A&H

'Technical' and 'Dangerous' reds

The Bstard

Active Member
Taken from my latest blog post, here.

In a recent match between Green and Blue, I’ve had a lovely conversation before the game with Blue’s old-boy defender. We’ve had a laugh, and on the pitch he’s pretty much the same – ‘Get off the ref’s back, you’re not helping. He ain’t changing his mind, is he.’ He’s not the best player – age has given him a bit of footballing awareness, but it’s taken away pace and he’s basically a lump of a centre back.

It’s 1-1 after 60 minutes, but Green are clearly dominant – and look dead certs to win.

A ball goes through for their rapid centre forward. He easily beats old-boy for basic, and old-boy desperately lunges and just – just – clips the heels of the striker. The striker takes another three steps before falling theatrically, the ball going straight to the keeper. Old-boy is incensed at the striker, telling him how unsportsmanlike he is, yelling at him. I have to agree. The striker tells me to send him off, which irritates me more. I call old-boy over and he looks at me. ‘Yeah, I know I’m off, he says.’ ‘No,’ I say, ‘I’m only booking you.’ – I’ve got an excuse, and I can tell off the striker in the same exchange: ‘the striker slowed to make sure of the contact, and to go down. He lost control of the ball in doing so, so there was no clear goalscoring opportunity. The keeper was always getting their first.’ Mostly bullshit, really. But good man management – I keep Blue on my side, instead of a soft-ish red. I keep Green – mostly – on my side by explaining myself. It helps that I know they have no real firebrands to give me grief. I tell off the Green striker for making a meal, publically, because I have no other way of rebuking his unsportsmanlike conduct.

Later in the game, I have no excuses I can make when the other centre-back takes out the same striker when he’s two yard from going around the keeper. You can only pull that trick once, unless it’s 4-1.

The argument here is, yes, law and all that, but a referee on the park doesn't always follow law. I don't want to send players off for 'technical' infringements (DOGSO and 2nd Yellow) at that level, whereas I always will for 'dangerous' infringements (Spitting, Violent Conduct, Serious Foul Play).

For more, see my blog post, here.
 
The Referee Store
Just to clarify, you don't want to send off for dogso? Or second cautions? I don't imagine any ref wants to give most cards the LOTG instruct us we must show, but we do what has to be do done. Else you start making up your own rules. Cheat not only the wronged team on the day, but also potentially cheat other teams in the league when a player who should be banned ends up playing in games when he should be on the sidelines wishing he hadn't put that stupid challenge in or earned the second caution for punting the ball 70 yards away after he concedes a freekick...

There can be no consistency when refs just make up their own rules and interpretations.
 
Surely a wind up?

You had a word with the striker when he got taken out whilst one on one with the keeper?!
 
Nope. Common sense >>> Law at park level IMHO.

I've judged the match, I've judged the teams, I know that a red card for this is going to be less beneficial for my match control than a yellow. It's park football, there's nothing riding on it. A cup game? Earlier in the match? If the player was a dickhead? If it was a closer match? If it was a 'challenging' match? 8 times out of 10 he'll go. In this case, he didn't.

My argument here is that match control/common sense will save you above application of law at low levels.

@Jacko - yes, I had a bit of a word. He got clipped, but not enough to go down. He took a couple of steps, saw the ball was running away, and threw himself over. It's a foul, but you don't make it easy when you throw yourself over like that, do you?

@HertsFinest - don't resist - healthy debate! I know that it's 'wrong' but I'm sure that there are times - 'technical' punishments - where 'wrong' becomes 'right' in the context of that specific match.
 
It's park football, there's nothing riding on it.

If the player was a dickhead?

What a horrendous attitude. The match means something to someone, no matter what level otherwise no one would be there. Perhaps you nend to look at your own motivation for refereeing if you don't think the matches you are officiating are important.

I don't know how long youve been on the whistle, but any newbies please please PLEASE don't buy the oldest trick in the book that a player is nice or your mate. They'll do anything to influence your decision and this is a prime example of this happening.

I also don't understand how you can give the striker a talking to. I agree calling for a card gets my goat. However my advice would have been having a very brief word with the striker along the lines that you noticed he made a meal of the challenge. So then he knows your not a total dumb dumb.

I personally don't enjoy giving red cards, or yellow cards, or telling players off, or giving free kicks. But that is our job. We might not agree with every rule we have to enforce but that is the nature of the beast. This is a classic case of last weeks ref.
 
I've been going for 8 years. I know my way around a football pitch. I also know my players, I've a fair nose for how a match is going to play out. I know when to be lenient and when to send someone off.

If the player had been 1-on-1 after 85 minutes at 6-0 would you still send him off?
 
Nope. Common sense >>> Law at park level IMHO.

I've judged the match, I've judged the teams, I know that a red card for this is going to be less beneficial for my match control than a yellow.

Read this back to yourself. Your match control doesn't come into question. It is more likely to be damaged by NOT dismissing.

