A&H

Managing the team or player, rather the game

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I had a heavy start to the week: played a game then filled in for a missing ref in the match straight after. That game went very well, I had legs, even though I could have done with more warm up time.
But the following night I had a bigger game in a league that's always a slog, and it featured an awkward team. My third time with them this season.

Overall the game went OK, but not as well as I would like and I was trying too work out why. On the other thread we have been discussing familiarity with players. I have become perhaps over-confident in match control in the last few weeks. Rather than the players testing me, somehow, especially in second halves, I have been letting them play too much, over confident in my match control. Only one RC this season in over 60 games. Not proud of that - I haven't had any VC with the whistle and only one DOGSO-maybe that I regret - not proud, not intentional, but must be a factor.

In this game, with a few players that are walking cards, I managed them well - in terms of communicating all the niggle I saw - but I probably over did it.

3 stand out moments, all with away captain, who we can call "WC" - the walking card;)...
1) WC chasing down nippy striker towards the corner in front of NAR. Ball not within playing distance. Attempts cynical trip, just makes contact, attacker continues, I wait to see if advantage, WC manages reckless slider before striker can get into the box. I whistle and communicate the first foul and give YC for USB and strong warning on future conduct. However, first foul was only careless though a cynical attempt to trip. Was I OK in law here - is the USB OK for an attempted-reckless trip or should I have actually given the DFK at the site of the second challenge that was reckless contact?

2) WC is in left wing position, chasing defender as the ball is going out across the touchline on my diagonal. Ball is going out. WC makes small hands, barely a shove, more momentum-push-off, but enough to send the defender to the floor outside the FoP, very nearly into the hoardings. I think: ball is out, careless from WC, I do a tip signal for my NAR that it's a defence throw and then signal - only to look round and see the NAR is signalling a throw for WC. I correct him, he changes signal and I verbally warn WC as we get back into position for the throw. I couldn't justify a card here (whether or not second yellow) but wondering what I could have done differently?

3) WC pops up at centre back in the final minute. Nippy striker - who has had about 12 great opportunities to score, on 29 goals for the season, in the last match of the regular season, team 3-1 up - has the ball in the box, going away from goal. I am 3 yards away. As striker turns, WC impedes him with a soft hack at the ankles that makes his legs buckle, stops his turn. It's enough for me. Clear PK, point to the spot, no card. WC wants DFK. I say no, PK, and move to the spot. Attackers spot the ball outside the box behind my back. Nooo! I was sure. No doubt the contact was well inside the box, even though the ball was going outside. NAR doesn't know/show. It doesn't matter. I am so sure it is no problem for me. Even though I pointed and shouted for the PK I could have done more - like a Deano trigger finger and louder multi-peep I guess? Anyway it was the last kick - and goal in off the GK.

I am being straight about the decisions, but overall it "looks" like too much managing the player(s) rather the game - so, how to avoid that (in my final observed game of the season next week which will probably decide promotion)?
 
The Referee Store
1) I would always be tempted to use the advantage law to place the ball wherever is more advantageous for the fouled-against player, which in this case sounds like the location of the second foul? And I think the law allows you to issue a caution regardless. If the first tackle had been the cautionable foul rather than the second, you can still play advantage, let the attacker gain some yards, be knocked over by a careless foul and then go back and caution for the first reckless tackle with the restart at the location of the second foul, so I don't see any reason why you can't do the same thing the other way round?
All that's kind of moot though, as it sounds like you could have had him in the book for either challenge in this case - SPA on the first and reckless tackle on the second?

2) It sounds like you got the restart correct here, and the mix-up with the AR is unfortunately just him not paying attention to your indicators - that's a mistake by him rather than you and unfortunately, there's not much you can do apart from maybe being firmer on the topic in the pre-match? However I think I'd have been tempted to stop the restart and give him a real public bollocking, rather than just a quiet word, especially given he's already on a yellow. You want to make it really clear that pushing opponents into hoardings is a really bad idea for a player who's already on a yellow, as it helps you sell a second yellow if he slips up again later on.

3) This comes down to players perception of fouls - chances are they all clearly saw that the ball was outside the box when the contact was made and therefore assumed that was the position of the foul. You've clearly seen the contact inside the box, so I guess the best advice is just to have faith in your decision? As you say, a big dramatic whistle and point might have made it clearer?
 
Good point about advantageous positioning there in #1, hadn't looked that way. And yes, should have delayed the restart in #2.

Do I take it others have had this (#3) where players see the position of the ball not the offence?
 
Good point about advantageous positioning there in #1, hadn't looked that way. And yes, should have delayed the restart in #2.

Do I take it others have had this (#3) where players see the position of the ball not the offence?
Yeh, they dont understand the laws. It can go the other way too i.e. foul outside, ball in.

Regarding number 1 in OP, I fail to see how a "cynical trip" can be careless - it could be that you didnt mean to use that as the adjective but it immediately that word implies minimum reckless to me.
 
Yeh, they dont understand the laws. It can go the other way too i.e. foul outside, ball in.

Regarding number 1 in OP, I fail to see how a "cynical trip" can be careless - it could be that you didnt mean to use that as the adjective but it immediately that word implies minimum reckless to me.
Cynical attempted trip with slight contact. Difficult angle to justify SPA as between box and touchline, not enough contact for reckless - hence my question there, is an attempted reckless trip enough for YC?
 
In my opinion it cant be a careless act if it's cynical..

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Cynical, to me, implies it is deliberate and there fore it becomes a case of disregard to the danger to opponent as opposed to a lack of attention.
 
Back
Top