A&H

Junior/Youth U18 cup final

Status
Not open for further replies.
Padfoot said:
Can people try to understand that your role as an AR is to assist the referee......that means that report the facts of an incident and leave the referee to decide what happens next.

You shouldn't be telling the referee whether its a caution or dismissal.....thats their decision based on what you have told them.
Click to expand...
Not 100% accurate. Many times I have been AR and the instructions has been just this. "What have you heard, what colour card"

Factually accurate. :)
 
The Referee Store
If padfoot cares to re-read my posts, this is pretty much exactly what happened.

Referee wanted my account as he didn't hear anything with regards to the incident. He asked what decision to make and whether I was sure with the decision.

At the end of the day, we were neutrals on the day. We are all referees. There absolutely no reason why an assistant, if he has seen/heard the incident, can't decide on what action (if any) to take. What's the point in having them there if that wasn't the case?
 
Last edited:
Ultimately the buck stops with the match referee, that is why the decision must be theirs to make.

Any report you write as an AR should just be a statement of facts based on what occurred.

If report a reckless challenge to the ref, does he really need you to tell him that's a caution?

Refs that ask ARs for card colours are simply trying to shift responsibility for any controversy onto the AR.

"Well, I wouldn't have sent them off but the assistant told me it was a red card......"
 
Padfoot said:
Can people try to understand that your role as an AR is to assist the referee......that means that report the facts of an incident and leave the referee to decide what happens next.

You shouldn't be telling the referee whether its a caution or dismissal.....thats their decision based on what you have told them.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what DB did. Then, when the referee asked for his opinion, it was provided.

The role of the AR is simply to state what happened. If the referee wants an opinion he'll ask for it. Given that he didn't witness the event and wasn't party to the tone or manner in which was said I think the referee has done the right thing here.

Red card is perfectly appropriate here. It wasn't a 'f*** off* said under the breath (no issues if anybody sends off for that either). He's stopped, thought about it, looked at DB and made sure it was directed at him by use of the word 'lino'. I think it's only because of continuously degrading standards that some on here are considering a caution. It ticks all the boxes for OFFINABUS. Just shows how bad the culture is that some think this isn't a red card.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I'm sure DB talks to players a lot and usually it would probably be beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Padfoot said:
Ultimately the buck stops with the match referee, that is why the decision must be theirs to make.

Any report you write as an AR should just be a statement of facts based on what occurred.

If report a reckless challenge to the ref, does he really need you to tell him that's a caution?

Refs that ask ARs for card colours are simply trying to shift responsibility for any controversy onto the AR.

"Well, I wouldn't have sent them off but the assistant told me it was a red card......"
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree with all of the above. But to start with I'm only going to look at 1 point.

Ok here's a question.

Does the tone, body language and general manner of how a comment is said have any bearing at all on a dissent/OFFINABUS decision? That the same comment can vary from no card to a yellow card, or a yellow to a red depending on the above? (maybe even from no comment to a red!)
 
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard said:
Strongly disagree with all of the above. But to start with I'm only going to look at 1 point.

Ok here's a question.

Does the tone, body language and general manner of how a comment is said have any bearing at all on a dissent/OFFINABUS decision? That the same comment can vary from no card to a yellow card, or a yellow to a red depending on the above? (maybe even from no comment to a red!)
Click to expand...

No, clearly it doesn't, because people have said that would accept "f#ck off" being screamed out in "frustration " when the whistle is blown but apparently the same phrase uttered at conversation volume 10 seconds later is a red card.....out of the 2 which is the more aggressive?

Oh, and utterly irrelevant to my post that you quoted. I am talking in general and you keep trying to drag it back to specifics, presumably so you can keep patting @DB on the back for what you perceived as a job well done.
 
I think there's a real danger of this getting unnecessarily complicated. We all know that the role of an AR is exactly what it 'says on the tin', to assist. Different referees desire this assistance to be given in different ways and to different degrees, hence the criticality of the pre-match briefing. So, in situations like the OP, there is no carte blanche, 100% 'right', way of interacting with the referee as he should lead the AR through the discussion. In this case, the referee has asked DB for his opinion on the required action which seems entirely reasonable as the ref hasn't heard it (either the exact words OR the way they were said in a particular context). He's then chosen to follow DB's advice ... he could equally have chosen not to, that's his prerogative. Neither DB or the referee has done anything wrong (though there is sound advice above about how to minimise the chance of this happening in the first place). Other Ref / AR combinations might have handled the situation differently .. that's fine too. Can't see why the fuss ... ;)
 
I literally have no idea what you're talking about @Padfoot
for one, my post was far more general. I don't think you can get much more specific than 'nah, DB was wrong!'.
Two, you said 'no' but then the rest of your post argued it does'.

so which is it?

I asked a simple question, yes or no. What's your answer?
 
Last edited:
Padfoot said:
Ultimately the buck stops with the match referee, that is why the decision must be theirs to make.

Any report you write as an AR should just be a statement of facts based on what occurred.

If report a reckless challenge to the ref, does he really need you to tell him that's a caution?

Refs that ask ARs for card colours are simply trying to shift responsibility for any controversy onto the AR.

"Well, I wouldn't have sent them off but the assistant told me it was a red card......"
Click to expand...
"Reckless" is a fact now, entirely not subject to opinion?

