socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Seriously? I don't think it takes me any more time to write in my book than it takes folks who use the write on cards. (Now, the extended British system of chatting, taking names, etc., I agree is cumbersome and outdated.
Open Age Caution procedure and write on cards
- Thread starter Jtpetherick1
- Start date
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Of course.
I think the message is: "Do what you need to do but don't take all day about it".
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The extract is incomplete . . . full version makes the point to take all the details and restart play without undue delay.
Grassroots referees should already be doing so . . .
RefGod
Active Member
The time is irrelevant. The issue is the perception. Whenever I see a notebook above 4/supply, I cringe. It reeks of amateur refereeing and is wholly out of date.
I have seen quite a few level 3’s using one. I know some football league refs use them too.
Under the current "rules" below step 2 it is difficult not to use them. As you expected to take the name you run the risk of an observer picking you up for just writing a number on the card. I know there's the argument you could write the name on the cards before the game, but they are quite small and that isn't easy.
I think the guidance should change at step 6 and above, so that cards can be shown quickly, as team sheets are almost always correct. Don't think it should be at grass roots though as they are often a total work of fiction.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I'm not convinced that your perception is really a driving force--you seem to have an odd pet peeve here. And I think it is delusional to think that the participants care a rats @$$ about it. I'm too lazy to look up the FIFA refs who still use a book.
The email is 100% correct to say that participants care about time being "wasted" - the current most common practice I see around here is to not even keep cards in the notebook (due to a fear of a player seeing the top of the red card when you're only intending to caution), so referees end up calling a player over, fishing out a notebook, talk to the player to confirm details and the offence, write that down, put the book away, pull out and show a card from a different pocket.
I don't think it actually adds much time of course, but it gives the feel of the ref choosing to make it a multi-step process, wheras I would argue that write-on cards "feel" quick and efficient - everything is in once place.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
In the US, we don't have the same dictates about taking names and explaining. (Except for the high school rules, under which the referee is supposed to tell both coaches, who are usually on opposite touch lines, the reason for any card shown.)
In the games I do, I find it rare that the player doesn't know exactly why he is being cautioned (despite some protests to the contrary), so whether I talk to a player is totally based on a game management decision in the moment. Otherwise, how the card, pull the wallet with pen, write the number and the minute and a couple of letters for reason, and off we go--very quick and efficient. I have nothing against write on cards. I don't think using them or not is any different from a referee's personal decision to use a wrist lanyard, finger clip, or loose whistle. The issue is how the R does. Many are going to be efficient with write on cards, just as many are going to be efficient with a good book process. The opposite is true, too--some are going to be inefficient with a write on cards or with a book.