The Stepped Approach

[HoofItYouDonkey]

I would welcome people's views on the above.
As far as dissent is concerned, I don't us it at all. I tried when I first started refereeing, but found it made no difference. I now sanction dissent immediately, no one gets a chance to call me an 'idiot' and get away with it. No second chance, C2.
Sin bins have definitely improved dissent on the FOP.
Maybe I was doing it wrong, do others find it helps?

 

[Viking]

I'm always wary of the context of a stepped approach towards dissent. If I hear it and I can identify it, they're going in the book for it. I treat players with the intelligence and respect that they're aware of the LOTG re dissent. If they're not then they are soon aware of it and at least they've added to their wealth of knowledge.

 

[TSHudson]

I certainly don't use a stepped approach, but depending on what they say, players might get one warning first, but that would be it. I sin binned a player about 30 seconds after he came on for dissent, as it was fully warranted. Dissent (and not OFFINBUS) is about managing the game for me, if I feel the incident and therefore match control can be dealt with better by a firm warning, I'll go with that rather than direct to the sin bin. But if it's bad enough (and everyone has their own line), then it's straight to the bin.

 

[Russell Jones]

On this issue, I think us understanding / using the right terminology is important. Dissent is not a manageable offense in the same way as a Reckless challenge is not a manageable offense. Low level, minor grumbling, chirping etc is manageable and that's where the stepped approach most certainly has a role to play, IMO. Whether or not it has the desired effect of calming down the player, it is seen as actively managing the situation and very clearly "sells" the eventual caution (if required) to both the player concerned and to everyone else involved in the game.

Obviously the follow up question is where to draw the line about where complaints actually become dissent. But I'll leave that can of worms unopened ....

 

[RobOda]

Card first, ask questions later.

I'm not keen on the stepped approach because there are players that are smarter than me and have an answer for everything, except the caution of course.

Okay, that's probably not true, I do chat with players if there's something I want to alert them to, for example if a player uses an OFFINABUS gesture in a friendly way, then I'll use my discretion, plus captains to get them to not do it again, but only because flashing the red at that would have everyone caught off guard and isn't what the game or players expected.

Dissent though, no second chances.

 

[Justylove]

As you go up the levels, rightly or wrongly “managing the event” becomes part of the process of being a referee.
If a player is chirping at you from close by, then you are expected to “set them up” for a card by using the stepped approach, as it’s then much easier to sell.
If on the other hand a player screams at you from 15 yards away, then it’s easy to sell the caution to the whole ground (players, officials and spectators)

In some ways it’s akin to the instruction you give/get about GK’s being out of their area when taking a fly kick. You can play it one of two ways - either penalize the first offense, or the way in which you are expected to manage it which is to warn the GK that they are close, then if and when you have to penalize for it, everyone is expecting it and they are going to have a go at the player, not you!

 

[Tino Best]

Last night a player showed dissent so I intended to use the stepped approach, I called in the captain but myself or the captain never even got to say a word as the player talked himself into a 10 minute sit down. When being observed I was told to lose the quiet warning step if the first dissent was too much for that step. I have used the 3 step rule and it can work, but at other times I have had to go straight for yellow. The moral of this story is all games and dissent is different and you have to ref what is front of you.

 

[jofusref]

and you should not alter your game because you are being observed,
not fair to you, the observer spoiling a saturday could be
helping another referee;
or the teams

 

[GraemeS]

On this issue, I think us understanding / using the right terminology is important. Dissent is not a manageable offense in the same way as a Reckless challenge is not a manageable offense. Low level, minor grumbling, chirping etc is manageable and that's where the stepped approach most certainly has a role to play, IMO. Whether or not it has the desired effect of calming down the player, it is seen as actively managing the situation and very clearly "sells" the eventual caution (if required) to both the player concerned and to everyone else involved in the game.

Obviously the follow up question is where to draw the line about where complaints actually become dissent. But I'll leave that can of worms unopened ....

Exactly right. I've got no interest in having a game played in silence and there's a lot of chat on the pitch that isn't dissent, including asking the referee for clarification, or even low-level instinctive frustration with a decision. The stepped approach exists to guide you in how to approach those issues and how to try and stop them escalating into actual dissent, which you would then of course have to caution for.

With respect to the original poster, it seems like he has either misunderstood or been mis-taught the stepped approach. If a player looks me in the eye and calls me an idiot, of course that's cautionable. But it's rarely that clear-cut - a player may be visibly frustrated with a decison, or continue to question it once you've given an answer. That's when the stepped approach comes in use.