We have to be more consistent , all of us, if you can't be bothered , just give it up please ... i'm in my element adhering to the rules of the game . If players assume they can get away with "relaxed refs " who are not carded then it's an evil for those genuine players who want to enjoy the experience to carry on.
'Technical' and 'Dangerous' reds
- Thread starter The Bstard
- Start date
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So...strip away the bs and basically you are more concerned about being popular than you are in applying the LOTG.....
You're correct, your integrity isn't lacking......its completely missing.
You simply cannot fail to issue a red card because it might spoil the players enjoyment of the game......and to suggest otherwise is naive, childish and just plain moronic.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
One of the most interesting discussions I can remember reading here in a good long while. So thanks to the op for both raising the topic and for his calm reasoned responses to some (understandably) vitriolic posts in reply.
For what it's worth, I concur with the vast majority of folk on here who see far greater dangers in being knowingly inconsistent than in upsetting a few players in one individual game. Of course, if we put our hand on our hearts, I think most of us would admit to knowing that the majority of grass roots players would like refs to be more flexible in their punishment of technical offences .. how many times have we heard players from the opposing team urging us NOT to book someone as it's 'not that sort of game'?? So it might well be that in the context of one individual match, the world would be a better place if we less stringently applied the LOTG in some instances.
However any advantages of this approach are, for me, more than offset by the negative consequences in future weeks where 'next week's ref' suffers because he takes a different, firmer stance with the payers. And the players suffer too because they simply do not know where they stand and what kind of LOTG interpretation to expect.
So my question back to Mr B'stard (Alan maybe?!), is whether, having heard the strength of opinion on this topic from his refereeing colleagues, he is in in any way minded to adjust his parks refereeing style in future?
For what it's worth, I concur with the vast majority of folk on here who see far greater dangers in being knowingly inconsistent than in upsetting a few players in one individual game. Of course, if we put our hand on our hearts, I think most of us would admit to knowing that the majority of grass roots players would like refs to be more flexible in their punishment of technical offences .. how many times have we heard players from the opposing team urging us NOT to book someone as it's 'not that sort of game'?? So it might well be that in the context of one individual match, the world would be a better place if we less stringently applied the LOTG in some instances.
However any advantages of this approach are, for me, more than offset by the negative consequences in future weeks where 'next week's ref' suffers because he takes a different, firmer stance with the payers. And the players suffer too because they simply do not know where they stand and what kind of LOTG interpretation to expect.
So my question back to Mr B'stard (Alan maybe?!), is whether, having heard the strength of opinion on this topic from his refereeing colleagues, he is in in any way minded to adjust his parks refereeing style in future?
The Bstard
Active Member
I
Basically this. In some matches, for whatever reason, and only if the offence is what I call 'technical,' then less stringent application is, IMHO, valid.
I appreciate that, but I'd like to think that player's aren't (too) thick. They know that they got away with that because it was the last minute of a 15-0 game, or because I was being lenient. Often I'll tell them: 'I should do x, but I'm not, because y.' And you know what? They appreciate that. They know that they could be facing a £10 fine (for a yellow) or anywhere up to £50 (for a red) + a ban. And so you actively gain match control. Again, in my opinion. Many of you (including me) have played before, at many levels. How annoying was it to get a red for being last man? For a shirt pull? Far more than a red for a bad tackle or a punch - one, in your head, is deserved. The other, in your head, is not. I like to walk the latter line. I'd rather players liked me, but knew that if they acted 'dangerously' (including in the way they spoke) then it would be dealt with appropriately. The laws are still enforced, just a more mild version.
I am who I am who I am. You'll see more honesty, more opinions, on the blog and on here. Probably to the vitriol of others, but never without me learning from their opinions. Yes, is the answer. Probably. Perhaps the friendly player should have gone. It was, after all, 1-1 with no guarantees. He knew he should have walked. If I'd send him off in the same situation at 5-0? Still no. So edging toward the conservatism praised on here, but certainly not embracing it whole-heartedly at park level/Sunday League fooball
Basically this. In some matches, for whatever reason, and only if the offence is what I call 'technical,' then less stringent application is, IMHO, valid.
