Spirit of the Game - Myth

[zarathustra]

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.

My bold.

yes and no. The only reason I am aware of the IFAB decision that dissent/offinabus is still an IDFK despite the wording of the law saying any offence committed against a match official is a DFK is because I saw it on here.

I am not aware of my county sending anything out to communicate this clarification.

Yes, the onus should be on us as referees to make sure we keep up to date etc, but the law appears to be clearly written, in this part at least, so I doubt many would think that there is a requirement to seek further clarification.

 

[GraemeS]

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 ....

This is an entirely separate discussion, but I'm far from convinced that the law change you've proposed would actually lead to dissent being clamped down on more.

In the real world, a game-changing decision is harder to make than an irrelevant one in the centre of the pitch. It's not what we want to see in an ideal world, but it's undeniably the truth. And as is the case with a mandatory caution for GK encroachment, I'd be concerned that making the punishment more severe might well see it actually enforced far less.

I've got absolutely no problem with a referee who wants to crack down on dissent by issuing cards all over the place - and I suspect this referee might have very little problem awarding a PK for dissent as well. But I suspect for the vast majority of referees (and especially for beginners), more than one dissent caution per game is pretty unusual and requires something significant to trigger it. All that introducing PK's and DFK's for these offences will do is slightly raise the threshold even further before the cards come out - and I don't think that would actually help the respect campaign at all.

 

[Padfoot]

This is an entirely separate discussion, but I'm far from convinced that the law change you've proposed would actually lead to dissent being clamped down on more.

In the real world, a game-changing decision is harder to make than an irrelevant one in the centre of the pitch. It's not what we want to see in an ideal world, but it's undeniably the truth. And as is the case with a mandatory caution for GK encroachment, I'd be concerned that making the punishment more severe might well see it actually enforced far less.

I've got absolutely no problem with a referee who wants to crack down on dissent by issuing cards all over the place - and I suspect this referee might have very little problem awarding a PK for dissent as well. But I suspect for the vast majority of referees (and especially for beginners), more than one dissent caution per game is pretty unusual and requires something significant to trigger it. All that introducing PK's and DFK's for these offences will do is slightly raise the threshold even further before the cards come out - and I don't think that would actually help the respect campaign at all.

And why is that?

Because referees, especially beginners, are conditioned to view dissent as simply 'part of the game' to be endured rather than punished.....and end up being so reluctant to caution for it, that's it often not until the last 10-15 mins of a game before they eventually get the cards out.

You don't need to issue cards all over the place....normally after the first couple the message is received loud and clear....then as you progress through the years, your reputation begins to precede you and teams know that you aren't there for them to vent their frustrations onto.

The reason the RESPECT campaign continues to fail is not because of players but because of referees......if referees simply stopped accepting dissent as 'part of the game' or trying to be clever by coming up with belittling responses towards players, and used the tools given to them with the confidence that their peers won't look down on them for refusing to be undermined, abused and generally used as a verbal whipping boy by frustrated aggressive players then the better the game will be for it.

 

[Peter Grove]

However in this instance, because the idea from IFAB that dissent/offinabus is not an offence that is committed against a match official is so absolutely nonsensical, and clearly designed to pander to the professional game, I would not penalise a candidate for disregarding such a ludicrous, and obviously incorrect, interpretation.

Padfoot, I'm not sure why you keep peddling this myth that the IFAB have said that dissent is not an offence against a match official. They have said no such thing. What they have said that it is not a physical offence (i.e. one involving physical contact) which is both true, and not at all the same thing as saying it is not an offence against a match official.

While I agree with the view that the wording in the actual Laws of the Game on this issue is misleading and could easily be read as meaning any offence against a match official should result in a DFK, the IFAB has subsequently made it clear that this was not their intent. The full intent of the law and its rationale is made clear in the FAQ on the IFAB's website. They make the point that while In the past, even a physical offence against a referee was punishable only by an IDFK, from now on such physical offences must be punished by a DFK (or a penalty). In the words used in the FAQ:

If, for example, a player strikes a [...] match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone [...] This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person ...

Just to make their intent on the correct punishment for dissent even clearer, the FAQ further states:

If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent/offensive language etc. the restart is an IDFK.

Assuming you have read the FAQ (and previous discussions lead me to believe you have) I can't quite understand why you persist in misrepresenting the IFAB's position on this.

They clearly acknowledge that while dissent is still an offence, it is not included in the category of direct/physical offences for which a DFK/penalty should be awarded.

 

[Padfoot]

Padfoot, I'm not sure why you keep peddling this myth that the IFAB have said that dissent is not an offence against a match official. They have said no such thing. What they have said that it is not a physical offence (i.e. one involving physical contact) which is both true, and not at all the same thing as saying it is not an offence against a match official.

While I agree with the view that the wording in the actual Laws of the Game on this issue is misleading and could easily be read as meaning any offence against a match official should result in a DFK, the IFAB has subsequently made it clear that this was not their intent. The full intent of the law and its rationale is made clear in the FAQ on the IFAB's website. They make the point that while In the past, even a physical offence against a referee was punishable only by an IDFK, from now on such physical offences must be punished by a DFK (or a penalty). In the words used in the FAQ:


Just to make their intent on the correct punishment for dissent even clearer, the FAQ further states:

Assuming you have read the FAQ (and previous discussions lead me to believe you have) I can't quite understand why you persist in misrepresenting the IFAB's position on this.

They clearly acknowledge that while dissent is still an offence, it is not included in the category of direct/physical offences for which a DFK/penalty should be awarded.

The Law states, quite clearly, that offences against a match official will be restarted with a DFK/PK......it doesn't say 'physical' or any other sort of descriptor. That only appears in IFAB's weak and nonsensical attempt to change the Law they have just reviewed! Part of the reason why it is such a ludicrous interpretation.....

 

[GraemeS]

And why is that?

Because referees, especially beginners, are conditioned to view dissent as simply 'part of the game' to be endured rather than punished.....and end up being so reluctant to caution for it, that's it often not until the last 10-15 mins of a game before they eventually get the cards out.

You don't need to issue cards all over the place....normally after the first couple the message is received loud and clear....then as you progress through the years, your reputation begins to precede you and teams know that you aren't there for them to vent their frustrations onto.

The reason the RESPECT campaign continues to fail is not because of players but because of referees......if referees simply stopped accepting dissent as 'part of the game' or trying to be clever by coming up with belittling responses towards players, and used the tools given to them with the confidence that their peers won't look down on them for refusing to be undermined, abused and generally used as a verbal whipping boy by frustrated aggressive players then the better the game will be for it.

But you're completely ignoring my point!

The current problem, as you state in your final paragraph above, is that referees don't use cautions for dissent often enough. I accept that and have definitely been guilty of it myself in the past. But I'm far from convinced that making the mandatory punishment more severe will achieve the desired initial result of getting this punishment used more often.

If you want dissent punished more often, you need to give referees the option of issuing a less severe punishment that's much "easier" to use. Making the punishment harsher will just see it used less and make the situation worse IMO. It's not an easy problem to solve, but I don't think PK's and a caution at the same time is the answer.