Sin bins

[zarathustra]

This isn't one of those occasions where it's in the opinion of the referee about whether a challenge was careless, reckless, or used excessive force, the laws are very very clear about what you need to do if you decide that a player has shown you dissent by word or action.

1. If you think they have shown you dissent you MUST caution them. Whether for their first one or after working through the stepped approach.

2. From the start of next season, depending on the level you operate at, if you caution a player for dissent then they must also be put in the sin bin for 10 minutes.

3. If you stop play for the dissent you have to caution the player, sin bin them, restart the game with an indirect free kick. No if no buts it's all or nothing, if you don't want to caution the player (and sin bin them) then you simply don't stop play.

Remember that the stepped approach works, even if the captain isn't much use publicly warning the player makes a subsequent caution easier to sell.

You can also wait until a break in play to issue a caution for dissent, it doesn't have to done there and then.

 

[Rowanmano]

Also aren’t 100% sure if they are getting brought in at Youth Football?

 

[RefJef]

Also aren’t 100% sure if they are getting brought in at Youth Football?

They are - at least in Youth football that falls under the control of County FAs.

Schools football may be different (although I doubt it) - earlier this week I asked both ESFA and ISFA ( the two bodies that run the main school football competitions) if sin bins would be used in their competitions next season.

ISFA replied promptly, telling me there is a committee meeting this coming week and it is an agenda item for that meeting and the decision will then be promulgated. I have yet to get an answer from ESFA.

Will update you all if/when I hear more.

 

[JH]

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

There's a difference. You are probably referring to encroachment etc. The scenario we are talking about is the follow up to a decision, the equivalent in your case is not cautioning the goalkeeper when you have determined that they have committed an offence at a penalty kick... It is not up for debate, it is clear and it is mandatory, there is no interpretation.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Personally, I've never encountered the 'last week's ref' problem. Besides, I'm only interested in this week's ref

I'm pleased for you on your first point because it makes life much more difficult. I'm even more pleased for you on the second point and fully support your approach. Control the controllables and on the day, only you can control your own performance. You decide how you want to deal with matters and if it causes you a problem, then when you reflect on it, you'll adopt a different approach next time. If it works for you, then on reflection, you'll consider exactly what it was you did that was successful and try to do it more often.

Refereeing isn't that difficult when you approach it like that.

 

[Big Cat]

I'm pleased for you on your first point because it makes life much more difficult. I'm even more pleased for you on the second point and fully support your approach. Control the controllables and on the day, only you can control your own performance. You decide how you want to deal with matters and if it causes you a problem, then when you reflect on it, you'll adopt a different approach next time. If it works for you, then on reflection, you'll consider exactly what it was you did that was successful and try to do it more often.

Refereeing isn't that difficult when you approach it like that.

Ergo, we're in agreement. I think if you carry yourself right and your decision making is authoritative and consistent, last week's ref is never really a factor. That said, talking a good game on a forum and executing it, are entirely different kettles of fish. So refereeing remains in the 'quite' difficult' bucket!

 

[Big Cat]

There's a difference. You are probably referring to encroachment etc. The scenario we are talking about is the follow up to a decision, the equivalent in your case is not cautioning the goalkeeper when you have determined that they have committed an offence at a penalty kick... It is not up for debate, it is clear and it is mandatory, there is no interpretation.

We're not in disagreement. Knowing the LOTG and being able to referee a challenging football match, are different things entirely (although one cannot do the latter without the former)

 

[RustyRef]

This isn't one of those occasions where it's in the opinion of the referee about whether a challenge was careless, reckless, or used excessive force, the laws are very very clear about what you need to do if you decide that a player has shown you dissent by word or action.

1. If you think they have shown you dissent you MUST caution them. Whether for their first one or after working through the stepped approach.

2. From the start of next season, depending on the level you operate at, if you caution a player for dissent then they must also be put in the sin bin for 10 minutes.

3. If you stop play for the dissent you have to caution the player, sin bin them, restart the game with an indirect free kick. No if no buts it's all or nothing, if you don't want to caution the player (and sin bin them) then you simply don't stop play.

Remember that the stepped approach works, even if the captain isn't much use publicly warning the player makes a subsequent caution easier to sell.

You can also wait until a break in play to issue a caution for dissent, it doesn't have to done there and then.

Doesn't your point 1 contradict itself? If you must caution them if they show dissent, how can it been have been following the stepped approach as by definition it then won't have been their first offence?

