Can referees answer this one.

[ECPL]

Scenario. A player makes a great challenge to win the ball off a defender. The linesman flags vigorously for a foul. Said player not happy and petulantly kicks the ball away and is quite rightly cautioned. The player is still chuntering away – but this is the crucial point. Instead of the referee getting as far way as possible from the player he decides that confrontation was his was of dealing with the situation. Result. You guessed it the player blew a fuse and was sent off.

For all you referees out there could you answer this question.

When I became a referee I was told at meetings in no uncertain terms that the intention was to keep 22 players on the pitch. I was also repeatedly told DON'T INFLAME A SITUATION. And by that I mean in this particular case the player was clearly upset at the decision. We were always told don't upset the player more by arguing with the player, get as far away as possible from that player and get the game moving. If that player then chases you up the park then they deserve to be cautioned, unfortunately in this particular situation the referee decided that he was going to have his tuppence worth and started arguing with the player. We all know what happens next and it is that because the referee has got involved he now cannot back down so produces the inevitable red card.

My question to referees is this. What are you told when you get together at seminars. Are you told that your job is to keep the 22 players on the field and that if dealing with a player who is clearly aggrieved are you not told to get away from the situation as quickly as possible and get the game going. This referee clearly did not handle the situation well as instead of clearing off he decided to confront the player – thus the inevitable red card. I really don't want peoples opinion of what happened or offering other scenarios as to who said what to whom. I want to know why – and I have seen it before. The referee takes umbrage and decides to confront the player instead of putting distance between the player and himself. As I said if a player then chases the referee then that player deserves to be punished.

[B Manning]

ECPL,I do not know where you were trained but in all my years I have never heard that as a referee your intention should be to keep 22 players on the pitch, also the comment that you should not upset players, my dumb is founded as they say.

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Not upset players! what about not upsetting the referee, lots of gobby players around these days......who don't know when to shut up.

 

[ECPL]

Now I know what is wrong with the game.  When a referee is not guided right then no wonder we have a problem with the men in black.  B Manning you have been around a few years are you seriously saying that it is not in the referees remit that his responsibility is not to try and keep all 22 players on the pitch.  If that is the case then I see no future in the game we love.  As far as not upsetting players, may I remind you that your job is to control the game and that includes not exacerbating a situation then I am afraid there is no hope for the game .   I raise the point COMMONSENSE.  It seems as if that word is now become a swear word and I can understand why players get agitated when they are confronted by the man in black whose only aim is to confront.  I am absolutely gobsmacked at the reply. If you are right then there is no hope for the game.   Your reply if read by any aspiring referee will put them off from applying for life.  What you are saying is that referees are given licence to do whatever they like because they are the sole arbiter of the game and they will have the full backing of their respective associations .  To be honest I am now spitting feathers at such a shocking reply.  Mind you I have seen some great performances by referees at the ECPL level and I can why some of them have never progressed because they have the respect of the players and use that magic word COMMONSENSE.  You should be ashamed of yourself. 

. 

[B Manning]

In being appointed to a game my remit is to ensure the game is played to the Laws of Association Football (LOAF) , that includes all disciplinary actions that I deem necessary to take , the LOAF (as you know) give adequate guidance as to what is considered disciplinary actions. How you can be ashamed of my small comment which answered your question is beyond me and for you spitting feathers I find incredulous , but at least you are giving quite a few referees a good chuckle.

 

PS I was waiting for you to come back at me , so  you did not disappoint.

PPS You asked a question , I answered honestly that in all my years I have never come across that instruction so how you then start slagging me off beggars belief, if you didn`t want the answer then don`t ask the question.

Edited October 13, 2015 by B Manning

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

What a load of tripe that was ECLP......not a bit of COMMONSENSE in that post at all.

It seems to me that the ref is NOT allowed to use COMMONSENSE not the other way around.

What about players using COMMONSENSE and not gobbing of when being disciplined by the ref, they always want the last word.

When they don't get it, they whinge about a red card, when in reality......they've basically asked for it. Most commonly you see their own team trying to stop them, the spectators saying shut up.....but on they go until they get the card......firking idiots.

