Trelawny and Duchy League Survey

[Dave Bartlam]

For any Club Officers, League Officers, players, coaches, referees etc... Please take five minutes to complete this survey on the FA's Temporary Dismissal (Sin-Bin) trial.

Early statistics show that dissent has reduced by 34% since the start of this season in the Leagues which have been selected to trial this system.

Many thanks

 

The FA Survey can be found by clicking here: http://emea.focusvision.com/survey/selfserve/5a3/171207 

[Sijames]

Waste of time and resources (or lack of), haven't seen it implemented in the 7 trelawny games I have seen this season! Most officials seem to be against it!

[bighairydave]

47 minutes ago, Sijames said:

Waste of time and resources (or lack of), haven't seen it implemented in the 7 trelawny games I have seen this season! Most officials seem to be against it!

That’s disappointing as it has been brought in to try and help officials. Having only done one game, I felt the threat stopped any dissent before it started so can be beneficial.

[Dave Bartlam]

5 hours ago, bighairydave said:

That’s disappointing as it has been brought in to try and help officials. Having only done one game, I felt the threat stopped any dissent before it started so can be beneficial.

I agree with you here - I've only used it once whereas by the same point the season before, my caution tally for dissent exceeded the other cautions I'd administered.

I've found that it has acted more or a deterrent than a punishment, which is exactly what it should do.

As a referee, I do hope that the FA decide not to implement it for all cautionable offences; however (and in line with the survey), I think it would benefit being used for simulation (diving), dissent and delaying the restart of play (kicking the ball away in a manner which is deemed unsporting - there's a slight difference there in my interpretation). I think that to use it for preventing a promising attack could be a good thing, however sometimes PAPA is completely accidental, where as dissent and simulation aren't (DTROP also at times).

[We Two]

Thank you B-D, survey completed.
The easy option is to take a negative view, do nothing about the attitude of some players, ( and in some cases supporters, pity they can't be sin binned also ) and then complain about the state of our national game.
At least if your view is a negative one, register it on the survey, and show the F.A. that there are people who care about the game they administer.
Not all new ideas will meet with wholesale acceptance, but IF referees invoke the rules at their disposal, we might see an improvement in our game.
Maybe the F.A. should circulate a directive to refs, clearly defining THEIR definition of how THEIR rules should be administered.

 

[bighairydave]

2 minutes ago, We Two said:

Maybe the F.A. should circulate a directive to refs, clearly defining THEIR definition of how THEIR rules should be administered.

 

They did at the start of the season with the meetings and web-exs.

[We Two]

Then it is down to the referees to follow that directive to the letter, and not administer their own interpretation of a particular rule.
The use of foul language is tolerated by some refs and not by others, as far as we are aware the law states that foul language is punishable and a cardable offence.      Maybe a start in the right direction would be for referees who are reluctant to issue a red card, could use the sin bin that this thread is debating.

11 minutes ago, bighairydave said:

They did at the start of the season with meetings and web-exs.

 

[Fish]

The sin bin has definitely made players think before opening their mouths to have a go at the ref, so positive in regard to that.

the issue I have is different refs have different tolerance levels and so makes the sin bin a mockery. Either it is a sin bin for saying certain thing to a ref or it isn’t.

i have spoken to various referees and FA people this season and everyone has said the same to me “it depends on the referee and what he is willing to tolerate” no point bringing in a rule/law if the referees have a different interpretation of dissent.

then again I have seen a referee use the sin bin well.....but allowed high tackles and professional fouls go unpunished!!

a hard job to referee, but we need consistency from them ?

[bighairydave]

1 hour ago, We Two said:

Then it is down to the referees to follow that directive to the letter, and not administer their own interpretation of a particular rule.
The use of foul language is tolerated by some refs and not by others, as far as we are aware the law states that foul language is punishable and a cardable offence.      Maybe a start in the right direction would be for referees who are reluctant to issue a red card, could use the sin bin that this thread is debating.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Fish said:

The sin bin has definitely made players think before opening their mouths to have a go at the ref, so positive in regard to that.

the issue I have is different refs have different tolerance levels and so makes the sin bin a mockery. Either it is a sin bin for saying certain thing to a ref or it isn’t.

i have spoken to various referees and FA people this season and everyone has said the same to me “it depends on the referee and what he is willing to tolerate” no point bringing in a rule/law if the referees have a different interpretation of dissent.

then again I have seen a referee use the sin bin well.....but allowed high tackles and professional fouls go unpunished!!

a hard job to referee, but we need consistency from them ?

