Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
What are you talking about? I really don't see what the problem is. Dissent is an IDFK anything else is direct.
Last edited:
Spirit of the Game - Myth
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
What are you talking about? I really don't see what the problem is. Dissent is an IDFK anything else is direct.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
If you can't see what is wrong with the proposition that dissent is not an offence that is directed at a person.....and therefore not considered as serious as a careless challenge.....and how that undermines and devalues the officials roles.....
It is what it is, I don't disagree that an act of dissent is almost always conducted against the match officials, but the laws are clear that they don't count this as an offence against a match official. I suppose dissent could be against something other than an official though - for example a player gets subbed and in frustration kicks wildly out at a water bottle as he walks off (this actually happened a few seasons ago when Jermaine Johnson was subbed playing for Sheffield Wednesday and he was pulled back out of the changing room in his pants to be given a second caution for dissent). And for this basis I can just about see the logic of the laws - the restart for a specific offence has to be identical always. You can't have a DFK / penlty given for an act of dissent then later give an IDFK when someone else commits the same offence against a different target.
For me acting in the spirit of the game means turning a blind eye to something that doesn't affect safety and won't affect or favour either team. One example, as I've mentioned in another topic, is if the corner flags are missing. Technically the game shouldn't be played, as corner flags are a requirement as per the laws, but I'd say refusing to play most definitely wouldn't be acting in the spirit of the game, certainly not at grass roots level. You have 22+ players there ready to play, and for a fairly trivial reason (that might be beyond their control) they are denied a game by the action of one person.
Also, some referees take a law and apply it so rigidly it becomes farcical, and that is another thing that I would say isn't acting in the spirit of the game. I once sat on a hearing for an abandoned game where the away team walked off in protest at one of the referee's decisions. The referee cautioned all 11 players, which I suppose you could argue was correct even if a bit over the top. He then told them, correctly, that if they didn't come back on he would abandon the game. After a brief discussion amongst themselves they agreed to carry on and walked back on, at which point any element of common sense the referee may have had was thrown right out of the window. He walked up to the first 5 players and cautioned them for entering the FOP without his permission, and then sent them off for two cautions, which of course meant the game was abandoned. The argument the club used was that in telling them they had to come back on he had given them permission, the referee countered by saying that isn't correct and all 11 players needed to ask for permission individually. Not entirely surprisingly the commission found in the clubs favour and the charge of causing the game to be abandoned was thrown out. Not sure what happened to the cautions and reds though as we didn't have the power to overturn those.
And finally, here is a very good example of a referee not acting in the spirit of the game (you need to have the sound on and watch all of it). Whilst this might look like a sketch or staged, it isn't and I actually know the referee -
For me acting in the spirit of the game means turning a blind eye to something that doesn't affect safety and won't affect or favour either team. One example, as I've mentioned in another topic, is if the corner flags are missing. Technically the game shouldn't be played, as corner flags are a requirement as per the laws, but I'd say refusing to play most definitely wouldn't be acting in the spirit of the game, certainly not at grass roots level. You have 22+ players there ready to play, and for a fairly trivial reason (that might be beyond their control) they are denied a game by the action of one person.
Also, some referees take a law and apply it so rigidly it becomes farcical, and that is another thing that I would say isn't acting in the spirit of the game. I once sat on a hearing for an abandoned game where the away team walked off in protest at one of the referee's decisions. The referee cautioned all 11 players, which I suppose you could argue was correct even if a bit over the top. He then told them, correctly, that if they didn't come back on he would abandon the game. After a brief discussion amongst themselves they agreed to carry on and walked back on, at which point any element of common sense the referee may have had was thrown right out of the window. He walked up to the first 5 players and cautioned them for entering the FOP without his permission, and then sent them off for two cautions, which of course meant the game was abandoned. The argument the club used was that in telling them they had to come back on he had given them permission, the referee countered by saying that isn't correct and all 11 players needed to ask for permission individually. Not entirely surprisingly the commission found in the clubs favour and the charge of causing the game to be abandoned was thrown out. Not sure what happened to the cautions and reds though as we didn't have the power to overturn those.
And finally, here is a very good example of a referee not acting in the spirit of the game (you need to have the sound on and watch all of it). Whilst this might look like a sketch or staged, it isn't and I actually know the referee -
RefJef
RefChat Addict
A great vid - thanks for posting.
Highlights what I've always felt: "grassroots" football is essentially a different game from the professional version.
Of course the ref was correct in law: the player was off the FOP and hence play should go on. But that's for "pro" football where there would be medics & others on hand to deal with the injured player. Not appropriate for this level of the game where (probably/possibly) the best/only people able to help are the players.
