Junior/Youth Sin Bins
- Thread starter Ref1
- Start date
For once I agree with Padders. Not against the sin bin as such, but that table detailing caution offences 1, 2 and 3 is a total mess and dog's dinner. How on earth are referees supposed to be able to remember all of that on a match day?
It should have been simple. If a player gets a caution for dissent they get a sin bin and also get the standard fine for it. It they get a second caution for anything they get a second caution and a red card.
It should have been simple. If a player gets a caution for dissent they get a sin bin and also get the standard fine for it. It they get a second caution for anything they get a second caution and a red card.
You have to remember this is a trial. That table is pretty straight forward, you just have to put it into practice. You also have to bare in mind that we were not allowed to practice using this scheme in pre season. It will be messy for the first part of the season. It is massively important though that as referees, we understand this. It's no different to learning the offences during kicks from the penalty mark table.
I am now in talks with a manufacturer to get card skins made with this table on it. That way, it will be available to see when pulling the yellow out of your pocket. The matchpads that are made will also have this table on them no doubt.
I am now in talks with a manufacturer to get card skins made with this table on it. That way, it will be available to see when pulling the yellow out of your pocket. The matchpads that are made will also have this table on them no doubt.
RefJef
RefChat Addict
I think it right that a trial takes place, but I do think that it would have been wise to make the process simpler.
The two differences I would have liked would have been:
I think both of the above would reduce the workload on the referee, the increased workload/managing the situation is the biggest argument against using sin bins.
I hope the trial is given the chance to be just that - a trial - and its success or otherwise can be impartially analysed on its completion.
The two differences I would have liked would have been:
- Once the player returns to the FOP following their sin bin, they continue as they would have done before following a Yellow Card. I.e, any second YC offence = 2 yellows = red card, sent off.
- Player can only return (following sin bin) when the ball is out of play
I think both of the above would reduce the workload on the referee, the increased workload/managing the situation is the biggest argument against using sin bins.
I hope the trial is given the chance to be just that - a trial - and its success or otherwise can be impartially analysed on its completion.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Reading through that I'm glad that none of my leagues are trialling this.
It does seem to have been massively over complicated.
Especially the bit where a second caution for dissent equals another 10 minutes in the Sin bin, and then the players can't come back on but can be substituted.
I can't see this doing anything other than giving the lone referee more work to do.
It does seem to have been massively over complicated.
Especially the bit where a second caution for dissent equals another 10 minutes in the Sin bin, and then the players can't come back on but can be substituted.
I can't see this doing anything other than giving the lone referee more work to do.
Ref1
New Member
I think that this could be a good idea and that at grass roots level it is needed to stop the rot of dissent in the game. My only worry is the management of this if we send more than one player at a time into the Sin Bin, don't relish having to wear 3 watches to monitor the 8 or 10 minutes for each player as well as the game time.
I'm intrigued by the statistics presented in slides 4 and 5. Slide 4 states that 25% of all cautions are for dissent which is not a surprise. Slide 5 suggests with sin bins cautions for dissent will be 0.46/game based on "research over 135,000 matches". Were did these matches come from? Has there been really been 135,000 matches already played with sin bins or are the claims based on assumptions and predictions from observing 135,000 games under existing LOTG? Does anyone know?
That's 135000 matches last season.
That's what I thought so 135,000 matches without sin bins - correct? If so I'm suspicious of the criteria used to reach the claims such a reduction in the number of dissent cautions. Was the potential for sin bins as a source of dissent considered? I'm genuinely concerned about the introduction of sin bins so I'll be watching these trials with interest - for all those involved please keep us updated.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
it just doesn't look like there's much incentive to reduce dissent.
Yes if a player gets Sin binned the team are a man down for ten minutes, but I can see a lot of teams blasting the ball miles away in an attempt to waste time. Which referees will need to be aware of, and keep track of on top of normal game time and stoppages.
If the player gets Sin binned for a second time they can be substituted once their 10 minutes is up, so the team don't really get affected.
I'm sceptical that this will have a positive impact, but I guess only time will tell.
A better way of dealing with dissent would be it getting dealt with properly at the top, and referees at all levels dealing with it.
And/or clubs getting fined for picking up a certain number of dissent cautions in a specific period.
Yes if a player gets Sin binned the team are a man down for ten minutes, but I can see a lot of teams blasting the ball miles away in an attempt to waste time. Which referees will need to be aware of, and keep track of on top of normal game time and stoppages.
If the player gets Sin binned for a second time they can be substituted once their 10 minutes is up, so the team don't really get affected.
I'm sceptical that this will have a positive impact, but I guess only time will tell.
A better way of dealing with dissent would be it getting dealt with properly at the top, and referees at all levels dealing with it.
And/or clubs getting fined for picking up a certain number of dissent cautions in a specific period.
RefJef
RefChat Addict
I think you've misunderstood the stats.
In those 135000 games, on average there was a Yc for dissent in every 2.16 games.
Flip that on it's head, and you get 0.46 yellow cards for dissent in every game.
What will be interesting is what is the rate of yellows for dissent per game in the sin bin trials (although care will be need to be taken to ensure that the sample is suitably representative). A statistician's delight!
In those 135000 games, on average there was a Yc for dissent in every 2.16 games.
Flip that on it's head, and you get 0.46 yellow cards for dissent in every game.
What will be interesting is what is the rate of yellows for dissent per game in the sin bin trials (although care will be need to be taken to ensure that the sample is suitably representative). A statistician's delight!
RefJef
RefChat Addict
Spot on, but I'm not holding my breath.
However, an example of a positive bit of trickle down ...
Wednesday evening I was doing an OA friendly, on the whole a good game but blues, who were playing a side a couple of divisions above them, were beginning to get a bit frustrated as whites continued to dominate.
In his own box, blue right back was tripped - nothing malicious, but definite free kick, I blow and give blues fk. Fouled blue player starts to applaud my decision - I point at him and, in best teacher voice, say: "no clapping. Remember what happened on Saturday". Now, I can't remember which ref it was who booked which player for which team on Saturday, but everyone had seen it on match of the day, everyone understood what I was talking about, player instantly stopped, muttered a sheepish apology and scuttled off to get on with the game.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I like that, they need to do more of it at the top.
I've seen a few dissent cautions when watching Gillingham play, unfortunately we don't feature on MOTD.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Absolutely not an easier sell for young referees......not given the ridiculously convoluted permutations cooked up by the FA. Will just lead to them being less likely to penalise dissent as it will be too complicated to manage. Just imagine a new referee with only a few games under their belt trying to get their head around the sin bin situation......will just get ignored.
Initially the rate will probably go up, as the trials start.....but once referees find out how much grief they are going to get trying to manage the sin bins, especially if it is a GK who gets binned.....the rates will plummet as they stop bothering. Of course this will enable the FA to say that the trial was a fantastic success because the amount of dissent cautions has dwindled when the reality is very very different.
But then since when has the FA ever been bothered by reality?
Okay, I may well have misunderstood. After re-reading, if the current rate of dissent cautions of 0.46/game is genuine (debatable?) then sin bins look like a complicated manner to solving what the statistics suggest is not a significant problem. I can manage that level of dissent with the powers I already have.