In hindsight and with the correct information I think taking no action was the right thing to do in law, but I should have spoken to the player.
Thanks for the other advice.
The one that got away.
- Thread starter DazN
- Start date
In hindsight and with the correct information I think taking no action was the right thing to do in law, but I should have spoken to the player.
Thanks for the other advice.
Just out of curiosity, why would you speak to him and ask that? If he's committed an offense, penalize the offense. If he hasn't committed that offense, what are you warning them about?
It seems like maybe part of the problem you had here was that you were too quick to have a word, too eager to "manage" the situation when it might have been better either to do nothing or to penalize. The same is true of the coach: there was really no need of an extended conversation; a caution would have sufficed and probably would have worked (and avoided the issues that you had with the rest of the game as it pertains to dissent).
Would you not warn a young player that they were not allowed to do it? I can understand with older ages, but if it were something like preventing the GK from releasing the ball I would be warning them the first time.
Yeah I'm not sure I agree with that bit of feedback. Careless holding before a corner is put into play isn't an offence - but it's widely accepted that we should manage that in an attempt to avoid a penalty rather than just watch and allow a high-pressure decision to be required.
This is the same principal for me. You don't really want to be having to give a caution for an offence that most people won't know is an offence. So if you get the opportunity to point out to a player that he's risking a caution if he does that again, why not take it? AND in this situation, you also will have shown that you've "dealt with it". You rightly fed back that failure to deal with small fouls caused an escalating problem as the game went on - just ignoring this would be another mark in the "ref doesn't know what's going on" tally that players are subconsciously keeping.
I'll reply to both at once. If they player hasn't committed an offense, then I don't know what you'll be warning for. If he hasn't distracted the opponent, then what's he done that is an offense? Are you telling him that the fact of yelling "aargh" is an offense for which he will, next time, be penalized? You're opening up Pandora's Box with that kind of thing. Were I the player, and you told me not to yell "aargh" again, then every time an opponent raised his voice in any way, I'd be asking you to deal with it. And could you blame me? You just told me that I can't yell or you'll penalize me.
With regards to careless holding in the PA, my advice to call it in every instance where it is the attacker committing an offense against the defender is solely for situation wherein the temperature of the game is rising or has risen and where you are looking to reign in control. I don't advocate giving a penalty for trifling holding on a corner, and I don't advocate giving a foul for this kind of contact while a game is under control. Only when you feel your grip falling away. This allows you to smother the game and, 9 times out of 10, the players will respond to your new tolerance level by behaving more reasonably for the remainder of the game.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
IMHO, you are way overthinking this. The player has done some unsporting and not with in the expectations of the game, even if it it did not (barely) rise to a caution because of his ineptitude in doing it too late to be effective. I’m absolutely telling him itks not OK. That tells ton teams that I’m paying attention, tells the “offended“ team why there wasn’t a call, and sets the stage for the future. And yes, if he does it again I am going to caution him for USB. And if you want me to force it into a box, it’s going to be disrespect of the game- he’s been told something is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior and kept doing it. (But there doesn’t have to be a magic box—the offense is unsporting behavior, and the list is a set of examples, not a restrictive list.)
It's really not that complicated. A player may not be aware (particularly at youth, but even at grassroots adult too) that verbally distracting an opponent is a cautionable offence.
If he failed to successfully do so on the first occasion, a warning along the lines of "if you distract an opponent by shouting like that, it's a cautionable offence" should either encourage them not to do it again, or to not be surprised when the card comes out if they choose to ignore the warning and do it again anyway. Either outcome is preferable to saying nothing and whipping a card out at someone who doesn't think they're doing anything against the laws.
Agreed - in a different game with a different tenor, suspect players would have laughed too.That genuinely made me laugh out loud!
Do you warn players about all the things which are illegal but which they have no done?
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
We encourage our referees to teach players in youth football, so a few words of advice would be seen in England as good practice, even when no offence is involved.
I had a situation on Saturday whereby a player shot from an indirect free kick in his own half (as a result of an offside) and tried to catch the keeper off his line.
