The Ref Stop

SWPL Partick v Celtic

C

CaptainsPlease

Level 3W and
Level 4 Referee
At 2:40 - missed second caution, which both managers agreed should have been sanctioned.
Olivia Nicolson goes straight to her pocket and then seems to change her mind after realising the offender has already been cautioned.
 
The Ref Stop
DJIC said:
Gosh a text book SPA IMO, I expect referee may reflect that should have been a second yellow.
Click to expand...
I don't think she needs to reflect on it. She knew it was and went for it. But changed her mind, supposedly realising it is a second yellow.
Like it or not most referees have a higher bar for second yellow than they do for the first. For me, it is rightly so because of the consequences. As always, context is important.
I dont really have a problem with it as long as she can give reasonable justification for why she didn't caution. What I do have a problem with is going for the pocket and then changing her mind. It is similar to putting the whistle in the mouth to blow for a foul but then not blowing it because it would be penalty. It is terrible optics and bad for match control.
 
I have really mixed feelings bout the threshold on 2CT. A yellow is a caution—it is supposed to change behavior, not be a get out of fail free pass. I think the higher threshold has gone too far, and this is a great example of getting tied up overthinking it. I’m sympathetic to not giving a soft card as a 2CT—at least if it isn’t the same behavior that gave rise to the first caution.
 
This year the coaching/directives from the Scottish FA has been very clear on Second Cautions. Referees are expected to have a much higher threshold for issuing second cautions. The example in this video would not be supported as a second caution.
 
Scotty Ref said:
This year the coaching/directives from the Scottish FA has been very clear on Second Cautions. Referees are expected to have a much higher threshold for issuing second cautions. The example in this video would not be supported as a second caution.
Click to expand...
Interesting, a rare case of clubs wanting harsher punishments than refs.
 
The ongoing pressure to avoid reds makes me wonder if the Game would benefit from making the consequence to the team less serious by allowing a sub (if the team still has one). Part of me hates the idea of moving away from what has been part of the Game for so long, but maybe it is less bad than continually watering down the consequences of misconduct to the player.
 
It is extremely difficult to get the ultimate balanced justice for any kind of offence because every case is different. The book can only categorise them, set the punishment for each category and ask referees to place the offence into the most suitable category.

The goal is primarily to set the punishment to 1. protect the safety of players and 2. make the game fair by rebalance the impact of the offence. Though in recent times maximising the participants' financial benefit has crept into the top priorities and sits somewhere between 1 and 2. Removing triple punishment for DOGSO and downgrading sanctions in general is a good example of where we are heading.

For me, a red cards offence punishment is a sliding scale. At one end the player should bear most the punishment and very little punishment to the team, VC for example. At the other end the team should bear most the punishment with very little punishment to the player, DOGSO for example. I don't see any fairness or balance in being able to replace a sent off player for a DOGSO that the offending team has benefitted so much from. However I think it is fair that a player can be replaced for a VC incident when ball is out of play. The team sees no benefit for this offence and offending player should take all/most of the punishment.

There are going to be edge cases and specific circumstances that can negate this logic and that is why it is not easy to formulise an entirely 'safe' and 'fair' system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top