Both dissent and offinabus are in the laws of the Game IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE so you will get slightly different interpretations. Hence why In the laws of the Game it doesn’t specify what dissent or offinabus looks like.

 

You will never get constituency on this from every referee as they are human beings. The only way you could would be for words to be put in the laws. But again dissent is also by action so it’s not always just what the players say but in the manner they say it, which cannot always be written down.

[Fish]

2 hours ago, bighairydave said:

 

Both dissent and offinabus are in the laws of the Game IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE so you will get slightly different interpretations. Hence why In the laws of the Game it doesn’t specify what dissent or offinabus looks like.

 

You will never get constituency on this from every referee as they are human beings. The only way you could would be for words to be put in the laws. But again dissent is also by action so it’s not always just what the players say but in the manner they say it, which cannot always be written down.

Agree, however here is an actual example.

one match a player says “ref you’re having a f***king laugh” no sin bin or card

following week “ref you are having a mare” and sin binned.

i’ll let You decide (both incidents were not my team)

[bighairydave]

9 minutes ago, Fish said:

Agree, however here is an actual example.

one match a player says “ref you’re having a f***king laugh” no sin bin or card

following week “ref you are having a mare” and sin binned.

i’ll let You decide (both incidents were not my team)

I’m not disagreeing with you. Just giving you reasons why there will never be consistency while it is down to each referee’s opinion.

[Dave Bartlam]

3 hours ago, Fish said:

Agree, however here is an actual example.

one match a player says “ref you’re having a f***king laugh” no sin bin or card

following week “ref you are having a mare” and sin binned.

i’ll let You decide (both incidents were not my team)

Fish, Some referees will try and manage both of those situations where they can.

"You're having a f***king laugh" would depend on the manner in which it is said. Rude and aggressive, I'd certainly consider using the TD. If it is in jest or as an immediate reaction to a decision I've made, "No, I'm really not" would usually be my response. Along with a quick warning not to talk to me in that manner again. Happens again, TD.

"You're having a mare".... I've had this before and I've just turned around and made a joke about their performance accompanied with a little grin, "what, and you're not?"... That often works and we both laugh. I benefit from the fact that I know most of the players that I referee, particularly around Camborne and Redruth which is where I've always played my football.

It is down to interpretation and it is down to tolerance. That is why the words and phrases can't be put into text in the LOTG. When I was going around with the Cornwall FA Reps talking to people about the Respect campaign, Sin Bin's etc, we made it clear that you will not get consistent refereeing across the board week week out, however the powers that be at the Cornwall FA want referees to be consistent across the duration of their game, which is very reasonable and expected. Hopefully, we all get that when we play.

There are very few referees out there who like to issue cards or who want to see players dismissed. Where we/they can, we will always try and manage situations, often giving a warning in the first instance. Of course this all depends on what is said/done and in what manner.

The important thing to remember is that this has been brought in to make the game more enjoyable for all involved. By having less gobbing off, everyone will enjoy a good game (hopefully).

I've been all for the TD from the start and I continue to be for it now; however I have only used it once in the two games I have refereed at Trelawny level this season. 

 

 

[JTW]

4 hours ago, Fish said:

Agree, however here is an actual example.

one match a player says “ref you’re having a f***king laugh” no sin bin or card

following week “ref you are having a mare” and sin binned.

i’ll let You decide (both incidents were not my team)

Agreed I've seen players persist with arguing against a decision and rightly sin binned. Then I've seen acts of frustration and lines such as 'that was a blatant push' and 'i used my strength' find players sin binned. 

It's very frustrating for a player and manager to see the players disciplined for the latter.

[Darin Morse]

The first casualty of consistency is common sense

[stevieb]

1 hour ago, Darin Morse said:

The first casualty of consistency is common sense

Now that is a big  statement ! Common Sense ?  Now what you say might make sense to some but to others it might not , so each person can interpret Common sense differently , I know baffling   but just my take on it .  Back to sin bins, anything that can help the game and give refs an option to maybe take the heat out of a situation is a good tool surely , hope the combo takes it on board as it might shut one or two up in the league  who questions everything during a game ,  funny a few seasons back there was raised eyebrows about rolling subs now nobody takes any notice .

