6-week ban non-submittal of red card
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
We have very little context here. If it was deliberate non-reporting then it was not an 'honest mistake' and unless there was some other mitigation than it being a first offence I can well understand why a commission would go for the top end sanction.
When deciding on sanction for an offence that is proven, a disciplinary panel will note the starting point and top end sanction. They will then consider mitigating / aggravating circumstances to help decide upon the appropriate sanction.
I would sincerely hope the age/inexperience of the official would be considered suitable mitigation. If they did... it begs the question, what were the aggravating circumstances to push it back up to the top end?
Unless the disciplinary panel publish their written reasons, we might never know.
I would sincerely hope the age/inexperience of the official would be considered suitable mitigation. If they did... it begs the question, what were the aggravating circumstances to push it back up to the top end?
Unless the disciplinary panel publish their written reasons, we might never know.
When the CFA realise a referee hasn't been submitting cards they will go back through all games that referee has taken charge of and look for any cards issued. If there are none alarm bells will be ringing and they will try to find out if any cards were issued in those games and not just reported. If he was a serial offender then it stands to reason the sanction will be at the upper end of the scale.
We also down know how he responded to the charge. Did he admit it, deny it, request a non-personal hearing, request a personal hearing, etc? We also don't know if he had received any previous warnings for the same offence.
Bottom line is if you don't submit cards you do risk serious problems if found out.
We also down know how he responded to the charge. Did he admit it, deny it, request a non-personal hearing, request a personal hearing, etc? We also don't know if he had received any previous warnings for the same offence.
Bottom line is if you don't submit cards you do risk serious problems if found out.
The ref has done wrong here BUT the punishment is way over the top. A couple of weeks maybe but 6 weeks. Not fair.
If he was an RA member we could of had representation.
Based on what, exactly?
As mentioned above, without knowing/hearing all the evidence and aggravating/mitigating circumstances, nobody can say whether the sanction is over the top or not.
Based on i think players get lesser bans for much more henious offences.
The ref is young so that's a factor.
IF it was only one offence that is different to multiple offences.
You don't know the background though. He could have been warned repeatedly previously, he could have told the panel he will never send cards in, we just don't know. Perhaps he requested a personal hearing then didn't turn up, perhaps he even didn't turn up for a second time. I sat on a referee charge many years and and he told the panel to f*** off, got up and stormed out, fair to say the suspension for that was at the highest end of the scale.
There are two sides to every story, and we only have one in this case.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I’ve never been a fan of a referee issue meaning the person can’t play as a player.
In England if a referee commits a purely refereeing error, e.g. fails to proficiently apply the laws of the game, they will just get a suspension from refereeing. But not submitting cards is viewed as an act of misconduct, therefore the suspension is usually from all football.
bester
RefChat Addict
If a player gets a red card they can't referee. I've often seen it deployed, by certain types of referee administrators, as a tacit threat to try and deter referee's from playing.
Like you, ALL of us don't know the full context.
We can only comment on what is presented.
As everyone has said, we don't know the facts. If it's a first offence and genuine accident then 6 weeks seems harsh but if there's evidence to suggest it was deliberate and/or other aggravating factors then who knows.
Either way, I would be surprised if said 17 year old decides to ever referee again. Maybe I'm wrong, and they will acknowledge that what they did was wrong and move on, but if they're like most 17 year olds who enjoy both playing and refereeing for a bit of cash, then I think they'll decide the refereeing isn't worth it.
Either way, I would be surprised if said 17 year old decides to ever referee again. Maybe I'm wrong, and they will acknowledge that what they did was wrong and move on, but if they're like most 17 year olds who enjoy both playing and refereeing for a bit of cash, then I think they'll decide the refereeing isn't worth it.
This highlights the fundamental problem of The FA's own doing - there's no central resource of suspensions/reasons. Yes, I know there's written reasons and details of County Appeals on their website, but it's a LONG way from being comprehensive and is about as un-user-friendly as can be.
Context is key to the suspension, and without it it's impossible to comment. That said, we can look at the sanction guidance for the offence (E3.1) and the penalty ranges for youth football are as follows:
LOW - 0 to 14 days
MID - 14 to 28 days
HIGH - 21 to 42 days
If you genuinely forget to put a card through, chances are you're looking at a very modest penalty towards the bottom of the low range, and might even get a warning.
The fact that the poster themselves stated that for this offence the range was 21 to 42, and the tribunal have gone to the top of range, means this case had significant aggravating features. What they are, who knows - could be repeated/previous warnings, a player from his own club, high impact of the player in question not being suspended - but this can't be the accidental error the poster on X implies. Perhaps given that this is gaining social media traction we'll get a response from Sussex FA. I know if I was advising them I'd be putting a statement out.
Now, I understand and agree with the standard position that anyone with a regulatory role ought to be held to a higher standard (albeit sports governing bodies rarely hold their own officials to this standard) but it does stick in my craw that you can get sin-binned, then get that upgraded to OFFINABUS RC, then come back for more and call the referee a "f***ing c*nt" before being ushered away by team mates, and get a two match suspension. I appreciate it's comparing apples with pears, but it's annoying all the same!
Context is key to the suspension, and without it it's impossible to comment. That said, we can look at the sanction guidance for the offence (E3.1) and the penalty ranges for youth football are as follows:
LOW - 0 to 14 days
MID - 14 to 28 days
HIGH - 21 to 42 days
If you genuinely forget to put a card through, chances are you're looking at a very modest penalty towards the bottom of the low range, and might even get a warning.
The fact that the poster themselves stated that for this offence the range was 21 to 42, and the tribunal have gone to the top of range, means this case had significant aggravating features. What they are, who knows - could be repeated/previous warnings, a player from his own club, high impact of the player in question not being suspended - but this can't be the accidental error the poster on X implies. Perhaps given that this is gaining social media traction we'll get a response from Sussex FA. I know if I was advising them I'd be putting a statement out.
Now, I understand and agree with the standard position that anyone with a regulatory role ought to be held to a higher standard (albeit sports governing bodies rarely hold their own officials to this standard) but it does stick in my craw that you can get sin-binned, then get that upgraded to OFFINABUS RC, then come back for more and call the referee a "f***ing c*nt" before being ushered away by team mates, and get a two match suspension. I appreciate it's comparing apples with pears, but it's annoying all the same!
Maybe I’m more of a disciplinarian, but failing to send in cards lets down everyone else as players seem to think they can get away with it.
But my other key takeaway from this is that the club seem to be using the referee angle to whinge and whine about not being able to use the offender as a player. It’s more about that than refereeing.
But my other key takeaway from this is that the club seem to be using the referee angle to whinge and whine about not being able to use the offender as a player. It’s more about that than refereeing.
one
RefChat Addict
"And they wonder why there is such a lack of referees in Grassroots football!"
This line honestly angers me. If you ask 100 random football people (or just referees) on why the lack referees in grassroots, only a handful (if that) would say referee administration. A very clear vast majority know it is referee disrespect and abuse by players and spectators.
This line honestly angers me. If you ask 100 random football people (or just referees) on why the lack referees in grassroots, only a handful (if that) would say referee administration. A very clear vast majority know it is referee disrespect and abuse by players and spectators.
I’ve genuinely not lost a game yet this season due to pitch conditions. No idea howA 6-week ban down here would only see him miss two games.
To wear the badge and earn the money, do the job.
‘Ref, the water is ankle deep’ - ‘we’re here now, may as well play’.
I’ve just been very lucky with strategically placed 3G appointments