I'm being flippant I know, but this is another one where referees need to know more than the law. A player saying "oh come on ref" or "ref that was never a foul" could by the definition of dissent be guilty of dissent. I would be very, very concerned if I observed a referee at any level and he cautioned for those words without first trying to manage it and calm the player down. The definition of laws, as below, is so high level if you followed it to the letter there would be no players left on the pitch.

Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision

The key thing with dissent is that you don't ignore it as it will escalate. I'd much rather see a referee pull a player up early doors for verbals, use him as an example to all that he won't accept it and send him away with a flea in his ear, that see him bang a yellow card out without any management.

 

[JH]

We're not in disagreement. Knowing the LOTG and being able to referee a challenging football match, are different things entirely (although one cannot do the latter without the former)

Absolutely

 

[Kes]

Doesn't your point 1 contradict itself? If you must caution them if they show dissent, how can it been have been following the stepped approach as by definition it then won't have been their first offence?

I'm being flippant I know, but this is another one where referees need to know more than the law. A player saying "oh come on ref" or "ref that was never a foul" could by the definition of dissent be guilty of dissent. I would be very, very concerned if I observed a referee at any level and he cautioned for those words without first trying to manage it and calm the player down. The definition of laws, as below, is so high level if you followed it to the letter there would be no players left on the pitch.

Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision

The key thing with dissent is that you don't ignore it as it will escalate. I'd much rather see a referee pull a player up early doors for verbals, use him as an example to all that he won't accept it and send him away with a flea in his ear, that see him bang a yellow card out without any management.

Agreed.

The stepped approach , for me, is for technical offences ie foul play, restarts etc.

Dissent is dissent. I won't let one or two examples of what I consider to be genuine dissent just slide because it's early on or because I think it's "fair".

I card it straight away. Most players know when they've crossed the line the line with me anyway. If you try employing a "stepped approach" with dissent with one player, then that's pretty much giving every player on the pitch a green light to gob off at you at least once before he'll expect a caution as well.

Complaining or moaning about stuff is what all players do and I'll interpret each instance of it by how it makes me feel when said at the time. If it sounds (feels) like dissent to me then the card is coming out - whether it's minute 1 or 90.

 

[Russell Jones]

Agreed.

The stepped approach , for me, is for technical offences ie foul play, restarts etc.

Dissent is dissent. I won't let one or two examples of what I consider to be genuine dissent just slide because it's early on or because I think it's "fair".

I card it straight away. Most players know when they've crossed the line the line with me anyway. If you try employing a "stepped approach" with dissent with one player, then that's pretty much giving every player on the pitch a green light to gob off at you at least once before he'll expect a caution as well.

Complaining or moaning about stuff is what all players do and I'll interpret each instance of it by how it makes me feel when said at the time. If it sounds (feels) like dissent to me then the card is coming out - whether it's minute 1 or 90.

Wholeheartedly support your view that 'dissent is dissent' and it needs to be carded.

Question is, if it doesn't quite sound / feel like dissent to you, then based on the above, would you just ignore it? For me, in those instances, having a quiet word with the player in passing or mentioning to the captain that Player X needs to be careful with his comments is sensible proactive player management .... more or less the essence of the stepped approach.

 

[Kes]

Wholeheartedly support your view that 'dissent is dissent' and it needs to be carded.

Question is, if it doesn't quite sound / feel like dissent to you, then based on the above, would you just ignore it? For me, in those instances, having a quiet word with the player in passing or mentioning to the captain that Player X needs to be careful with his comments is sensible proactive player management .... more or less the essence of the stepped approach.

I suppose if you put it that way Russell then yes, I've done that before - but not often.

Generally, I'd just call it "banter". It's certainly not a "stepped approach" for me but I get that effectively, by verbalising anything with a player before whipping out the card amounts to something very similar.

 

[Jorik0907]

Doesn't your point 1 contradict itself? If you must caution them if they show dissent, how can it been have been following the stepped approach as by definition it then won't have been their first offence?

I'm being flippant I know, but this is another one where referees need to know more than the law. A player saying "oh come on ref" or "ref that was never a foul" could by the definition of dissent be guilty of dissent. I would be very, very concerned if I observed a referee at any level and he cautioned for those words without first trying to manage it and calm the player down. The definition of laws, as below, is so high level if you followed it to the letter there would be no players left on the pitch.

Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision

The key thing with dissent is that you don't ignore it as it will escalate. I'd much rather see a referee pull a player up early doors for verbals, use him as an example to all that he won't accept it and send him away with a flea in his ear, that see him bang a yellow card out without any management.