I appreciate that, but I'd like to think that player's aren't (too) thick. They know that they got away with that because it was the last minute of a 15-0 game, or because I was being lenient. Often I'll tell them: 'I should do x, but I'm not, because y.' And you know what? They appreciate that. They know that they could be facing a £10 fine (for a yellow) or anywhere up to £50 (for a red) + a ban. And so you actively gain match control. Again, in my opinion. Many of you (including me) have played before, at many levels. How annoying was it to get a red for being last man? For a shirt pull? Far more than a red for a bad tackle or a punch - one, in your head, is deserved. The other, in your head, is not. I like to walk the latter line. I'd rather players liked me, but knew that if they acted 'dangerously' (including in the way they spoke) then it would be dealt with appropriately. The laws are still enforced, just a more mild version.
I am who I am who I am. You'll see more honesty, more opinions, on the blog and on here. Probably to the vitriol of others, but never without me learning from their opinions. Yes, is the answer. Probably. Perhaps the friendly player should have gone. It was, after all, 1-1 with no guarantees. He knew he should have walked. If I'd send him off in the same situation at 5-0? Still no. So edging toward the conservatism praised on here, but certainly not embracing it whole-heartedly at park level/Sunday League fooball
HertsFinest
Next Weeks Ref
I'm trying to empaphise I really am...
But you can't pick and choose which reds to apply and which not to. They are all reds for a reason.
While you think you're doing a favour to the player committing the DOGSO you're not to the victim. He could have missed his chance to score the goal that wins him the £10 bet he's got on with the gaffer, or the goal that wins him the golden boot, or the goal that he will remember for years to come. That player expects the offender to walk and so he should.
But you can't pick and choose which reds to apply and which not to. They are all reds for a reason.
While you think you're doing a favour to the player committing the DOGSO you're not to the victim. He could have missed his chance to score the goal that wins him the £10 bet he's got on with the gaffer, or the goal that wins him the golden boot, or the goal that he will remember for years to come. That player expects the offender to walk and so he should.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit earlier.
I really am not that upset at you choosing not to send someone off for DOGSO. DOGSO doesn't upset me.
OFFINABUS, dissent, VC and bad tackles upset me. If you issue the cards you should for these offences and send them in, then you're a better ref than most in my county (where cowardice is the order of the day).
I think once these things are taken care of, the enjoyment of the players can be taken into account (at anything low enough to not require ARs)
But any ref that doesn't sanction the above, for any reason, should hang up the whistle today.
I really am not that upset at you choosing not to send someone off for DOGSO. DOGSO doesn't upset me.
OFFINABUS, dissent, VC and bad tackles upset me. If you issue the cards you should for these offences and send them in, then you're a better ref than most in my county (where cowardice is the order of the day).
I think once these things are taken care of, the enjoyment of the players can be taken into account (at anything low enough to not require ARs)
But any ref that doesn't sanction the above, for any reason, should hang up the whistle today.
@The Bstard Interesting view upon second cautions as well...take two bang on reckless challenges (no less than a yellow no more than a yellow-dictionary definition!
) would you manage that differently (given the player hasn't learnt the first time) to say one incident of 'possible' dissent and one reckless FT or a comparable incident? How do you deal with your 'technical' second cautions?
) would you manage that differently (given the player hasn't learnt the first time) to say one incident of 'possible' dissent and one reckless FT or a comparable incident? How do you deal with your 'technical' second cautions?or even worse does the first bit properly, show the appropriate then tell the player dont worry i wont be putting in the report
appropriate card i mean obviously
Last edited by a moderator:
Mick.
RefChat Addict
Well reasoned and explained rationale. Completely wrong of course. The LOTG clearly make reference to " the opinion of the referee" and this referee says yiuvare wrong.
I think the clue to the main point if this thread was in the first post where you made two shameless references to your blog. I bet the number of visitors has gone up.
I think the clue to the main point if this thread was in the first post where you made two shameless references to your blog. I bet the number of visitors has gone up.
The Bstard
Active Member
Of course it's a cynical thing with the blog. it's a brand new blog, something I intend to continue, and it needs its first views from somewhere. It makes it no less true what I believe, and I think some of you are sort-of seeing were I'm coming from, even as you disagree.
With yellows, it's similar - I count them as 'technical' yellow cards. Now obviously there are differences. Cynicalplay, unsportsmanlike conduct (in the most strict application of the word: basically 'cheating' to get ahead [diving, tripping etc]) are somewhat different. The same with forms of dissent. Again, it's appropriate to the match, the heat, the player, and howI've read it (of course I've got that very wrong sometimes, but I feel I get it right more often than not.)
