Postman Pat

Sin bin and trelawney league

25 posts in this topic

Just to emphasize that Temporary Dismissals (sin bins) will only be used for cautions (yellow cards) for dissent.  To quote from the e-mail sent to all Step 7 leagues and below:

Dissent accounts for 24% of all cautions at the Grassroots level of the game. As mentioned, the intention is to change the behaviour and impose an immediate sanction on the player; so whilst referees will still be required to report the incident in order for the RESPECT sanctioning to continue and to record cautions for continual misconduct purposes; the caution administered will not attract the normal £10 administration fee as cautions for dissent currently do. This puts the focus on changing behaviour.

The system imposes an immediate sanction on the player for a caution for dissent who will then undertake a period of a 10 minute temporary dismissals (period amended for youth games accordingly). 

 The full operation of the system will be explained in a full training session to the nominated Leagues, Clubs and Referees.  The training will be in the form of online WebEx sessions and potentially attendance at League meetings.

The League has to inform the FA by 20th May whether we wish to take part in the initial trial commencing next season thus the canvassing for the clubs opinions.  Please channel your thoughts either way through your club secretary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested on this one and how it may work. Dissent currently varies from official to official so there needs to be clear white and black with no grey as to what dissent is. I think it could just be solved with stricter and firmer referring with appropriate cards for the severity of what is said. 

10 minutes is an awful long time in football, over 10% of a match. It could mean several tactical changes within a game and teams sitting back and containing a side, resulting in negative or boring football. 

I'm interested to see it in practice but I have more reservations. I think that there just needs to be a line that everyone knows about, one that doesn't vary from ref to ref, and if that line is crossed then suitable punishment in terms of a yellow or red card is given. 

And what happens if a manager is penalised for dissent. Does he have to go to the changing rooms or behind a hedge for ten minutes? Who polices the time a player is off the pitch for? Say three or even two players were sin binned at different but overlapping times, it causes an awful lot of time keeping for the official? 

B Manning, Anita and Graham Hart like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Postman Pat said:

Thanks Steve was just trying to highlight it on here not undermine the league

No problem PP.  I was going to post about this anyway after we discussed this at our committee meeting last night you just beat me to it!

28 minutes ago, WendronOfficial said:

Interested on this one and how it may work. Dissent currently varies from official to official so there needs to be clear white and black with no grey as to what dissent is. I think it could just be solved with stricter and firmer referring with appropriate cards for the severity of what is said. 

10 minutes is an awful long time in football, over 10% of a match. It could mean several tactical changes within a game and teams sitting back and containing a side, resulting in negative or boring football. 

I'm interested to see it in practice but I have more reservations. I think that there just needs to be a line that everyone knows about, one that doesn't vary from ref to ref, and if that line is crossed then suitable punishment in terms of a yellow or red card is given. 

And what happens if a manager is penalised for dissent. Does he have to go to the changing rooms or behind a hedge for ten minutes? Who polices the time a player is off the pitch for? Say three or even two players were sin binned at different but overlapping times, it causes an awful lot of time keeping for the official? 

Some good points raised here and that's why we need to have the teach ins described in Mark Ives's e-mail above but unfortunately time is against us.  I don't believe a manager, unless he was a named player for that match, would come under this as that would be a misconduct report not a caution and possibly him being removed to the changing rooms etc. if serious enough.

Yes it's an additional admin/management burden for the referee during the game but there will be training for them.  I don't think anyone can fault the ultimate objective and hopefully as everybody gets used to it the number of players sitting out the game for 10 minutes will greatly reduce which in turn will take away much of that extra referee admin.

As long as you have human beings involved in this you are never going to get clear black and white.  For many and varied reasons we all have different tolerance levels and referee's are no different.  So long as his/her approach is consistent throughout the match you can't really complain too much.  Let's not forget where we, and they, are in the pecking order of things and why:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WendronOfficial said:

Interested on this one and how it may work. Dissent currently varies from official to official so there needs to be clear white and black with no grey as to what dissent is. I think it could just be solved with stricter and firmer referring with appropriate cards for the severity of what is said. 

10 minutes is an awful long time in football, over 10% of a match. It could mean several tactical changes within a game and teams sitting back and containing a side, resulting in negative or boring football. 

I'm interested to see it in practice but I have more reservations. I think that there just needs to be a line that everyone knows about, one that doesn't vary from ref to ref, and if that line is crossed then suitable punishment in terms of a yellow or red card is.

The problem is that it's not always what a player says but they way they say or do it. Which is why you have variations in referees, as it is down to their interpretation.

B Manning and WendronOfficial like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few shaded areas on the use of Temporary Dismissals (sin-bins) within the lawbook. For example, a player who receives two yellow cards for dissent (so is dismissed twice temporarily) is not sent off. However, that player will no longer be allowed to play a part in the game and can be substituted. So, two cautionable offences and the player should be red-carded... But they aren't. They can be substituted. In my opinion, if a player is stupid enough to get two cautions for the same offence, he should be sent off and not be replaced. That is the feeling with most referees that I have spoken too (not on this forum). 

That said, I like the concept and I think that in time it can be a useful asset for referees. It will take a bit of time to get used to and a little while for referees to get used to (and teams, of course), but used correctly, I believe it can be a good thing.