I await to be berated by others, but the "one size fits all" view of the laws doesn't hold when there is such a gulf between what happens at elite level and grassroots level.
watched it on Youtube and found this in the video comments:
"You'll be pleased to know, we were fined as a club and thrown out of the cup. As we had video footage we took this evidence to the FA and as a consequence we had a trial and the ref was banned.
The game was replayed and we lost 3-1... They were winning this tie 3-0."
Highlights what I've always felt: "grassroots" football is essentially a different game from the professional version.
Of course the ref was correct in law: the player was off the FOP and hence play should go on. But that's for "pro" football where there would be medics & others on hand to deal with the injured player. Not appropriate for this level of the game where (probably/possibly) the best/only people able to help are the players.
I await to be berated by others, but the "one size fits all" view of the laws doesn't hold when there is such a gulf between what happens at elite level and grassroots level.
watched it on Youtube and found this in the video comments:
"You'll be pleased to know, we were fined as a club and thrown out of the cup. As we had video footage we took this evidence to the FA and as a consequence we had a trial and the ref was banned.
The game was replayed and we lost 3-1... They were winning this tie 3-0."
I don't think the referee was banned as in suspended by the CFA, what I suspect happened is the league didn't give him any more games after they had watched the video.
And you are spot on that there is no one size fits all. In a professional, or even semi-professional game there will be countless players to look after the injured player on the sideline. The same cannot usually be said in the grass roots leagues, such as the Amateur Football Combination which is the competition that game was being played in, and there is a duty of care for the referee to look after the welfare of the player. OK, it wasn't life threatening, but in the same way he needed help and it wouldn't do any harm to the referee to call a break in play whilst his team mates call for an ambulance or work out a way to get him to hospital.
I was once the victim of such a petty and ridiculous referee myself, it was one of the few times I ever got into trouble as a player, coach or manager. It was at a semi-pro ground and two players had gone for a challenge and landed off the pitch colliding with the perimeter barrier on the far touchline from the technical areas. The opposing player got straight back up but my player laid there motionless, so I asked the referee if I could come on (I was the "physio"), at which point he refused and told me I had to run round the pitch as she was off the pitch. I refused and ran straight over, but before he had restarted play at which point he ran over and told me I was sent off. The player had to go off, and after the game had to be taken to hospital where she was found to be suffering from concussion and kept in. I was charged with failing to act in a responsible manner (in my 6 to 5 promotion season which went down well ..!), but appealed it and it was thrown out.
Referees like the ones in these examples have no place in the game and really need to look at the reasons as to why they actually referee. Is it to relieve stress from their day to day lives, is it because they have some kind of power trip, I don't know but they give other referees who try to do things properly a bad reputation.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Sorry, but if the team.hasn't got adequate first aid cover that is their problem.......
The player took himself off the pitch....so I'm not stopping the game at that point.....if they are that concerned about him, put the ball out of play....at which point I would allow a brief stoppage to check on the player.....if it is so serious that an ambulance is required, they have no one else to attend to him...then I would be asking the team to consider how they wanted to continue....if they insisted that one or two of their players had to stay with him, they would be asked to sort it out and get the rest back on the field ready to resume play. If they didn't want to continue play until the ambulance had arrived...then I would be considering abandoning due to the huge delay that would normally follow.....however I would explain this to both teams giving them a chance to decide an alternative.
The only thing that that particular referee did wrong was to pitch a hissy fit and abandon.....if he had gone about it the right way, no one would have been able to appeal the abandonment nor would have been banned.
Although I am surprised he missed to mandatory caution for leaving the pitch without permission.....
The player took himself off the pitch....so I'm not stopping the game at that point.....if they are that concerned about him, put the ball out of play....at which point I would allow a brief stoppage to check on the player.....if it is so serious that an ambulance is required, they have no one else to attend to him...then I would be asking the team to consider how they wanted to continue....if they insisted that one or two of their players had to stay with him, they would be asked to sort it out and get the rest back on the field ready to resume play. If they didn't want to continue play until the ambulance had arrived...then I would be considering abandoning due to the huge delay that would normally follow.....however I would explain this to both teams giving them a chance to decide an alternative.
The only thing that that particular referee did wrong was to pitch a hissy fit and abandon.....if he had gone about it the right way, no one would have been able to appeal the abandonment nor would have been banned.
Although I am surprised he missed to mandatory caution for leaving the pitch without permission.....
RefJef
RefChat Addict
That is, I think, the key point.
You would have showed some empathy & understanding of the situation, involved yourself in a dialogue and looked to find a sensible solution to the problem. Dare I say it, operating within the "spirit of the game"
I refer you to my previous statement about some people needing to consider why they actually referee. In any case, the ball was already out of play, it never actually restarted following the injury, so how can they put it out of play as you suggest?