[ECPL]

Seems like the referees union have been offended.  What a surprise.  We all know the laws of the game it is how you apply them that counts.  If you go on to the field with attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong then I really do worry for the game.  Yes we have idiotic players who deserve their comeuppance but I am afraid that your arrogant attitude does the game no favours.  It seems that 'I know the laws of the game and that is that.'  Your attitude really does the game no favours. As I said in my earlier posting If you don't use commonsense then you are spoiling it for everyone else.  Mind you having seen you perform on a number of occasions i can understand where you are coming from.  I'm afraid arrogance is not a virtue.  And the older 'WHO IS ECLP'  You were so intent yo post your nonsense reply that you seem to have taken your eye off the ball.   As I said there are many players who deserve to go but my argument is based on yes you got it COMMONSENSE.  What do the4y say about the best referees.  Got it in one, you do not know they are there.   I just wonder how many referees are having a good chuckle.  It seems this generalisation is not what I expect from a referee.  Let them speak for themselves.  If you want to know how a good referee operates then go and watch smithy in action.  He uses commonsense and certainly does not confront agitated players.  he speaks to them and lets them know why he has made a decision.  As I said COMMONSENSE is one thing, Knowing the laws of the game inside out is another. 

[B Manning]

ECPL, let's go back to square one, you asked the question of referees you were trained to keep 22players on the pitch, my reply was that I have never heard of that in all my years, you now seem to take my answer as an excuse to slag me off. I am sorry if my answer does not fit your idea of refereeing , I have been a referee for many years and reached a good senior level (in today's money a level 3) so somewhere along the line I must have been doing something right. I certainly do not need a lecture from you as to what I should be doing on a football game.

[ECPL]

As I said.  COMMONSENSE.   I'm afraid I became a referee I expect before you were born.  Times have certainly changed.  So the aim is not to keep 22 players on the pitch, well I never.  Say no more.  Subject closed.  You have your views and I have mine so we will leave it at that.  

[B Manning]

Again sorry to disappoint you but I was playing in the 60 s and 70s and qualified as a referee in 1975 so I think I could well have been refereeing before your good self. Where did I say the aim was not to keep 22 players on the pitch it does not enter into it, if as a referee you have/need to take disciplinary action then that is what you have to do, keeping them on the pitch does not enter into the equation.

Edited October 13, 2015 by B Manning

[karaoke]

I think this has turned into a private war but there is passion on both sides however I have refereed for many years and also played a very high standard and also have been stupid enough to manage sides but I must say it never has given me pleasure to send anybody off and feel much happier finishing a game with 22 players still there and enjoying every minute, if that means I go out to keep 22 players on the pitch so be it, I don't think ECPL is saying not to send players off but the game is a lot more  enjoyable if you don't half to. 

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Not really a war, just a difference of opinions. Looks like a case of one incident that could have been dealt with differently.

But, in the end, if the player had not been chuntering away.......it would not have happened. And of course....we do not know what was said.

So the player had no common sense to keep quiet. Or am I reading it wrong?

[B Manning]

Alan, It never gives me any pleasure to take any disciplinary action , there is nothing better that a good hard game of football played in s good sporting way where as a referee just a few gentle words of advice into players ears is all that's needed, but sometimes disciplinary action has to be taken. I never go to a game with any pre conceived ideas of what to expect so the thought of keeping 22 players on the park or not does not enter into the thought process, I think you will agree on that.

[karaoke]

Alan, It never gives me any pleasure to take any disciplinary action , there is nothing better that a good hard game of football played in s good sporting way where as a referee just a few gentle words of advice into players ears is all that's needed, but sometimes disciplinary action has to be taken. I never go to a game with any pre conceived ideas of what to expect so the thought of keeping 22 players on the park or not does not enter into the thought process, I think you will agree on that.

Completely agree mate

[Referee]

According to the content of the original post .........

If only the player in this instance had been taught some of that common sense by his Mother or his Team Manager, and NOT got a silly caution followed by another silly caution.

Where was the Team Captain during this episode? Player discipline is in his remit and there is no mention of him or anyone else dealing with this Player's behaviour; therefore the Referee had to deal with it instead. 

the Player kicked the ball away and received a Yellow Card, he then decided to argue with the Referee instead of accepting the sanction during which time he obviously upset the Referee and received a a Second Yellow Card. Ignorance of Law, Stupidity and a huge lack of Common Sense from the Player - according to the original post .

My own angle on the original question is that turning up for the match with any advance intentions of sending people off can only lead to a clouded prejudicial judgement. Alongside to that, turning up for the match with the intentions of NOT sending anyone off will also lead to a clouded prejudicial judgement.  

In conclusion, common sense often conflicts with Laws of the Game and leads to INCONSISTENCY, which makes the poor old Ref even more unpopular !! 

We do try.............