It's something that I use. I'm not an imposing figure, nor that authorative but I always make sure to give the first public display of dissent a clear warning to not continue that behaviour. Most of the time it's something to the extent of 'you don't have to agree but you do have to respect me'. Often this helps, and I've only given a couple of YC for dissent all season. Does help that our leagues are quite polite and well behaved.

Think I picked this up from the forum because the Lord knows I didn't handle dissent well when I just started

 

[zarathustra]

Obviously my post wasn't worded very well.

I'm a big fan of the stepped approach, although as most of the captain's I work with are as much use as a chocolate fireguard it's more about me giving a clear indication that the player is close to crossing a line, and then being able to point back to that if they end up getting cautioned.

Of course, if someone screams at me from the other side of the pitch then I will definitely be making an example of them, regardless of whether it's the 1st or 89th minutes.

What I won't do however is pick and choose what sanctions I will give.

If a player crosses the line and I decide that they need a caution (and sin bin) then that is what they will get, I won't, for example, stop play award an indirect free kick and not caution or sin bin

 

[JH]

Agreed.

The stepped approach , for me, is for technical offences ie foul play, restarts etc.

Dissent is dissent. I won't let one or two examples of what I consider to be genuine dissent just slide because it's early on or because I think it's "fair.

The stepped approach is not 'for' dissent, but to prevent dissent.

Dissent rarely starts in the 2nd minute with someone screaming expletives at you. It starts with comments here and there, phrases that aren't worthy of a caution but will develop throughout the game if you don't address them.

Had an assessment last season which had a bit of dissent, the assessor said it all started with the captain questioning my decisions, when I didn't deal with him using the stepped approach, his teammates saw fit to join in.

You draw a line between 'dissent' and 'not dissent', but there are grey areas that need to be dealt with, otherwise what warning would a player have before crossing your line of dissent?

 

[socal lurker]

The stepped approach is not 'for' dissent, but to prevent dissent.

Dissent rarely starts in the 2nd minute with someone screaming expletives at you. It starts with comments here and there, phrases that aren't worthy of a caution but will develop throughout the game if you don't address them.

Had an assessment last season which had a bit of dissent, the assessor said it all started with the captain questioning my decisions, when I didn't deal with him using the stepped approach, his teammates saw fit to join in.

You draw a line between 'dissent' and 'not dissent', but there are grey areas that need to be dealt with, otherwise what warning would a player have before crossing your line of dissent?

Agree. I'd also add that what is below the dissent threshold as a one-off can pass the threshold when it is repeated/continuous.

 

[one]

Agree. I'd also add that what is below the dissent threshold as a one-off can pass the threshold when it is repeated/continuous.

Stole my words. My last dissent yellow was just that. On its own not dissent. But he had an on the run quiet warning and another public stern warning earlier. So I wasn't going to keep warning him.

 

[BCMilan]

been thinking about this...and I have some questions....
(1) How many watches do they expect us to wear, in order to keep track of every player that has been given a 10 min sin bin ? 22 ? 30 ? If anyone says there is unlikely to be more than 1 or 2, they've obviously never refereed on Hackney Marshes.
(2) Is anybody going to officiate the bin, while the angry people are squaring up to each other (and the supporters) on the side of the pitch ?

 

[zarathustra]

been thinking about this...and I have some questions....
(1) How many watches do they expect us to wear, in order to keep track of every player that has been given a 10 min sin bin ? 22 ? 30 ? If anyone says there is unlikely to be more than 1 or 2, they've obviously never refereed on Hackney Marshes.
(2) Is anybody going to officiate the bin, while the angry people are squaring up to each other (and the supporters) on the side of the pitch ?

I've not used them yet, but surely one watch is enough.

You take name number and time they go off, maybe also write game time they're due back on.

All you then need to do is remember that player 1 should be back on at the 20th minutes, player 2 on 37th etc.

I was against sin bins to start with, but after doing the training and speaking to people who've used it I think it is a good idea and doesn't sound too difficult to manage.

As for controlling angry people on the sidelines, I don't see how that is any different to managing officials and subs already.

 

[BCMilan]

I've not used them yet, but surely one watch is enough.

You take name number and time they go off, maybe also write game time they're due back on.

All you then need to do is remember that player 1 should be back on at the 20th minutes, player 2 on 37th etc.

Now imagine how difficult that will be when it's 4-5 players ? You'll be forever looking at your notes and stop/starting your watch !

I was against sin bins to start with, but after doing the training and speaking to people who've used it I think it is a good idea and doesn't sound too difficult to manage.

As for controlling angry people on the sidelines, I don't see how that is any different to managing officials and subs already.

Other than the guys / girls that have been binned, have already shown that they are agitated and prepared to show their dissent ?