Sin bins

[Ben448844]

Is that meant to be "one hundred paying spectators" or "one thousand"? How much are they paying for these tickets, a couple of pound or dozens?
Because I would certainly see the former as grassroots, if clubs remain largely amateur/volunteer/non-profit and teams are locally based using players who grew up in the area.
Seems like the FA have thought the same.

To play in what we used to call 'semi-pro' football, ie step 5 down, is certainly not grass roots. I played 2-3 seasons of 'semi pro' before then playing for the reserve teams and then went into grass roots for well over a decade. At 'semi pro' level we're talking about young players who have been released from academies and are trying to make a living from football, ex pros who are still playing in their mid 30s who've played league or a high standard of non league football, young lads on loan from the same level or players who've eeked out a career and stuck with everything that comes with step 5/6/7 etc. Which is an immense amount of travelling, training twice a week (often no way near to where the teams play believe it or not) and paying for physios, private healthcare etc yourself.

It is not grass roots. The players are usually not amateurs, they're earning a wage (although some just expenses). It's a grind, a tough slog and it is definitely not grass roots at that level.

 

[spuddy1878]

Confusing, not so much the format to follow but if a player shows dissent that you would not caution him for do you now sin bin him ?

Hard to explain but is a sin bin the first port of call for lesser dissent than a normal yellow card caution.

 

[Russell Jones]

To play in what we used to call 'semi-pro' football, ie step 5 down, is certainly not grass roots. I played 2-3 seasons of 'semi pro' before then playing for the reserve teams and then went into grass roots for well over a decade. At 'semi pro' level we're talking about young players who have been released from academies and are trying to make a living from football, ex pros who are still playing in their mid 30s who've played league or a high standard of non league football, young lads on loan from the same level or players who've eeked out a career and stuck with everything that comes with step 5/6/7 etc. Which is an immense amount of travelling, training twice a week (often no way near to where the teams play believe it or not) and paying for physios, private healthcare etc yourself.

It is not grass roots. The players are usually not amateurs, they're earning a wage (although some just expenses). It's a grind, a tough slog and it is definitely not grass roots at that level.

To build on the above. Step 5 Clubs (in my area) generally charge between £6 and £10 for admission, play on their own ground (which has to meet specific grading requirements) and are eligible to play in the FA Cup. Referees for their fixtures are FA referees rather than County officials. It is most definitely the start of semi pro football, though, as you'd expect, the crowds and money rise significantly with each Step in the pyramid you move up.

I'm personally surprised that sin bins have been introduced at this level (rather than Step 6 and below) but at least there will be a senior assistant to help oversee the implementation rather than just one official taking the extra responsibility

 

[GraemeS]

Confusing, not so much the format to follow but if a player shows dissent that you would not caution him for do you now sin bin him ?

Hard to explain but is a sin bin the first port of call for lesser dissent than a normal yellow card caution.

No. Sin bin is for exactly the same offences that would previously have got a yellow card caution, don't try and change your tolerance just becasue of them.

 

[Kes]

Confusing, not so much the format to follow but if a player shows dissent that you would not caution him for do you now sin bin him ?
Hard to explain but is a sin bin the first port of call for lesser dissent than a normal yellow card caution.

No. Sin bin is for exactly the same offences that would previously have got a yellow card caution, don't try and change your tolerance just becasue of them.

As Graeme says, the Sin Bin concept is a "replacement" for showing a yellow for dissent in a nutshell.

At the end of the day, you're still showing the yellow for it - you're just pointing to the touchline as well and telling him to leave the field for 10 mins instead of just booking the caution (and his tenner) as you'd have previously done.

 

[Durovigutum]

If you are giving an IDFK without a caution (and sin bin where appropriate) then you are incorrect in law and the players are right to question the legality of it.

Why do I have to give a caution "in law" for an IDFK offence? Do you give a caution for offside? What I am doing is perfectly OK "in law" and works really well. If it controls the game, keeps players on the pitch playing football and makes for a more enjoyable Saturday afternoon for everyone then why wouldn't I do it?

