A&H

"Calling the Captains in"

The Referee Store
UKColt said:
Using the captains is part of the stepped approach. Of course you should only use it when appropriate and necessary, but the idea that asking the captain over, either individually or together if you need to, is a sign of 'weak' refereeing is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Again, I'll happily talk to either captain as part of the stepped approach when their player does something that comes close to stepping over the line. Why I try and avoid doing is delaying play and holding a "crisis meeting" in the middle of the pitch with both captains at the same time and everyone else waiting and watching.

Unless there's a clear incident that involves players from both teams, I stand by my belief that this can look like an overreaction, or a desperate move. I think it's almost always better to identify one team as being the worst or most recent offenders and speak to their captain first - only then going on to talk to the other captain separately at a later point if needed.
 
Yampy said:
Oliver issued a caution for persistent infringement of the LOTG, almost certainly against one player rather than being committed by one player.

I'd also suggest you stop trolling this forum and make valid points of view instead.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good
The card/sanction you issue are specific to the player concerned.
The Utd player who was dismissed did not persistently offend. Therefore a caution for persistent is wrong
 
GraemeS said:
Again, I'll happily talk to either captain as part of the stepped approach when their player does something that comes close to stepping over the line. Why I try and avoid doing is delaying play and holding a "crisis meeting" in the middle of the pitch with both captains at the same time and everyone else waiting and watching.

Unless there's a clear incident that involves players from both teams, I stand by my belief that this can look like an overreaction, or a desperate move. I think it's almost always better to identify one team as being the worst or most recent offenders and speak to their captain first - only then going on to talk to the other captain separately at a later point if needed.
Click to expand...

Yep, don't disagree with that. I was replying to the suggestion by Ciley that any use of the captains was a sign of weakness. :)
 
Would the players ask you for help on how to man mark at a set piece or whether to track a runner at a quick throw or not? No. So, leave them to their game and you concentrate on yours.
Do you intend to call in captains at U13 level? Is there an age level where this practise becomes the norm?
Or you pick and choose? i.e highlighting an inconsistency in approach? Can you find any clips of say, Euro Champ or World Cup where the captains have "been brought in" ?
Prob not, because, just like the "daylight offside" thinking of years ago, its a EPL directive aimed at placating viewers, it makes for good box office.
 
This is getting tiresome. You clearly hate the idea of managing the game using the captains. That's fine. But it's what new referees are taught, and is part of the promotion criteria so is widely considered best practice.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The Utd player who was dismissed did not persistently offend. Therefore a caution for persistent is wrong
Click to expand...
It is perfectly permissible (and actually good practice) for a referee to caution a player for Persistent Infringement by his whole team. Unusual but necessary if there are overly frequent fouls to break up play / target an opposition playmaker
 
I like anything that can enhance match control.
Its not taught in Scotland I can assure you of that !
And its not promotion criteria in Scotland.
I expect a referee appointed to any game, to be able to control and manage the game. As per LOTG. The LOTG go as far as to state the captain does not have any special powers. And bear in mind, you don't even need the captain to do your coin toss!! Captain to referee-nothing diff to any other player
 
Russell Jones said:
It is perfectly permissible (and actually good practice) for a referee to caution a player for Persistent Infringement by his whole team. Unusual but necessary if there are overly frequent fouls to break up play / target an opposition playmaker
Click to expand...

The Utd players misconduct form/report will have been ticked as "caution playing legs" for the first offence, fine
The 2nd caution, "persistent misconduct?" He was not guilty of such ! And if you are saying 2 fouls is persistent, then, everyone who commits two fouls needs to be treated likewise.
 
number of players on yellow....handbag/minor brawl breaks out.....nobody guilty of v/c, who do you choose to sanction? Any referee intent on good game management finds 2 players not already on cards

same should have been done here, yes, by all means Hazard was being picked on, But, make the next sanction for it the clear, obvious, no complaints, stand out offence..... you are there to manage the game as a whole...
 
Ciley Myrus said:
same should have been done here, yes, by all means Hazard was being picked on, But, make the next sanction for it the clear, obvious, no complaints, stand out offence..... you are there to manage the game as a whole...
Click to expand...
So, amusingly, you talk about Hackett and Halsey knowing more than those on here and yet you are claiming to know better than Michael Oliver about how best to manage the game :)

:troll:
 
Sorry I don't have the FA discipline sheet to hand, however the SFA one is B1d, playing legs

And if you sending off Utd player for 2 fouls, then, you need to be consistent and sanction everyone for 2 fouls?

sad enough to google.....continuing to exist or occur over a prolonged period

that was def not the Utd player !!
 
Russell Jones said:
So, amusingly, you talk about Hackett and Halsey knowing more than those on here and yet you are claiming to know better than Michael Oliver about how best to manage the game :)

:troll:
Click to expand...


not at all, am saying that they between them know better than him and am backing up their view
 
well on the utd incident, you are deeming the number to be..2

so, in name of consistency you yellow/double yellow everyone on based on....2

to not do so....is not consistently applying the LOTG......
 
well if you going to dismiss one player for 2 fouls...then you need to apply that logic throughout...

not to do so, is inconsistent.....
 
While this may not be what is taught in Scotland, this is what is taught in England, and when used properly it works absolutely fine.

Obviously this depends on the captain, as some are about as much use as tits on fish, but the referee on the day needs to make that call.

As for persistent infringement, for an individual player i work on quiet word public word cptain caution but this can depend if the captain is useless then i might skip that step, or if the player has made a couple of borderline careless/reckless fouls then i might reduce the number of steps.

For a number of players from one team fouling a single player from the opposition then it would depend, ive not had this in one of my games.
 
So summed up, its not a fair and consistent approach. It depends on who the captain is, their attitude and their nature, therefore, its not textbook good practise to approach captain, in short, it depends....

Its a variable. The captain has no special powers, at all, with regards the referee.
If anything the captain as per LOTG has some responsibility for the team.
if a captain cant see that, blue 5 is over stepping the mark, or cant tell that blue 8 is going to be dismissed for their next foul, then, that's their own problem. I know in Scotland, even from playing, if a ref called the captains in, the players would say "hey, its your job to control/manage the game".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top