Did this today

[SM]

What I would say to you @Gary Milton is that this was meant for those doing OA games or under 18s and 19s.

I have no comment for whether I believe this applies to games under the age of 16 because I avoid refereeing these games. I don't do it, I cannot provide comment on it.

I know people on here will have different views on how to apply the LOTG at youth games and below and at certain ages I can see the sense in teaching the LOTG as much as all the other elements of refereeing. Where that boundary lies in terms of age though is an interesting question and not for me to answer given my above declared avoidance of youngster games.

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

I think there is a point that has not been made yet...
Applying the LOTG as they are stated is the way it should be.
However, when we start out, there is not one level 7/8 referee in his first few games who would vary from that ideal, as cautioning players for technical offences like, say, marking the pitch takes a measure of bravery. I would not have done it.
Now, it's second nature and I would not think twice.
Being brave enough to make what can look like unpopular decisions comes with experience, I don't care what anyone says.

 

[CallumRushton13]

Just gonna throw this out there... What I have noticed from my time on here is that the posters who stick stringently to the law are also the ones who seem first to call others names...

I'll name names if you like but if you read up and on other similar threads then there are the same probably 3/4 posters who when questioned, instead of giving an argument turn to name calling and personal insults. Personally I find that very disappointing...

I come on here to give my opinion on refereeing matters, to learn and to hopefully help others learn... Not to be called a cheat, lazy, inadequate etc

 

[fatmikey]

If a player makes unauthorised marks on the field of play with his foot, he must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

In the absence of vanishing spray, I sometimes make marks on the ground by dragging my studs across ground to indicate where the 10 yards are so they don't encroach, so should I stop doing this then? As it would be setting a bad example

 

[PinnerPaul]

For those who are saying they will do it their own way (interestingly a lot of you are grade 7s) -

If you are interested in promotion, you are being assessed and this happens in your game where a mandatory caution is expect. What do you do? Caution or no? Honest answer please.

Second question; you are at a game and a defender commits a clear cut Dogso trip on an attacker. Last weeks ref did not send off in a Similar situation due to a lame excuse (pick any of those given in the posts above ) - "last weeks ref didn't send him off ref! Just cautioned him!" Blah blah blah your the worst ref in the world blah blah blah. This is the same thing as what you are suggesting by ignoring mandatory cautions.

Third and final point; in a competitive league, cautions and sending s off can mean relegation and promotion/winning the league for teams, once in a playing career experience maybe for some of them. