https://www.premierleague.com/news/65240
I've got something that is bothering me, I'd appreciate some feedback from the the Level 4's and above if that's okay.
I've attached a document straight from the Premier League website which focuses on the abuse towards referees.
Now, in my games if someone shows dissent towards me, I will sanction them according to the severity of their actions.
I've been to various games this season as an assistant and as a spectator and I've seen a ridiculous amount of abuse given to the officials from the players and the technical areas with little or no action from the referee. It is no secret that the higher you go up, the more tolerant you must become. For example, if I was called something that I found offensive in one of my games, I would be sending the player for an early shower or removing the person from the technical area. But, senior referees say that if you're going to send someone off for that, you will not go far at all.
Why is that? This is what I'm struggling to get my head around. Why do you allow players in the SWPL and above to talk to you like utter crap and take little or no action? I'm struggling to understand why it is tolerated more the higher you go? The guidelines in my photo, aswell as the Lotg make it clear that dissent won't be tolerated. The Respect & Behaviour meetings which I was part of in the summer said that abuse will be dealt with by the refeees, dissent will be dealt with... but it's not happening.
Surely if at that level and above referees actually started cautioning and sending players off for offinabus, it would reduce the amount of abuse you will be subjected to? Yes, it wouldn't happen over night but in the long run, they will soon get it into their heads that they mustn't do what they do to officials and that they won't get away with it.
This is why I won't go far as a referee, I won't tolerate anyone talking to me in a rude or an aggressive manner. I'm not just going to take it because I have to. I don't speak to them in an aggressive or a rude manner, I certainly don't expect the, to do the same.
Now, I am quite good at recognising when people are frustrated. Usually, their outburst immediately follows a blow of the whistle; a wrong decision (in their opinion) and I can accept that within a second, they may react. I deal with that. But when players run half way across the pitch to confront you, or they have a pop moments after the whistle is blown (they've had time to think), why is it accepted and why do referees feel they have to "just deal with it and accept it".
I fully understand the concept of club marks. I think if they weren't a factor in the promotion ladder, particularly at level 4, then the players and technical area wouldn't get away with half of what they do.
I'm just trying to understand why you are expected to take it on the chin the higher up you go.
I've got something that is bothering me, I'd appreciate some feedback from the the Level 4's and above if that's okay.
I've attached a document straight from the Premier League website which focuses on the abuse towards referees.
Now, in my games if someone shows dissent towards me, I will sanction them according to the severity of their actions.
I've been to various games this season as an assistant and as a spectator and I've seen a ridiculous amount of abuse given to the officials from the players and the technical areas with little or no action from the referee. It is no secret that the higher you go up, the more tolerant you must become. For example, if I was called something that I found offensive in one of my games, I would be sending the player for an early shower or removing the person from the technical area. But, senior referees say that if you're going to send someone off for that, you will not go far at all.
Why is that? This is what I'm struggling to get my head around. Why do you allow players in the SWPL and above to talk to you like utter crap and take little or no action? I'm struggling to understand why it is tolerated more the higher you go? The guidelines in my photo, aswell as the Lotg make it clear that dissent won't be tolerated. The Respect & Behaviour meetings which I was part of in the summer said that abuse will be dealt with by the refeees, dissent will be dealt with... but it's not happening.
Surely if at that level and above referees actually started cautioning and sending players off for offinabus, it would reduce the amount of abuse you will be subjected to? Yes, it wouldn't happen over night but in the long run, they will soon get it into their heads that they mustn't do what they do to officials and that they won't get away with it.
This is why I won't go far as a referee, I won't tolerate anyone talking to me in a rude or an aggressive manner. I'm not just going to take it because I have to. I don't speak to them in an aggressive or a rude manner, I certainly don't expect the, to do the same.
Now, I am quite good at recognising when people are frustrated. Usually, their outburst immediately follows a blow of the whistle; a wrong decision (in their opinion) and I can accept that within a second, they may react. I deal with that. But when players run half way across the pitch to confront you, or they have a pop moments after the whistle is blown (they've had time to think), why is it accepted and why do referees feel they have to "just deal with it and accept it".
I fully understand the concept of club marks. I think if they weren't a factor in the promotion ladder, particularly at level 4, then the players and technical area wouldn't get away with half of what they do.
I'm just trying to understand why you are expected to take it on the chin the higher up you go.