That is rank bad refereeing and there is no place in the game for it, anyone trying to defend that is either deliberately trying to be controversial and provoke a reaction or doesn't actually understand football and refereeing.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Ok..so allow a brief stoppage to check on the player......no harm in that.....although the fact that the player got up and got off under the pitch on their steam might have masked the seriousness of the injury......although you can clearly hear the bone snapping on the video
Not defending him throwing a hissy fit and walking off.......but if a team doesn't have adequate first aid cover that means they aren't prepared to carry on the game then I'm not going to be particularly sympathetic towards their predicament.
I would work with both teams to try and find a way forward so the game could continue....but if not, then it's an abandonment due to injury.....
bester
RefChat Addict
Dissent
Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision; punishable by a caution (yellow card)
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to mark down a referee because they're not aware of an additional circular which directly contradicts the LOTG. A referee cannot be marked down for applying the LOTG.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
Disagree. ALL referee's have the same access to the same instructions. These instructions are communicated to us through so many different channels then there is really is no excuse for not knowing. By my first game of the season I will have seen 4 separate presentations on the new laws and presented one of my own.
So therefore if any of my colleagues were to give a penalty kick for an act of dissent then they would be wrong and therefore expect to be marked down.
TomThompson
New Member
Dissent is an offence against the authority of the referee. As such it need not necessarily be related to any single incident, decision or judgement.
As the explanation of the rule change in LOTG puts it
I think the LOTG and the law changes have been poor in defining what is covered by "offence against a match official", but to me the above quote is RESPECT in action and implies dissent too.
Lastly, I asked a level 3 ref - "If the game is stopped to caution a player for dissent it is restarted with a Direct Free Kick"
Stopping the game is not automatic for dissent, only if the dissent must be dealt with before the ball next goes dead.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
@TomThompson If a level 3 referee has told you that Dissent is a DFK then im afraid he is wrong also. Never has and never will be. I do understand the argument but one of the main reasons it is not is because every referee has a different take on dissent (rightly or wrongly) I heard at weekend of a referee that has cautioned for a tut. Now if that tut was in the penalty area and therefore a DFK aka penalty kick then the game would descend into carnage!
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Don't be too sure about that......
It already is if you employ common sense and disregard the pathetic attempts to pretend that dissent isn't committed against a match official.
The problem is far greater than the sum of its parts.....the reality is that if you want to achieve significant promotion in refereeing you have to be prepared to accept being belittled, ridiculed, abused and otherwise undervalued because clubs and players believe that dissent cautions are 'cheap' and largely the fault of the referee as opposed to their own poor discipline.
This has lead to an expectation, especially further up the pyramid, that you can pretty much criticise or undermine any decision without fear of sanctions.
This is further exacerbated by ridiculous statements that dissent is not an offence against a match official, the clear implication being that it is merely a technical offence as opposed to a misconduct offence.
That's why it is so disappointing when referees buy into this horseshit and then spread the propaganda. But I suppose they have to do what they have to do to further their own career.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
Buy into what horseshit? No do you know what I do to further my career I follow the guidance issued to me by the FA, FIFA and IFAB. It really is that simple. Do I agree with all the laws? Are some of them over complicated? Are some of them just not necessary? The answers to those questions and my opinions are actually irrelevant. This whole thing started off because you said you would not be marking a ref down if he awarded a DFK for dissent and then you don't like it when someone tells you are wrong because @Padfoot is never wrong!
A level 3 is no more correct than a level 7 would be. I've seen plenty of referees make decisions that are incorrect in law, indeed I probably made a few myself as a level 3. You would hope that the higher you go the better your knowledge of the laws of the game, but that isn't always the case sadly.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Actually, I never commented one way or the other when you decided I would be erroneous in my treatment of the hypothetical promotion candidate......I simply said that it would be my cross to bear.
I understand perfectly the guidance, however nonsensical, that has been issued.....but I also understand how that pathetic interpretation undermines referees and serves to reinforce the notion that dissent is a trivial offence.
Your opinion is never irrelevant, it may be uncomfortable or unwelcome but never irrelevant.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
And this is the nub of the issue. For what it's worth, I completely agree with you that dissent should be punishable with a DFK. Would send out an unequivocal strong message that it was considered a 'serious' rather than technical offence. But like you, I understand the clear guidance that it is (for now) still deemed to be an IDFK. The difference is that I will enforce this as we are being told to do, because, as @RustyRef says, my opinion on this matter is irrelevant. Once all 27,000 referees in England decide to pick and choose which laws to properly enforce, based on our own prejudices regarding what is pathetic or not (sock tape anyone
), the system swiftly derscends into chaos. And that's a bigger problem for the game than any only individual section of a law ....