Strong whistles, signalling and positioning define your match control.

Bending the LOTG to suit you is NOT match control...

IMO

I've been going for 8 years. I know my way around a football pitch. I also know my players, I've a fair nose for how a match is going to play out. I know when to be lenient and when to send someone off.

If the player had been 1-on-1 after 85 minutes at 6-0 would you still send him off?

Absolutely. And I did exactly that on Saturday. Except it was 7-0 at the time
 
And here we have a good example of the knots you can tie yourself in when you start to "finesse" the LOTG for the benefit of players that you like:
On the one hand you have written:
- yes, I had a bit of a word. He got clipped, but not enough to go down. He took a couple of steps, saw the ball was running away, and threw himself over. It's a foul, but you don't make it easy when you throw yourself over like that, do you?
So therefore there is no DOGSO as the ball was running away and even possibly no foul, certainly not a tripping foul as you say he threw himself over, possibly "attempt to trip" or "kick". However earlier you say that this explanation was
Mostly bullshit, really.
Sounds like you have convinced yourself that the "bullshit" reasoning was correct.
I can fully accept that in a Park level match you would try to look for reasons within law not to give DOGSO but to make decisions based on how much you like a player sounds very much like managers defending brutal fouls by saying a player "hasn't got a nasty bone in his body; he's just not that sort of lad.."
 
I've been going for 8 years. I know my way around a football pitch. I also know my players, I've a fair nose for how a match is going to play out. I know when to be lenient and when to send someone off.

If the player had been 1-on-1 after 85 minutes at 6-0 would you still send him off?

My I ask, and I'm honestly not trying to be a clever clogs, but what level referee are you?

Secondly yeah I would send them off. For DOGSO I'm giving it all day long if it's nailed on. More fool the player that commits the offence to be honest. Its one of those laws I like as it's normally pretty black and white. If he's through on goal, heading towards the goal then the red comes out.
 
Last weeks referee incarnate. I knew if them words were used on the forum often enough, you would turn up :devil:

Sorry, cannot agree with what you suggest. I am all for law 18 where it can be applied. However, never in the way you suggest.

:rolleyes:
 
This is far worse than bending the law for "match control", this is bending the law because you liked the "old guy"...
You are just admitting that you are biased
 
I, respectfully, disagree. One of the major problems new level 7s that I watch - particularly on the younger end - is over-zealous application of Law. Hell, I was one of them once.

Now, I'm a higher level, and when I come back for park football my application of law is slightly different - it is more respectful of the ebb and flow of the game, of player's moods and my knowledge of them, and of the 'challenge' of the match. To my mind, DOGSO at 7-0 from HertsFinest is just asking for trouble. At that point, in Park Football, you're a stereotypical referee acting without common sense. If money is on the line, fine. If you're being assessed, fine. Otherwise, what was the point, except to prove who's boss?
 
Without being mean buddy I've read your blog on your website and the following statement probably won't find much support from this forum -

At the end of the day, we have to realise that by sending someone off we are ruining their Saturday. If we send it in to the FA, we are costing them money.

Enjoy the forums buddy, but as far as this thread goes, in the words of dragons den, I'm out.
 
This is far worse than bending the law for "match control", this is bending the law because you liked the "old guy"...
You are just admitting that you are biased

Of course I am. As are you. As is everyone on here. No-one is infallible, especially at low-level, particularly with negative players. Read the blog post, and I agree.
 
I, respectfully, disagree. One of the major problems new level 7s that I watch - particularly on the younger end - is over-zealous application of Law. Hell, I was one of them once.

Now, I'm a higher level, and when I come back for park football my application of law is slightly different - it is more respectful of the ebb and flow of the game, of player's moods and my knowledge of them, and of the 'challenge' of the match. To my mind, DOGSO at 7-0 from HertsFinest is just asking for trouble. At that point, in Park Football, you're a stereotypical referee acting without common sense. If money is on the line, fine. If you're being assessed, fine. Otherwise, what was the point, except to prove who's boss?

Utter drivel. A DOGSO is a DOGSO.

The player that was fouled would have scored a goal. He was denied that opportunity. The offender walks. End of. Regardless of score.

It certainly wasn't asking for trouble.

As a referee the score is not your concern. When making a decision as far as you're concerned its 0-0 in the 30th minute. The score does not matter and I'll be honest:

Home team 35 - 0 Away team: away player denies opponent an OGSO, he's walking. Because its the laws and what I'm paid to uphold. I am also not akin to being "last weeks ref" and have a duty to the beautiful game to be consistent, fair and enhance the standing of the sport.
 
Bloody hell.

1) You're loved up and its affected your judgement
2) Shouldn't bend the law to suit your needs
3) You are very patronising. 'Now I am a higher level', 'decent level ref here' etc... I would advise you to get off your high horse. Your level does not mean a lot on this forum, it is the wisdom, advice and experience you share that does.

That is all.
 
Back
Top