The Ref Stop

Another dissent question

M

Middleman

New Member
Level 4 Referee
Hi guys,

Reading all the (at times heated) discussion on other threads this morning about dissent got me thinking of an incident in my match at the weekend.

Open age game, tight affair, score at 2-2. Away striker complaining about certain decisions (and for some bizarre reason took particular umbrage at me asking his team mate to leave the FOP after receiving treatment - like I'm ruining the game for adhereing to the laws).

Anyway, after an offside decision against his team, he says 'Seriously, you need to do the referee course again'. Pull him aside, yellow for dissent, on with the game.

After reading other threads this morning, I wonder if any others would have considered this an insulting comment and issued a red instead of yellow?
 
The Ref Stop
Yellow card for dissent in my opinion. The correct call. If he's on your back early on (as you state), early caution. Let him tread on egg-shells for the rest of the game. Another opinion like that, another caution and off for a shower he goes!

Some may argue a red card here; for me... That would be very harsh!
 
I had a similar one yesterday... "Do your ****ing job".

AR felt I should've gone straight red, but to me... that's just dissent with a colourful adjective added to the mix. And to be frank, had he simply said "Do your job", I would've almost certainly just had a word with him...
 
Middleman said:
Anyway, after an offside decision against his team, he says 'Seriously, you need to do the referee course again'. Pull him aside, yellow for dissent, on with the game.

After reading other threads this morning, I wonder if any others would have considered this an insulting comment and issued a red instead of yellow?
Click to expand...

Most would give a yellow for that (including me) but, under the LOTG, any ref could argue that he considered the comment insulting. The fact is, like in another example given on here recently, he intended it to be an insult to you. ;)
There was a fairly hotly debated thread on here a few weeks ago concerning the nature of OFFINABUS and how individual interpretations of what constitutes it can vary from ref to ref.
Personally, I've tended to be black and white about my view of Law 12 offences this season. There are some out there who (it seems) will strive to make what is said fall into the category of OFFINABUS, even if it's actually said innocently.
For me, this "insult" would be filed in the dissent cabinet. :)
 
I think a caution is correct here.....

It's important for referees to distinguish between the immediate expression of frustration, dissent and OFFINABUS.

What muddies the water is that often the immediate expression of frustration strays into dissent territory, and even further into OFFINABUS sometimes.

How to tell them apart? Experience and talking to your more experience reliable colleagues......no point talking to the colleague who rarely ever has a caution and goes a whole season without a dismissal.....

Eventually you should get a sixth sense that has you reaching for a card, of whatever colour, based on what you've heard or seen.
That gut reaction is rarely, if ever, wrong.....providing you've grasped the nature of what dissent is, and what OFFINABUS truly is, and disposed yourself of the notion that because you're not offended etc it can't be a red.....or because you don't feel particularly bothered by what's been said it can't be dissent.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the interesting replies. As Padfoot says, I'm starting to 'feel' what's the appropriate response to player outbursts, though my post-match reflections suggests I'm still too lenient in that manner. Generally, I feel that my general manner helps in communicating with players/diffusing certain situations.

However, I'm also well aware that there's just no talking to some players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Absolutely spot on, well done!

Being able to distinguish between frustration, dissent and OFFINABUS is perhaps one of the most difficult things to learn. It only comes with experience! :)
 
OP -- you're justified to go caution for dissent, but in the circumstances of the match was it the best solution to the problem at hand? Without having been there to hear and see the reaction from the player, it seems to me that it could have been dealt with through a public admonishing for his out of turn comments. Remember the stepped approach: quick, private word --> public admonishment --> caution --> sending off. While some things are absolutely standard cautions, this one probably isn't. It's up to your discretion and your feeling of the match.

Alex, for your situation I think a caution is definitely justified. OFFINABUS could be applied but the comment is not necessarily OFFINABUS. Consider (1) whether it was a momentary, emotional outburst and (2) if it was a personal attack. I would argue that it was neither but that the vulgar and public nature of the comment deserves a caution for dissent.
 
You're right, context is crucial. I'm pretty tolerant of msot swearing but as I blew the final whistle on Sunday I was berated by a losing team player who used f***ing at me 3 times in as many seconds to describe my abilities as a ref. I decided that was OTT and showed him the red.
 
Ryan Owens said:
OP -- you're justified to go caution for dissent, but in the circumstances of the match was it the best solution to the problem at hand? Without having been there to hear and see the reaction from the player, it seems to me that it could have been dealt with through a public admonishing for his out of turn comments.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, he had already had a number of grumbles (plus angrily complaining about the law requiring players to go off after treatment) and had spoken to him a couple of times. Also, the tone of his comment was not in any way amiable, or even exasperated - it was angry, harsh and intended to undermine me in front of other players. In fairness, I didn't hear a peep from him afterwards, but perhaps unsuprisingly, he was one of the few players not to shake my hand at the end.
 
Ryan Owens said:
Alex, for your situation I think a caution is definitely justified. OFFINABUS could be applied but the comment is not necessarily OFFINABUS. Consider (1) whether it was a momentary, emotional outburst and (2) if it was a personal attack. I would argue that it was neither but that the vulgar and public nature of the comment deserves a caution for dissent.
Click to expand...
That's definitely my feeling. My (N)AR asked me about it after, and I gave a very similar response to yours.

In short, it was a bit of an emotional outburst, built up after several perceived missed fouls in the AR's quadrant. I could understand his frustration, which is also why I say that if he'd left the ****ing portion off, then I would likely have just taken him aside for an (obvious, yet) quiet word on the matter.

Personally, I'd never give OFFINABUS for a statement/phrase like this on its own. In the midst of a major tirade, it'd be much more likely...
 
Just for the record: (Even though as already stated, I'd have cautioned as well).

dis·sent
dəˈsent/
verb
  1. 1.
    hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.
    "two membersdissented fromthe majority"
noun
  1. 1.
    the expression or holding of opinions at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially held.
    "there was nodissent fromthis view"
    synonyms: disagreement,difference of opinion,argument,dispute;More
This player's remark was not actually "dissent". It was an insult. ;) :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Remember that an insult is all about personal interpretation. ;)
 
DB said:
Remember that an insult is all about personal interpretation. ;)
Click to expand...

That thread we had on the subject not too long ago would suggest otherwise though mate. ;)
According to the majority (it seemed) that an insult or offensive language is a statutory offence, irrespective of however well or badly it was received. A remark, intended as an insult, whether viewed that way or not by the ref, is still an insult. :)
 
When I wrote that comment... This was the scenario I'm thinking about...

Reffing on the pitch and someone calls me fat (in whatever way they want I.e fatty, chunk etc)... I weigh 10st and have the chest of an anorexic pigeon... Id not be insulted at that at all.

BUT... Then there could be a referee who is medically-graded as overweight or obese... For him/her, this could be a massive insult.

That's the thing I was thinking about at the time, some things don't insult me at all, whilst other things would. Hence my interpretation. But I do also agree with your statement above. It's one of "those" areas

I'm actually quite a large, muscle-clad gym hero. Honest.
 
Kes said:
  1. hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.
    "two membersdissented fromthe majority"
This player's remark was not actually "dissent". It was an insult. ;) :cool:
Click to expand...
It was clearly dissent. The majority of players in the game felt that the referee crew were doing their jobs properly. :)

Haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top