At the next break in play when I was near that player I said 'you do realise that an offside free kick is indirect, don't you?' - 'no, I just saw him off the line and went for it'.
That player hasn't committed an offence, and even if it had gone in he wouldn't have committed an offence, but he would have been shocked when a goal kick was awarded. The next time, he won't be!
Educating players is a good thing if it's done in the right manor and without overly drawing too much attention to it.
At the next break in play when I was near that player I said 'you do realise that an offside free kick is indirect, don't you?' - 'no, I just saw him off the line and went for it'.
That player hasn't committed an offence, and even if it had gone in he wouldn't have committed an offence, but he would have been shocked when a goal kick was awarded. The next time, he won't be!
Educating players is a good thing if it's done in the right manor and without overly drawing too much attention to it.
You're trying to imply that I'm wandering around the pitch randomly barking out obscure bits of law, which is very obviously not what I'm saying.
The answer to your question is no, because that leads us to the absurd situation where I start every match by walking onto the pitch and reminding players not to drive through red lights. Warning players about something that isn't likely to come up is daft.
Do I warn the players about something that is illegal and it seems likely they are about to do, or are likely to try and do again later in the match? If possible, absolutely. Again, this is really simple.
Do you use the stepped approach? Because that's essentially warning a player that he's on his way to committing a PI or dissent offence without him actually having got to that point yet. That and warning players of a holding offence in the PA are both incredibly standard bits of refereeing technique - if you claim to not do them, you're either lying or missing out on a really simple and easy bit of match control-aiding communication with players. And warning a player that action X they have just done would be an offence in Y circumstance is just an extension of the same principal.
Of course we do. The classic one is where the keeper is getting close to handling outside the area on drop kicks, pretty standard instruction to get a message to him to let him know he is close. He hasn't done anything wrong but you are warning him that he is close to doing so.
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
I've actually confused myself reading this thread, so apologies if I have got the complete wrong end if the stick! The below may have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, so again, apologies! 
Had exactly this last week. Gave warning 1st time he yelled "aarrgh!" at a FK, 2nd time he did it, gave YC. He was still surprised.
My son's team played the same 'problematic' team away yesterday and they had a parent ref.
By all accounts it was a terrible. Very dubious penalty given to home side, clear penalty to away side not given. Home team committing dangerous tackles, swearing and arguing with the ref, stamping on players... The list goes on. Home team came out 2-1 winners.
I do wonder if they are more used to having this kind of 'referee'... Their behaviour would certainly suggest so.
By all accounts it was a terrible. Very dubious penalty given to home side, clear penalty to away side not given. Home team committing dangerous tackles, swearing and arguing with the ref, stamping on players... The list goes on. Home team came out 2-1 winners.
I do wonder if they are more used to having this kind of 'referee'... Their behaviour would certainly suggest so.
When they get a qualified referee, they will be for a shock. I had a county cup match once, where one team was in a league that barely had any referees and the had them weekly.
I think they realised after the 4 caution in the first 25 mins they could bully their way to victory this week. They ended with 8 yellows in total.
Exactly that. I refereed a Sunday League county cup final years ago, one of the teams were at best getting money chasing referees most weeks, and quite often none at all. The other team played in the KOPA League which has always had good coverage and expectations of their referees. They then came across me, an experienced L4 about to be promoted to L3, and it didn't end well for one of the teams, you can guess which one. They lost a player for VC mid-way through the first half, quickly followed by their manager for his protests, and finished with over 10 names in the book. The other team one caution from memory, they switched to Saturday football the following season and are now at step 4.
At the subsequent disciplinary hearing their entire defence was based on the players were only behaving as they did in league games and therefore it was my fault
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
that is the funniest thing Ive heard in a long while!At the subsequent disciplinary hearing their entire defence was based on the players were only behaving as they did in league games and therefore it was my fault
I was actually referred to at one point in the hearing as a "jumped up jobsworth". Suffice to say they were just as successful in the hearing as they were in the cup final. The great and the good of the CFA were at the game, and given they abused both the chairmen of the cup and referees committee after the game there were no shortage of witnesses desiring to see them dealt with.