There will be much confusion for the first few months, for teams and officials. Mainly due to the fact that the only time this scheme can be actually rehearsed before going live is in pre-season, where players are well behaved most of the time.

Should the Trelawny League be accepted/selected to take part in this trial (which is what it is at the moment), I'd like to think that both referees and clubs give it time to "bed in" before passing judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Bean said:

NO!!! If you get a verbal team it will be hard to keep track of who's due bk when etc. In theory it's a good idea but may be a hard 1 to police effectively.

What's the highest number of cards you've dished out in a game for dissent? My highest is two... That's not hard to police. Usually after the first card, people get the hint. If a team is losing players because of their gob, I'd like to think that the manager would step in and actually manage the players. 

bighairydave likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting concept, one that would be better suited to a level where linesmen are actually appointed though. The referee has enough going on, particularly at this level. Willing to see how it goes, but it would make a lot more sense if there was linesmen/ a senior line, there to help police the system. If they're down for ten minutes, does that account for stoppages? Won't teams simply waste time until their player is allowed to get back onto the pitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tempo said:

It's an interesting concept, one that would be better suited to a level where linesmen are actually appointed though. The referee has enough going on, particularly at this level. Willing to see how it goes, but it would make a lot more sense if there was linesmen/ a senior line, there to help police the system. If they're down for ten minutes, does that account for stoppages? Won't teams simply waste time until their player is allowed to get back onto the pitch?

Fair point Tempo but the trial is only for Step 7 leagues and below so having neutral assistants is going to be far from commonplace.  And as a referee i'm sure you know the answer to your second point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve Carpenter said:

Fair point Tempo but the trial is only for Step 7 leagues and below so having neutral assistants is going to be far from commonplace.  And as a referee i'm sure you know the answer to your second point.  

That's fair enough. It is a shame though, I could see it working a lot smoother with "proper" officials in place to help out. And, I hate to say it, if for some reason one of my players does get sent to the sin bin, I would expect my players to have the common sense to slow down the game at any opportunity, it just seems like common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely by slowing the game down would lead to more yellow cards for time wasting, because any decent ref will see through it and tell you not to do it before it happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Postman Pat said:

Surely by slowing the game down would lead to more yellow cards for time wasting, because any decent ref will see through it and tell you not to do it before it happens

Of course. There's a difference between time wasting and slowing the game down though. IE, keeping possession, using the goalkeeper's full allotted six seconds. I wasn't implying that I would encourage my players to "cheat", merely take their time. Also, I don't think a yellow card for time wasting would count as a "sin bin" offence, as it isn't dissent.

 

Our side doesn't have many in it who are likely to suffer from the new sin bin law anyway. Just trying to point out the problems that could arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not a single bin offence but still a yellow and would be counterproductive and I still think if I was reffing any game would see through any sportsmanship as you are implying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempo, just to answer your question from before... The referees watch would stop During the temporary dismissal to allow for the usual bits; substitutions, ball out of play (where the delay is quite long). The dismissal is ten minutes playing time.

As for running down the clock, that's completely up to you as a team. So long as you don't infringe any laws, the referee can't (and shouldn't) penalise you. 

Best way to stop any problems... Don't allow your players to become a problem. I think this trial will be a success in the sense that it has the potential to reduce dissent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, on first reading, it may sound daft - but why not put the management of the 'sin binned' player on their own manager? Yes some will be less than honest with their time keeping - but will roughly be right and take the onus away from the ref and put it back to a club issue - which it is. If left that the ref had to agree a return to the pitch, the ref can delay that as long as teams delayed while he was off the pitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be interesting to see what is said at the meetings which will happen in the summer for clubs and referees regarding the proposal. And judgement should be made after we have had a chance to implement the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobjfh said:

I know, on first reading, it may sound daft - but why not put the management of the 'sin binned' player on their own manager? Yes some will be less than honest with their time keeping - but will roughly be right and take the onus away from the ref and put it back to a club issue - which it is. If left that the ref had to agree a return to the pitch, the ref can delay that as long as teams delayed while he was off the pitch?

A lot of teams have player managers, i don't think this could be done at our level realistically. We played St Agnes this season and they had 11 men, including their manager (Wellsy). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempo - know exactly what you are saying, but if the 'sin bin' idea has merit, there has to be ways to trial it. If left with the 'offenders' manager then perhaps Wellsy would have ensured his players never gave dissent, refs never book or would sin bin for first out burst - especially if he had to come off to manage his players 10 minutes on the naughty seat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bobjfh said:

Tempo - know exactly what you are saying, but if the 'sin bin' idea has merit, there has to be ways to trial it. If left with the 'offenders' manager then perhaps Wellsy would have ensured his players never gave dissent, refs never book or would sin bin for first out burst - especially if he had to come off to manage his players 10 minutes on the naughty seat?

Maybe I'm being negative on the whole idea, personally I don't like it - but I guess something has to be done in order to change dissent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tempo said:

Maybe I'm being negative on the whole idea, personally I don't like it - but I guess something has to be done in order to change dissent

I think most of us can see practical problems with the trial (my comments are slightly tongue in cheek), but I also think most of us would love to see an end to dissent - suppose we have to start somewhere (the Respect campaign has had limited success) and even if this trial doesn't completely work then if we're moving in the right direction, it's worth it

B_D, bighairydave, Tempo and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now