I'm obviously not accusing you of such, although in a reply to a forum post it can seem such, but I have seen referees that are so "married to law" that they ruin games over stuff no one cares about except them.

 

[JamesL]

Why do I have to give a caution "in law" for an IDFK offence? Do you give a caution for offside? What I am doing is perfectly OK "in law" and works really well. If it controls the game, keeps players on the pitch playing football and makes for a more enjoyable Saturday afternoon for everyone then why wouldn't I do it?

I'm obviously not accusing you of such, although in a reply to a forum post it can seem such, but I have seen referees that are so "married to law" that they ruin games over stuff no one cares about except them.

No one has said that. But the law is clear. Dissent is a caution/sin bin It just so happens the punishment for verbal offences is IDFK. So essentially you can't give an ifk for dissent as the mandatory tariff is a caution

 

[Durovigutum]

No one has said that. But the law is clear. Dissent is a caution/sin bin It just so happens the punishment for verbal offences is IDFK. So essentially you can't give an ifk for dissent as the mandatory tariff is a caution

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. And until an assessor tells me he'll make me eat my whistle if I do it again, I'll carry on if/as appropriate because it works.

 

[zarathustra]

Why do I have to give a caution "in law" for an IDFK offence? Do you give a caution for offside? What I am doing is perfectly OK "in law" and works really well. If it controls the game, keeps players on the pitch playing football and makes for a more enjoyable Saturday afternoon for everyone then why wouldn't I do it?

I'm obviously not accusing you of such, although in a reply to a forum post it can seem such, but I have seen referees that are so "married to law" that they ruin games over stuff no one cares about except them.

No, it is not "perfectly ok in law", it is 100% wrong.

The sanction for dissent is a caution and sin bin if applicable based on the league you're in.

If you have stopped play due to the dissent then restart is an IDFK.

If you stop play for dissent you have to caution, if you don't think it is worthy of a caution then you should not be stopping play for it

 

[one]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. And until an assessor tells me he'll make me eat my whistle if I do it again, I'll carry on if/as appropriate because it works.

This is effectively saying I pick and choose which laws to apply because my 'justice' system is better than the one the laws dictates.

It's fairly simple. Was what the player did/say dissent?
(Discounting advantage or any other offences) if the answer is no then there is no punishment. If the answer is yes the law requires you apply two punishments. IFK and Cautiin. Neither is optional. What makes you apply one and not the other?

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. And until an assessor tells me he'll make me eat my whistle if I do it again, I'll carry on if/as appropriate because it works.

Well here's an observer telling you that you are incorrect in law, it really is that simple. Agree to disagree all you like. As with verbally distracting an opponent, if you are stopping play then it is a caution and a IDFK restart.

 

[zarathustra]

To put another spin on this, if you did this in a cup match next season and award the IDFK but don't caution and sin bin and that player scores the winning goal when he should have been sat on the sidelines the losing team would be well within their rights to make a formal complaint and the match could end up being replayed all because you didn't want to caution and sin bin someone

 

[Kes]

To put another spin on this, if you did this in a cup match next season and award the IDFK but don't caution and sin bin and that player scores the winning goal when he should have been sat on the sidelines the losing team would be well within their rights to make a formal complaint and the match could end up being replayed all because you didn't want to caution and sin bin someone

Don't forget, the Sin Bin option is currently only for dissent.

A player who verbally distracts an opponent and is penalised (and cautioned) for it will still be on the pitch. Unless of course it's his second yellow.

 

[zarathustra]

Don't forget, the Sin Bin option is currently only for dissent.

A player who verbally distracts an opponent and is penalised (and cautioned) for it will still be on the pitch. Unless of course it's his second yellow.

Obviously, the poster said he doesn't caution for dissent just awards the IDFK, that's what I was referring to.

 

[Kes]

Obviously, the poster said he doesn't caution for dissent just awards the IDFK, that's what I was referring to.

Oh I see.

I didn't pick up on that. My bad.

