A&H

Another confused player

PP62

Well-Known Member
Yesterday's game red v blue. Red 2 and blue 5 had just been cautioned for a bit of handbags. From the restart the ball was played into red goal area and the keeper caught it. Had he not, blue 9 would have been deemed offside as he was attempting to play the ball. I shouted "advantage keeper, play on" and he hoofed the ball upfield. As I was running next to red 2 to make my way upfield he looked at me and said "that was a shocking decision", clear and unnecessary dissent. I blew up, showed him another yellow then red and he walked off without complaint. However, red captain came running in shouting "you can't do that, we were on the attack, you have to play on and come back to deal with him!" I told him that if your player commits an offence you do not get an advantage. Captain was having none of it and continued berating me. I'm not a fan of quick yellow cards as a rule and like to do it by the book but on this occasion it was the easiest way to shut him up.
Advantage when your player has offended? Brilliant.
 
The Referee Store
That's okay - this last week I've argued online with 2 referees who would have agreed with the captain!
100% correct decision on your part.
 
Yesterday's game red v blue. Red 2 and blue 5 had just been cautioned for a bit of handbags. From the restart the ball was played into red goal area and the keeper caught it. Had he not, blue 9 would have been deemed offside as he was attempting to play the ball. I shouted "advantage keeper, play on" and he hoofed the ball upfield. As I was running next to red 2 to make my way upfield he looked at me and said "that was a shocking decision", clear and unnecessary dissent. I blew up, showed him another yellow then red and he walked off without complaint. However, red captain came running in shouting "you can't do that, we were on the attack, you have to play on and come back to deal with him!" I told him that if your player commits an offence you do not get an advantage. Captain was having none of it and continued berating me. I'm not a fan of quick yellow cards as a rule and like to do it by the book but on this occasion it was the easiest way to shut him up.
Advantage when your player has offended? Brilliant.

You forget the overall underpinnings of the advantage rule mate - it can be used however and whenever a player deems it to his advantage, regardless of if his team committed the offence.

Hence the term Advantage!

Well done mate, good refereeing.

Did you remember it was a DFK restart, not IDFK?
 
Yesterday's game red v blue. Red 2 and blue 5 had just been cautioned for a bit of handbags. From the restart the ball was played into red goal area and the keeper caught it. Had he not, blue 9 would have been deemed offside as he was attempting to play the ball. I shouted "advantage keeper, play on" and he hoofed the ball upfield. As I was running next to red 2 to make my way upfield he looked at me and said "that was a shocking decision", clear and unnecessary dissent. I blew up, showed him another yellow then red and he walked off without complaint. However, red captain came running in shouting "you can't do that, we were on the attack, you have to play on and come back to deal with him!" I told him that if your player commits an offence you do not get an advantage. Captain was having none of it and continued berating me. I'm not a fan of quick yellow cards as a rule and like to do it by the book but on this occasion it was the easiest way to shut him up.
Advantage when your player has offended? Brilliant.
Why did you shout "Advantage, play on"?

If Blue 9 hasn't played the ball or interfered with an opponent, what offence has he committed for you to give an advantage from? If he has played the ball (which you say he hasn't) or interfered with an opponent (and from your description he hasn't), then you can state that there was an offside offence and that you were allowing play to continue, by shouting "play on, advantage".

Just re-read the OP. If he attempted to play the ball, then that suggests he was in close proximity to the goalkeeper as he collected the ball. In that case, as every Supply Referee I have observed in the last 3 years will tell you, you should have blown for the offside offence and restarted the game with an IDFK.
 
Last edited:
Taking a slightly different tack, my opinion, from what you described, is that the second yellow for Red 2 may have been overly harsh. The phrase 'that was a shocking decision' said at normal volume from nearby (and therefore largely out of earshot of other players?) sems like something that could be managed with banter / quiet word / strong word (with or without captain). Obviously it depends on the volume and aggression with which it was said .. certainly not saying you were wrong, just playing devil's advocate ...
 
Agreed with Russell. Unless the player has received warnings regarding his conduct, I'd just be telling him to shut up and improve his own play before criticising mine.