 

[ECPL]

I'm afraid.  You have got the scenario wrong.  The player quite rightly received a caution for kicking the ball away, call it dissent, call it what you like.  But the player retreated some 40 yards or so, yes still chuntering away but my argument is that the referee instead of getting on with the game decided to confront the player and followed the player.   That to me is poor management of the situation.  The player becomes more upset because the player has nowhere else to go and wished the referee would just go away and get on with the game. But no, he wanted confrontation.  You know the scenario, I'm in charge and I'm always right so don't mess with me,.  My argument all along has been that word COMMONSENSE.  As I said watch how Smithy controls the game, yes he makes mistakes but who doesn't but he understands the situation and I feel sure also his responsibility to the game.   Now If the referee had not chosen to confront the player then that player would have chuntered away at them self and eventually cooled down.  Any referee will know that if a player feels aggrieved then they are apt to say things they would regret, but if the referee moved away from the situation and just got on with the game then the sending off would never have happened.     I keep coming back to the word COMMONSENSE.  And I wish sometimes that referees are locked away in a room and explained their responsibility to the game.  If this is not done then referees, not all by any means will take it on board that they do have a responsibility to the game.  We can all go by the laws of the game but I felt in this instance,but we also have to follow the unwritten law and that is of COMMONSENSE and this is the incident I am talking about that the referee did not use his COMMONSENSE because his actions could only end up with one ending and that is a sending off.  If I was an assessor at the game I would have highlighted the problem he himself initiated.  Up until then he was having a good game.  But let us not forget the whole incident came about because the linesman decided to furiously wave his flag to pull up what was a great tackle that anyone would have been proud of.  It seems that you would think I was getting at referees.  . The answer is a big fat NO.  My aim is to ensure that when the referee enters the field of play they have a responsibility and that responsibility is to try and keep 22 players on the pitch.  If you say that does not happen then there is something seriously wrong with the game we all love.             

Edited October 14, 2015 by ECPL

[Referee]

Common Sense? The Referee and Assistant Referee agreed, rightly or wrongly, that it was a free kick. Get on with the game. 

the Player chose not to do that common sense thing and walk away - he chose to kick the ball away and receive a silly Yellow Card instead. If the Player thinks he did nothing wrong then perhaps the Ref needed to explain it to him. the Player's resultant behaviour is his own responsibility and nobody else's . Common Sense would be for the Player to accept his caution instead of that chuntering thing he did instead.

If this Player had merely wanted to get on with the game then what is his explanation for walking up to the ball and kicking it away and therefore delaying the restart of the match? On this occasion, it has been proven that this player did not recognise the use of common sense but ended up recognising the letter of the Law instead. 

[Referee]

To be fair, we all want Common Sense approach to Refereeing but that has to be mutually agreed.

In a recent match, one Manager wanted someone sent off as per Letter of the Law whilst others would have preferred a more Common Sense approach to keep 22 players on the field.

Other Players and Managers want to see Consistency - that would throw Common Sense out of the window as EVERY foul or word of dissatisfaction could result in a Yellow Card and we would probably NEVER keep 22 men on the field through to Half Time !

By keeping you book stitched into your shorts , that gives certain individuals the opportunity to misbehave and break the Law and just get away with it

it's how you blend them together, I guess.

The original scenario on this post wasn't actually a good one as there was a lack of common sense all round in the first place prior to the Ref and his Assistant getting involved. 

If we didn't make mistakes then we would all be playing or Reffing at the World Cup ! 

[ECPL]

Some excellent responses.  Hopefully I have raised the point that a referee and yes players have a responsibility to as we say 'play the game'.  Tempers become frayed and decisions rightly or wrongly are given.    But I keep going back to a famous cricketer and now commentator David Lloyd who has a great comment.  'Get on with the game'.   And surely that is what it is all about.   Things happen, words are said in the heat of the moment so my word COMMONSENSE comes into it.  Once an official takes it upon himself to be mortally offended at what has been said and continues to argue the point instead of 'getting on with the game' there would be a much better relationship between players and officials.   All referees should look at themselves after a match and say 'did I get that right or wrong', did I do my best, constantly assessing themselves then the game will be better off for it.   Unfortunately while match officials are untouchable after a game then we will always have the us and them syndrome.  Take managers and club officials in dug outs, constantly appealing and ridiculing officials.  Why don't referees kick them out of the ground if they don't behave.   There is an awful lot that can be done to help and guide officials for the benefit of all who love this game.     

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

All this because a tackle was deemed a foul by the linesman, happens EVERY game.

[ECPL]

Sorry Keith B but where did that come from.  I have checked my postings and have not mentioned foul and abusive language towards anybody.  I said the player was chuntering. That to the uninitiated means moaning and groaning.  Not directed at anyone, just letting off steam.  Crikey you will be asking for players to tape their mouths up next.   

