going to plant one on his opponent then there’s not a lot we as officials can do to prevent this.

However, these types of tackles can also be dealt with without losing your match control. A referee seen to act swiftly, decisively and confidently when that SFP tackles comes in will maintain a far higher level of control than another referee who doesn’t.

 

[GraemeS]

My post was about match control, not individual challenges. You’d mentioned in a previous post that match control is as simple as getting the decisions right.

There may be an element of communication that can help to prevent a SFP tackle in some circumstances but you’re quite right that if a player has decided he’s going to plant one on his opponent then there’s not a lot we as officials can do to prevent this.

However, these types of tackles can also be dealt with without losing your match control. A referee seen to act swiftly, decisively and confidently when that SFP tackles comes in will maintain a far higher level of control than another referee who doesn’t.

So....get the decisions right then?

 

[one]

1 basically agrees with me.

Actually this should say you basically agree with one

 

[Kent Ref]

I don't agree that you were "wrong".

Sounds like the GK clearly didn't like the attention he was receiving and decided to "engage" with the striker but that's by the by ...

You're not a school teacher or a policeman. If players want to behave like that then all you can do is respond correctly as per the LOTG.

I myself as a referee will always try to manage a "situation" if I'm able but for me these days, far too much is made of this "what did you as the referee do?" scenario. Since we've taken on this additional "preventative action" responsibility over the years it seems that the referee can now be blamed directly or indirectly for virtually anything that happens during a game of football. Indicative of the blame culture which is prevalent throughout society now - it's always somebody else's fault. I don't pander to it. I make myself responsible for the LOTG and many of the other attributes of a good referee which have already been mentioned up thread - but I will never make myself responsible for the behaviour and actions of other adults in what is meant to be after all, a game.

Excellent post.

 

[JamesL]

Of course getting decisions right aids match control. However, if decisions that are right are perceived to be wrong then this can also negatively affect match control.
So getting decisions right is not necessarily the only factor in keeping a match under control.
In fact I would go as far as to say that, on the rare occasion giving the wrong decision in law, or not giving a required sanction can aid match control as well.

There are uncontrollables such as player behaviour and temperament, past history between players/clubs, which also pose a risk to match control and player behaviour within that game where with the best will in the world and the most accurate decision making will still see a loss of control.

In some cases there are opportunities to positively affect the game to prevent a KMI happening which could threaten your match control.

There's a reason we are judged on separate competencies of application of law and match control because they are not neccessarily the same thing although in many cases they can perhaps go hand in hand. Understanding what a game needs and when is a skill learnt over many years as an official and one we can still get wrong even when we are more experienced.

There isn't a binary option here, there are many things that lead to control of a game and many things that pose a threat. And in anyone game that threat can be less or more severe than the next

 

[GraemeS]

There's a reason we are judged on separate competencies of application of law and match control because they are not neccessarily the same thing although in many cases they can perhaps go hand in hand. Understanding what a game needs and when is a skill learnt over many years as an official and one we can still get wrong even when we are more experienced.

This is kind of the point though - I don't think they are separate competencies in reality. My theory is that good AoL will create good MC by default and all the other stuff (worrying about appearance, body language, whistle tone etc.) is irrelevant detail referees and observers like to worry about because it creates the sense we're in control of things that we aren't in reality.

Consider the two extremes: What does a game with 5/5 MC and 1/5 AoL look like? I struggle to visualise it, but I guess the referee has barely given a foul but the teams are happy with it anyway? As a ref I'd rather have 3/5 and 3/5 any day, and I doubt that would be the case in reality anyway, as a big part of "Match Control" is players accepting their opponents have been fairly punished, which wouldn't happen in a 1/5 AoL game.

And the reverse: 1/5 MC and 5/5 AoL. I guess the referee has done everything right but players have chosen to have a punch up regardless? Seems harsh to dock the referee marks for that!

I just don't see either of those as situations that are that likely and if they do happen, that are fair to mark the referee on. The two "criteria" are so strongly correlated that they may as well be the same thing. And when they do deviate, it's mostly down to what mood a player happens to be in. Talk to a player who's pushing a yellow and they listen and behave for the rest of the game, excellent match control! Talk to him and he decides to lunge in anyway, breaks someone's leg and ending in a bench-clearing brawl - well, your match control should have been better.

 

[RustyRef]

Of course getting decisions correct is important, but it goes way more than that. If you think that player behaviour is just down to them and can't be influenced by a referee you are hiding behind an excuse. Why do you think senior referees almost do a running commentary during the game - "be careful", "don't foul him", "steady", etc - it is to try and influence player behaviour. It is also why we talk about putting the reigns on or taking them off, if a game is getting heated and the referee doesn't raise his involvement then he didn't cause the inevitable car crash, but he did fail to take sensible precautions to prevent it

I come back to my previous point. Referees don't cause bad player behaviour, but the referee's actions can mitigate the risk of that bad behaviour happening.

 

[GraemeS]

Of course getting decisions correct is important, but it goes way more than that. If you think that player behaviour is just down to them and can't be influenced by a referee you are hiding behind an excuse. Why do you think senior referees almost do a running commentary during the game - "be careful", "don't foul him", "steady", etc - it is to try and influence player behaviour. It is also why we talk about putting the reigns on or taking them off, if a game is getting heated and the referee doesn't raise his involvement then he didn't cause the inevitable car crash, but he did fail to take sensible precautions to prevent it

I come back to my previous point. Referees don't cause bad player behaviour, but the referee's actions can mitigate the risk of that bad behaviour happening.

Try being the important word there. I know senior referees chatter constantly. I don't know that it actually does much, aside from helping the referee feel effective.