 

[Big Cat]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. And until an assessor tells me he'll make me eat my whistle if I do it again, I'll carry on if/as appropriate because it works.

In my opinion, the LOTG can be taken with a pinch of salt, because there are lots of things we all turn a blind eye to and once one page is ignored, which other pages should we tear out? This is the cause of misunderstanding
However, there is a strict creed that the refereeing community teaches (somewhat in secret) to its own members as they progress through promotions and development courses. The advice above happens to be in agreement with both the LOTG and the creed by which we referee
There are some referees who are not learned who decide for themselves how to referee games (based on the misunderstanding above). I've seen many times via the forum, that this leads to bad outcomes and I'd recommend that you heed the advice given. The counsel is coming from very experienced officials (I'm not one of them btw, not yet that is!)

 

[Durovigutum]

Life doesn't allow me much time on chat forums, so this feels like a late response....

I've probably used the IDFK two or three times without a caution. I take the point of accuracy of law, but at my level I consider my job is to allow 22 people (plus subs) to enjoy a Saturday afternoon of football, played in such a way as they are safe and leave the pitch without injuries caused by the referee losing control in law. If this means that I interpret to award the IDFK without the sin bin IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT MATCH, then so be it. Context is important, the player who ran up to dissent about a decision 30 seconds ago where a throw in had been taken since received a sin bin - that's not acceptable to me. Someone getting emotional because he didn't agree I'm somewhat sympathetic to - you have no idea what is going on in these people's lives. The example above apologised to me after the game, while the coach said it was the first sin bin they'd seen in three months. This leads to my next Jackanory.

A few weeks ago I did a game on the line with a former L3 in the middle. Before the game the three of us were discussing the introduction of sin bins from S5 down as he wanted our opinions. I said I was a big fan, he was completely against - context.

About 25 in a striker was unhappy about elbows - was in front of me, probably too close buy seemed ok, ref in line 15 yards away, didn't seem a problem either. Ball went up the line and out of play, he whinged at the ref who told him to get on with it. Striker told ref to f off. Ref stops and has a chat. For me that's a sin bin, I'm not having you follow up an explanation with an expletive, but he didn't. At half time he said he didn't because only he and I heard it.

On about 85 he gives a "soft" free kick against this strikers team, 30 yards out from their goal, when they are 1-0 up. Striker runs 40 yards to complain. He gets a yellow card on the "totting up" not for dissent. Again, not the decision I would have given. 20 seconds later he gives a second yellow for something in the wall, so this player is sent off.

Now, I'm not a former L3 and maybe I interpret the rules to my own ends on occasions, but that is not how I would have handled that. A dissent yellow on 25 might have set a tone, one on 85 would have stopped a red being issued and everything that follows on from that.

I consider my "job" is to manage the game to let people play and enjoy football, the rules are a tool box not a hammer - select the right tool for the task at hand. I'm told higher up the pyramid assessors consider the job is to apply law 100% accurately - I will stop at the level where someone tells me that what I did was right in the context of the game but technically wrong (or they feel I interpreted it incorrectly) in law and marks me down. I want to enjoy refereeing and the players to enjoy football, this isn't a career for me it's leisure.

 

[JH]

There's a difference between interpreting the laws and disregarding the laws. It is 100% black and white, no doubt about it, that stopping play for dissent requires a mandatory caution. Discretion comes into judging whether it was dissent or just frustration. My question is, if you don't think it worthy of a caution, why are you stopping play in the first place?

 

[JH]

this isn't a career for me it's leisure.

That is absolutely fine, but when other referees get abused because of 'last week's ref' who didn't caution even though they stopped play for dissent, not following the framework of the LOTG creates a problem.

 

[Big Cat]

Given that we routinely ignore numerous black & white laws, one could forgive a misguided referee for dealing with dissent with the same discretion
Just to be clear, effective management of dissent in accordance with the LOTG is probably the most important refereeing skill, assuming the referee is adequately fit enough to leave the centre circle
Personally, I've never encountered the 'last week's ref' problem. Besides, I'm only interested in this week's ref