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Sin bins ...rolling subs - both very good ideas for me.

[bighairydave]

1 hour ago, stevieb said:

Now that is a big  statement ! Common Sense ?  Now what you say might make sense to some but to others it might not , so each person can interpret Common sense differently , I know baffling   but just my take on it .  Back to sin bins, anything that can help the game and give refs an option to maybe take the heat out of a situation is a good tool surely , hope the combo takes it on board as it might shut one or two up in the league  who questions everything during a game ,  funny a few seasons back there was raised eyebrows about rolling subs now nobody takes any notice .

I think that’s the point. @Darin Morse is saying you can’t always have consistency and common sense.

[UtilityMan]

Survey all done....

I think the Sin Bin is a good idea in theory but in reality doesn't really work, One week a ref will use it another week a different ref will use it for something completely different or not use it in the same way as a previous referee, 
The idea is good but maybe would be better used for specific offences like dissent  although my biggest opinion on Sin Bins is that at its core it is NOT Football... I appreciate the idea to trial this but if it is not a thing used throughout the League system amateur as well as Professional I don't believe it should be used (Dont get me wrong I know we aren't going to have VAR!) haha. 

Like I said I don't agree it with but also appreciate it can help officials, but if it is to be used more permanently I would think a specific reasoning for it should be used E.g. Dissent and other offences simply be as they usually are via a card. 

[Sijames]

agree with many of you who has said about the inconsistency of it, 'common sense' should have no place in this process it needs to be black and white for it to work and it is currently way off the mark! why bother with it if its just going to be another thing which relies on the interpretation of an official? a head butts a head butt, straight red, a swearword aimed at ANY official is just that isnt it? go cold turkey on it and you'll soon see less comments after games on here about how the referee turned a blind eye to countless sin bins which another referee would / will give!

[B Manning]

UtilityMan, it is used for a specific offence ,dissent and that is all it can be used for.

 

[UtilityMan]

13 minutes ago, B Manning said:

UtilityMan, it is used for a specific offence ,dissent and that is all it can be used for.

 

But that is not currently implemented by officials, Due to the referee shortages this year we've had the same hand full of refs, there are a couple which are very consistent on the dissent rule and rightly so the poor guys have a tough enough job without some idiot swearing at them but others have been widely inconsistent with the use and lack of use of Sin Bins... Most ref's pre game chat to the coaching team's and sometimes players informing them of what they would class as Card offences and Sin Bin offences which is good then you know what to relay to players this is where I the consistency comes in as every week a different ref has different interpretations of what is what, I have seen more cards for dissent this season than Sin Bins... 

[B Manning]

Sorry UtilityMan, but this season in the leagues which are using the sin bin a player cannot be carded for dissent it has to be the sin bin, although the ref is obliged to show a yellow card.

[Boogaloo Bob]

On 03/01/2018 at 12:59, Fish said:

Agree, however here is an actual example.

one match a player says “ref you’re having a f***king laugh” no sin bin or card

following week “ref you are having a mare” and sin binned.

i’ll let You decide (both incidents were not my team)

Asking for a friend lol 

[Fish]

15 minutes ago, Boogaloo Bob said:

Asking for a friend lol 

Ha ha.....I dont play anymore, but when I did I never got cautioned for dissent....always a “strong” tackle ?

[Robin Tucker]

Having been told by players "the sin bin means i get a free shot at shouting at you, i don't get fined by the FA anymore, just miss 10 minutes of playing" shows where the attitude of players will make it ineffective.  

Only one player thanked me for sinbinning one of their team, as they knew he would of been sent off as the red mist had fallen. 

Have i notice dissent fall in the 4 games ive reffereed in the Duchy League - no.

Have the attitudes changed - no

Do the players see it as a deterrent - no

Do the player see it as something else to blame on the ref - yes

Does it lead to confusion - yes

is it over-complicated - yes

[Boogaloo Bob]

1 hour ago, Fish said:

Ha ha.....I dont play anymore, but when I did I never got cautioned for dissent....always a “strong” tackle ?

Best way fish, let the shin pads do the talking