Also, if you watch Prem League, the ref always blows for the offside and never just plays on from the keepers hands. Simple and what the players expect, so easier to do that from now on.
 
Why did you shout "Advantage, play on"?

If Blue 9 hasn't played the ball or interfered with an opponent, what offence has he committed for you to give an advantage from? If he has played the ball (which you say he hasn't) or interfered with an opponent (and from your description he hasn't), then you can state that there was an offside offence and that you were allowing play to continue, by shouting "play on, advantage".

Just re-read the OP. If he attempted to play the ball, then that suggests he was in close proximity to the goalkeeper as he collected the ball. In that case, as every Supply Referee I have observed in the last 3 years will tell you, you should have blown for the offside offence and restarted the game with an IDFK.

I'm not saying you're wrong but why would I blow for the offside when the keeper has the ball in his hands? At this level I'm sure most keepers prefer kicking out of their hands than from the floor. Yes, the attacker was in close proximity to the keeper.
 
Taking a slightly different tack, my opinion, from what you described, is that the second yellow for Red 2 may have been overly harsh. The phrase 'that was a shocking decision' said at normal volume from nearby (and therefore largely out of earshot of other players?) sems like something that could be managed with banter / quiet word / strong word (with or without captain). Obviously it depends on the volume and aggression with which it was said .. certainly not saying you were wrong, just playing devil's advocate ...

It may look harsh but it was clear dissent. If I'm cautioning for dissent I'm not one bit interested in who else heard it as it's aimed at me. Also, I'm not engaging a player in banter within a minute of cautioning him, that was his warning. As you can see from my OP, the captain wouldn't have been any use in any case!
 
I'm not saying you're wrong but why would I blow for the offside when the keeper has the ball in his hands? At this level I'm sure most keepers prefer kicking out of their hands than from the floor. Yes, the attacker was in close proximity to the keeper.
At this level? Saturday afternoon parks/county league? Don't kid yourself. If the advice at Supply and Contrib is blow the whistle and take the IDFK restart, then it's good enough for this level.

Because if you'd done it the way you should have, then you wouldn't have had to send the player off followed by spending time writing reports and gaining a low club mark. Close to keeper, player safety requires early whistle to avoid a collision resulting in player injury. You could have stopped the game, restarted properly and avoided the unnecessary soft second caution and the dismissal.
 
I see where you're coming from now I think Brian. You mention player safety but this wasn't a 1 v 9 scenario, the ball was crossed into the box and the keeper caught it as the attacker attempted to play. There was certainly no option of an early whistle as I would have been wrong in law and there was no danger of injury to either player.
The player was second cautioned and so sent off for his remark which referred to his caution a minute before, not my allowing his own keeper to play the ball from his hands. I believe he would have made the remark even if I had blown for offside.
You mentioned a low club mark. Believe me, I'm past letting those worry me
 
It may look harsh but it was clear dissent. If I'm cautioning for dissent I'm not one bit interested in who else heard it as it's aimed at me. Also, I'm not engaging a player in banter within a minute of cautioning him, that was his warning. As you can see from my OP, the captain wouldn't have been any use in any case!
Hmmm, I honestly think you're confusing the personal nature of OFFINABUS with the more public nature of dissent. The reason it's so critical to caution for loud / public / angry / visible displays of dissent is because of the overall impact on your match control if you're seen to be 'soft' on this. But a player quietly disagreeing with you in passing is no real threat to your match control. Obviously if what they say you find offensive then a red is an option to consider. But simply making clear that they strongly disagree with your decision is a different thing altogether. Whilst there are differing definitions of dissent in the dictionary, many involve the words public and / or protest. Which is why you generally see refs being tougher on non-verbal displays of dissent and stuff that's being angrily screamed from yards away ....