If you report a challenge as "reckless" then you may as well say yellow card - all you're doing by not clarifying that is giving the referee an opportunity to make a mistake in the heat of the moment and not give the yellow you clearly feel is deserved.

As I said before, the point of Neutral AR's is to catch things the referee cannot - in the routine of this game, this is offside and throw-in's, in exceptional situations, it will be language, fouls and VC that the referee's position and responsibility to follow the game don't allow him to view clearly. Why minimize that responsibility in situations where only the NAR has a clear view of an incident?
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Strongly disagree with all of the above. But to start with I'm only going to look at 1 point.

Ok here's a question.

Does the tone, body language and general manner of how a comment is said have any bearing at all on a dissent/OFFINABUS decision? That the same comment can vary from no card to a yellow card, or a yellow to a red depending on the above? (maybe even from no comment to a red!)
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It states "language or gestures" and language does not just mean words; we communicate to one another using tone of our voice etc. gestures also does not just mean flicking the V's or doing a five knuckle shuffle at someone
 
I have an experience of this that does show that the buck very much lies with the referee. I was on the line for a contrib game when a player had a go at me, I waited for the ball to go out then called the referee over. The referee came over and asked me what had happened, I told him, and he asked whether I wanted yellow or red. I said yellow, it had been an easy game for the referee and I didn't really want to be the reason to make it difficult for him. So he yellow carded him.

After the game it was clear in the boardroom that the other team were far from happy, and I said to the referee there that we might be in trouble. He thought nothing would come of it, but sure enough a few weeks later he phoned me to say he'd had a letter from the FA charging him with failing to proficiently apply the laws of the game. Whilst the report from the club amounted to a pack of lies (it said I immediately signalled the referee who stopped play straight away, that simply did not happen) he was advised by colleagues not to appeal it as the person making the complaint was a high ranking league official.

I wasn't charged, he accepted the charge, then a week or so later I arrived home to a letter from the FA saying that "they found me culpable of causing a referee to be suspended", and that they trust I will act more diligently in future occasions. The referee, a hugely experienced Football League assistant, was suspended from all football for three weeks. So goes to show that the buck very much does stay with the referee even when it is the assistant who has made the mistake.
 
RustyRef said:
I have an experience of this that does show that the buck very much lies with the referee. I was on the line for a contrib game when a player had a go at me, I waited for the ball to go out then called the referee over. The referee came over and asked me what had happened, I told him, and he asked whether I wanted yellow or red. I said yellow, it had been an easy game for the referee and I didn't really want to be the reason to make it difficult for him. So he yellow carded him.

After the game it was clear in the boardroom that the other team were far from happy, and I said to the referee there that we might be in trouble. He thought nothing would come of it, but sure enough a few weeks later he phoned me to say he'd had a letter from the FA charging him with failing to proficiently apply the laws of the game. Whilst the report from the club amounted to a pack of lies (it said I immediately signalled the referee who stopped play straight away, that simply did not happen) he was advised by colleagues not to appeal it as the person making the complaint was a high ranking league official.

I wasn't charged, he accepted the charge, then a week or so later I arrived home to a letter from the FA saying that "they found me culpable of causing a referee to be suspended", and that they trust I will act more diligently in future occasions. The referee, a hugely experienced Football League assistant, was suspended from all football for three weeks. So goes to show that the buck very much does stay with the referee even when it is the assistant who has made the mistake.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why the referee should make their own decision on how to proceed after they have the facts of the incident from the AR.
 
RustyRef said:
I have an experience of this that does show that the buck very much lies with the referee. I was on the line for a contrib game when a player had a go at me, I waited for the ball to go out then called the referee over. The referee came over and asked me what had happened, I told him, and he asked whether I wanted yellow or red. I said yellow, it had been an easy game for the referee and I didn't really want to be the reason to make it difficult for him. So he yellow carded him.

After the game it was clear in the boardroom that the other team were far from happy, and I said to the referee there that we might be in trouble. He thought nothing would come of it, but sure enough a few weeks later he phoned me to say he'd had a letter from the FA charging him with failing to proficiently apply the laws of the game. Whilst the report from the club amounted to a pack of lies (it said I immediately signalled the referee who stopped play straight away, that simply did not happen) he was advised by colleagues not to appeal it as the person making the complaint was a high ranking league official.

I wasn't charged, he accepted the charge, then a week or so later I arrived home to a letter from the FA saying that "they found me culpable of causing a referee to be suspended", and that they trust I will act more diligently in future occasions. The referee, a hugely experienced Football League assistant, was suspended from all football for three weeks. So goes to show that the buck very much does stay with the referee even when it is the assistant who has made the mistake.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the team wanted a red card?
 
So at supply/contrib they'll suspend a ref for not applying offinabus but on the premier league it's fine to completely ignore it?

The FA ladies and gents. An old boys club who don't know their arse from their elbow :rolleyes:
 
That's because the FA expect them to manage at that level at levels further down they expect you to manage it but if it clear offinabus then they expect you to deal with it
 
Yeah it sounds like rubbish but this is exactly what dissent and offensive and abusive language is cancer of our game and because they don't deal with it as often as They should at top of the game and this is why we struggle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top