Unfortunately foul and abusive language has become the norm in society and people using such language don't seem to think that they are offending anyone.  It is just the way they talk in their private life.  Come on referees how many of you have blown for an infringement and the player turns round and says F off ref and gets on with the game.  It happens all the time and yes it is directed at the referee but it is just someone who for that split second says the first thing that comes into their heads.  In the eyes of the law that is a straight red card because it is foul and abusive language directed at the referee.  No, a referee uses his COMMONSENSE and gets on with the game.  If a referee takes offence at every remark said to him, or her then they are in the wrong game, we would be playing six a side football But no Keith B, you have invented something I never actually said.. 

[stevieb]

I am a bit perplexed ?  Was the linesman an official or club linesman ?   If club and not qualified REFS will mostly give all fouls they will be directed to give offsides and ball in and out of play . if both linesman are qualified  the ref may ask you to give fouls in your quarter if on his blindside   .. As for two yellows , kicking the ball away players fault .  countering away  after yellow card to ref  silly boy also all teams have them some one who is on the REFS case from the whistle  perhaps the ref  had had enough and responded with second yellow  , don't know wasn't there  so perhaps  you can enlighten me .    slightly off the track a few games back running the line  flagged offside and  was abused by the opponents management being shouted across the pitch you fornicating dishonest James Hunt  . at half time when I asked the ref did he hear it and could  he have a word .he said to me I get that every week as I pointed out to him he is a paid official and I do it  for nothing just to put something back into the game .  and was not happy to put up with that language . he did go over and have a word but only after I told him I wasn't best pleased . so some ref turn a deaf ear some don't  .

[ECPL]

Right lets get it right.  Yes the linesman was a proper official, have seen him referee on numerous occasions.

A forward chases down a defender and wins the ball on the touchline right in front of the linesman but in his opinion it is a foul, many would say a great tackle.  The player is annoyed and makes a remark to the linesman before being told off by the referee.  The player then petulantly kicks the ball away ten yards or so and the referee quite rightly cautions the player.  The player then runs 30/40 yards back to almost the halfway line muttering away and the referee who is also making his way back to continue the game but going in a different direction, changes his mind and moves away from his route back to the half way line and marches some 20/25 yards to confront the player who by now not only is being unhappy about being cautioned but is then confronted by the referee who seems intent on upping the tension.  The player is still retreating back as the referee continues to approach the player.  I have no idea what was said by the referee although it was clear the player was saying nothing.  As the player turned to try and walk away from the referee he suddenly to every ones astonishment pulls out a red card.  By now players from both sides looked absolutely stunned at the decision and you could see on their faces they could not believe the decision.  Someone asked where was the captain or senior player when this happened.  After the caution was given for kicking the ball away the player ran back to the halfway line and was stood about 10 yards from the captain so there was no need to intervene as nothing was happening to warrant any form of intervention.  The look of bewilderment on the captains face when the referee produced the red card was a scene to behold as the captain put hands on hips and looked up to the sky as if to say, 'what just happened there.'   I have since found out that the player was chuntering away to itself and not directed at anyone in particular especially not at the referee so was confused as to why the referee decided to confront the player for no apparent reason.  The only thing the player could work out was that he might have thought comments were directed at him when in fact the comments were made under the breath and could not possibly be heard by anyone.   Hopefully you have mow got the picture.  And I come up with the same answer myself and that is COMMONSENSE.             

I wont be commenting anymore.  I have explained the situation but still people come up with their opinions of what happened and not based on the facts as presented.  I could not be anymore clear.  I have spoken to a couple of people who were at the same match and saw what happened who have agreed with everything I have said.  So that's it I'm afraid or this just becomes a drawn out load of nonsense.   

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Agreed....a load of nonsense.

[Referee]

I still don't know what chuntering  looks like. If it was obvious to all that he was chuntering away to himself that maybe the Referee could have interpreted that as dissent or foul language ? 

How do you know his comments were heard by absolutely nobody?  Now that you have included that he gave the Assistant some dissent too, then perhaps you can pick any two from the three offences as Yellow Cards.? 

Perhaps it would be best to await the Referee's Report and then judge the Report through the Appeal's Process? Was it a straight Red Card offence or did he receive two Cautions. Was the Player aware that a 2nd Caution would lead to his dismissal? 

Did anyone ask the Referee after the match what the dismissal was for? After all, straight from the horse's mouth is normally more accurate than an obscure version from the side of the pitch which has altered several times ? 

 

 

[Richard Rundle]

On the whole I think referees do an excellent job. They sometimes make mistakes, sure, who doesn't?

Sometimes of course you do get one who tries to be the centre of attention; I saw a game a few weeks ago (not in Cornwall) where after one of the managers disagreed with a couple of the refs decisions the ref quite rightly told him to desist, then went on to goad the manager concerned several times into saying something else and eventually the manager bit and of course then was dismissed