A&H

would any of you have cautioned?

The key thing here, for me, is how you let them back on. Absolutely 100% grab an inhaler with no thought of a card. Come back on to the FOP afterwards without permission - that's then a booking, regardless of what medical reason you went off for. In the OP's scenario, at this age group, I would be wanting a word with the player prior to them coming back on - double-checking they are OK and letting them know if they need it again to either loudly let me know or just go and grab the inhaler (I had a similar scenario a number of weeks ago - U15 player about as far away from coaches as could be, hands on knees ignoring play around him; that was a shout for the coach to come on).
 
The Referee Store
I had a similar incident a couple of seasons ago and I was being assessed. The right back began coughing and slightly choking in an U17 game. The play was down the other end. He went off and the manager sorted him out. When the ball went out of play the manager contacted me and I went to ensure he was ok and let him on, with no caution. The assessor said I should have cautioned an I said my first priority is the safety of the players. He agreed with me, but warned some assessors may not. Common sense should prevail
 
Absolutely not for leaving FOP given the circumstances.

Probably would if they returned without asking permission depending on the nature.
 
As a father with a child that plays football and also suffer from asthma, no i wouldnt caution on that scenario. I have sat safeguarding children as part of my BRC. Ensure child safety first. Marks from assessor can be made up further along the line.
 
if i saw any referee caution in that senario they would find i didnt think it was a good idea.
words like jobsworth may be used
 
Padfoot said:
Move the scenario to u18s and you're being assessed....?
Click to expand...
yeah but it wasnt under 18s and he wasnt being assessed. common sense approach to someone in difficulty...

or caution the kid who then falls to the floor and has an asthma attack....

you judge the situation on its merits and use a bit of common sense... or dont you have any?
 
Paul_Jones said:
yeah but it wasnt under 18s and he wasnt being assessed. common sense approach to someone in difficulty...

or caution the kid who then falls to the floor and has an asthma attack....

you judge the situation on its merits and use a bit of common sense... or dont you have any?
Click to expand...

It's called a hypothetical situation......you know, we use them from time to time to debate about what action could/would/should be taken......
 
debate the hypothetical situation of you cautioning a 15 year old who then keels over and has an asthma attack... they are called laws because they can be interpreted.... for example. 2 people go to court, same offence (i'll let you chose the offence in this hypothetical situation), different judges. one judge jails for 18 months suspended for two years. the other jails for 12 months, not suspended, they're taken to the cells... same laws, different outcome.... Is one judge right and one judge wrong? no... why? because laws can be interpreted... by the letter of the law yes a caution.... common sense.... no caution
 
Paul_Jones said:
debate the hypothetical situation of you cautioning a 15 year old who then keels over and has an asthma attack... they are called laws because they can be interpreted.... for example. 2 people go to court, same offence (i'll let you chose the offence in this hypothetical situation), different judges. one judge jails for 18 months suspended for two years. the other jails for 12 months, not suspended, they're taken to the cells... same laws, different outcome.... Is one judge right and one judge wrong? no... why? because laws can be interpreted... by the letter of the law yes a caution.... common sense.... no caution
Click to expand...

Show me where I have said that I would caution a player who was leaving the field for a genuine medical emergency?

Poor analogy as the courts have guidelines that give a range of sentences available taking into account many different factors....the LOTG are not quite so generous and are quite specific about what the sanctions should be for each offence.

Where it all falls down is where referees try to find excuses not to do their job and then fall back on 'interpretation' or 'tolerance ' to justify it.

Out of interest...which one did you get? 18 months suspended or lock up?
 
Learning how and when the laws can be bent is an important skill for every referee. We're not out there to be robots, and not cautioning somebody who has run off the field to grab an asthma puffer isn't 'not doing the job'
 
As has been hinted, if you did caution in this scenario, an assessor wouldn't really have to artificially do anything: Your match control would suffer hugely from that moment on. BOTH teams would find the decision laughable and support each other in that feeling.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Learning how and when the laws can be bent is an important skill for every referee. We're not out there to be robots, and not cautioning somebody who has run off the field to grab an asthma puffer isn't 'not doing the job'
Click to expand...

It's not even necessarily about "bending" the laws. It's about learning that every law is subject to a certain degree of interpretation, albeit very minimal in some cases.

For me, this is the perfect example of when the law should be "interpreted" to avoid a needless caution. I can actually see where Padfoot is coming from, in that the power of interpretation shouldn't be used to justify failing to use a mandatory sanction. (Wait, did I just agree with @Padfoot ? I'm going to lie down! :D)
 
I've had this in the past ... in fact 3 weeks back I was told by a parent (although this is ladies OA football) that his daughter suffered with sports related asthma ... I immediately told him that if/when she needed it then feel free for her to go to you on the sides, even let him on the pitch a few times when there was injuries etc. and kept an eye on her myself ... game ended and the parent and daughter alike were extrememly thankful ...

this 'being nice' thing doesn't hurt sometimes .
 
Nope. Not a caution in a million years. Not at any age.

If it's to safeguard health, all players have my implicit permission, always.

On a related note: anyone ever have a player ask for a yellow for an opponent leaving the pitch? I never have; I doubt even 0.1% of them know it's in the book.

Only you and Mr Assessor - in the unlikely event he's there when this unlikely event takes place - will be thinking about this one.
 
Padfoot said:
Whilst I agree that we have to show empathy in medical emergencies...the idea that an assessor would somehow artificially manipulate a negative mark for something which is technically correct to the letter of the law, is a bit disconcerting.

A player who is 8 and storms of the pitch will probably get a pass.....a player who is 15 and does the same probably will not.....
Click to expand...

Every law is split into 2 parts Padfoot, Fact and Application.......or FA

A thorough knowledge of the loaf is more than desireable, however in the case of players or your own colleagues safety, the way laws are applied must be allowed to be made more than a little flexible to and by referees

Any assessor worth his salt will not only recognise what a referee did or didn't do, but more importantly in this case, why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top