That said, completely take your point that 'banter' might well have been inappropriate in response given the closeness in timing to the original caution
 
I see where you're coming from now I think Brian. You mention player safety but this wasn't a 1 v 9 scenario, the ball was crossed into the box and the keeper caught it as the attacker attempted to play. There was certainly no option of an early whistle as I would have been wrong in law and there was no danger of injury to either player.
The player was second cautioned and so sent off for his remark which referred to his caution a minute before, not my allowing his own keeper to play the ball from his hands. I believe he would have made the remark even if I had blown for offside.
You mentioned a low club mark. Believe me, I'm past letting those worry me
Go for a late whistle then if he's that close. If you've had a caution just a minute before you need to slow things down and let boil go down to simmer.

I never refereed for marks either so as a consequence they were always crap. It's funny though, I've been asked to come out of retirement by three different people this week as they needed my style of refereeing. I'm resisting at present
 
It may look harsh but it was clear dissent. If I'm cautioning for dissent I'm not one bit interested in who else heard it as it's aimed at me. !

Imagine how much easier our job would be if THAT was the universally applied approach :)
I see where you're coming from now I think Brian. You mention player safety but this wasn't a 1 v 9 scenario, the ball was crossed into the box and the keeper caught it as the attacker attempted to play. There was certainly no option of an early whistle as I would have been wrong in law and there was no danger of injury to either player.
The player was second cautioned and so sent off for his remark which referred to his caution a minute before, not my allowing his own keeper to play the ball from his hands. I believe he would have made the remark even if I had blown for offside.
You mentioned a low club mark. Believe me, I'm past letting those worry me
Bear in mind you can (it's even advisable to) blow early for the offside if it looks like a potential collision between the keeper and the attacker. there's no benefit to the game in allowing that potential collision to occur - stop it early.

But as others have said, I wouldn't be saying 'advantage' or anything like that. "You've got the ball keeper, let's go" gets the same message across but doesn't have the same implication that a foul has occurred. Could still be interpreted that way...but calling advantage specifically here isn't really the norm and is more likely to just confuse people.
 
Hmmm, I honestly think you're confusing the personal nature of OFFINABUS with the more public nature of dissent. The reason it's so critical to caution for loud / public / angry / visible displays of dissent is because of the overall impact on your match control if you're seen to be 'soft' on this. But a player quietly disagreeing with you in passing is no real threat to your match control. Obviously if what they say you find offensive then a red is an option to consider. But simply making clear that they strongly disagree with your decision is a different thing altogether. Whilst there are differing definitions of dissent in the dictionary, many involve the words public and / or protest. Which is why you generally see refs being tougher on non-verbal displays of dissent and stuff that's being angrily screamed from yards away ....

That said, completely take your point that 'banter' might well have been inappropriate in response given the closeness in timing to the original caution

I am struggling to agree with anything you have written here @Russell Jones dissent is dissent, whether whispered or shouted. "But simply making clear that they strongly disagree with your decision is a different thing altogether." I am not sure how you come to that at all, a player strongly disagreeing with your decision is committing an act of dissent. The dictionary i use does not use the words public at all, it says "to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; with hold assent; disagree"
 
I see that @RussellJones is trying to make decision-making easier by drawing a clear distinction, but I think it's ultimately a false one. If dissent must be public, that rules out a whole host of offences against the referee, which it has always been emphasised we should clamp down on in the name of Respect.
My tolerance for this is fairly high, but you can't penalise something as varied as dissent according to large black and white principles, however tempting it may be to read that into the law.
 
Was in no way suggesting that anything regarding dissent was black and white .. the fact that there are multiple shades of grey (maybe even more than 50? :rolleyes:) is what makes this area so challenging to remain consistent. As @CapnBloodbeard says, life for all of us would be simpler if there was a uniform zero tolerance applied .. however, until that miraculous day dawns, I'll still contend that it is more important to come down hard on dissent that is highly public and or visible. Obviously some comments by players said quietly can be so venomous / angry that they necessitate a card. I'm just not convinced that this situation was one of them. However, it's your opinion that matters and you're perfectly correct in law ...
 
... I've been asked to come out of retirement by three different people this week as they needed my style of refereeing. I'm resisting at present

You are just after another retirement party from the FA...Playing hard to get?
 
Back
Top