With yellows, it's similar - I count them as 'technical' yellow cards. Now obviously there are differences. Cynicalplay, unsportsmanlike conduct (in the most strict application of the word: basically 'cheating' to get ahead [diving, tripping etc]) are somewhat different. The same with forms of dissent. Again, it's appropriate to the match, the heat, the player, and howI've read it (of course I've got that very wrong sometimes, but I feel I get it right more often than not.)
But ok @The Bstard what would you do if you was being assessed would you send the player off then for dogso
The Bstard
Active Member
Yes. Because, as I've said, I know that that is the correct decision in law.
11 reds? 5 in one match [the most I've ever had] (2 x c*nts to me and an assistant, 1 x 2nd yellow for dissent, 1 x terrible tackle, 1 x punch in retaliation for said tackle)
2 in the abandoned match (one team decided to have a 16 man brawlonly among themselves, sent two off for itthen it started up again as they left the pitch, so I called it off)
1 x DOGSO in the match described in the OP (no excuse available, blatant trip inside the area 1-on-1)
3 in a match recently in the last couple of minutes, all second yellows (2 x reckless tackles, one after the final whistle for dissent)
So 11 reds in 4 matches, oddly.
mikedn
Referee/Mentor
I think during the course of "Mr The Bstard" referee career has been on the receiving end of a few "ill-disciplined" matches(being polite there)
and not one to relish confrontations,arguments,not being liked moments(this seems to be a bone of contention here Mr Bstard not being liked)
has decided to circumvent the laws of the game for a happier life.Players "bend" the rules and they get get sanctioned for it,YOU sir are doing exactly the same,and as it has been previously said the next referee who applies the laws correctly will receive abuse because of you circumventing the laws to suit yourself.The vast majority of players have been playing for so long now they know the laws of the game(maybe not to the extent we do)and they know when they are in the wrong.
I can see no matter what anybody says to you, your warped view of refeering will not change,and you will keep circumventing the laws of the game.But i do think you are relishing the turmoil this is creating on here though.....
All said and done: to me this matter is closed,and i hope that i am not refeering in the same county and have to experience the backlash you are creating.................rant over......(are you a traffic warden by any chance? or MP)
and not one to relish confrontations,arguments,not being liked moments(this seems to be a bone of contention here Mr Bstard not being liked)
has decided to circumvent the laws of the game for a happier life.Players "bend" the rules and they get get sanctioned for it,YOU sir are doing exactly the same,and as it has been previously said the next referee who applies the laws correctly will receive abuse because of you circumventing the laws to suit yourself.The vast majority of players have been playing for so long now they know the laws of the game(maybe not to the extent we do)and they know when they are in the wrong.
I can see no matter what anybody says to you, your warped view of refeering will not change,and you will keep circumventing the laws of the game.But i do think you are relishing the turmoil this is creating on here though.....
All said and done: to me this matter is closed,and i hope that i am not refeering in the same county and have to experience the backlash you are creating.................rant over......(are you a traffic warden by any chance? or MP)
Last edited:
The Bstard
Active Member
Ill-disciplined is one word for a few matches I've had! And I'm sure many others have too. What I relish is debate. I don't mind people disagreeing with me - in fact I like it, when they explain their reasoning: it helps me improve, and hopefully helps others lok in more depth at their refereeing style.
There is a difference, though, between selective application of technical laws and flagrantly ignoring laws, which a lot of people seem to be missing.
I'm reading Mark Halsey's autobiography at the moment, and he says broadly similar things about the way he naturally refereed at lower level.
There is a difference, though, between selective application of technical laws and flagrantly ignoring laws, which a lot of people seem to be missing.
I'm reading Mark Halsey's autobiography at the moment, and he says broadly similar things about the way he naturally refereed at lower level.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Only in your imagination.
Offside is a 'technical' law.....shall we ignore that one next?
How about PIADM? Or maybe the players equipment, let's not worry about shin pads, or shirts?
The negligent referee can find many excuses for why they failed to do their job properly......
The fact that you happily admit that you would do things properly if being assessed sums you up quite neatly......
The Bstard
Active Member
I do happily admit that. Why? Selfishness: I want to do well, and that requires good assessments, which I do not agree with at park level. But meh.
Offside does not have the same effect on a player that sending him off for an 'excusable' DOGSO does, so you're not comparing correctly. Personal attacks are quite unnecessary. You can disagree, fine, but there's no need for attacking.
Offside does not have the same effect on a player that sending him off for an 'excusable' DOGSO does, so you're not comparing correctly. Personal attacks are quite unnecessary. You can disagree, fine, but there's no need for attacking.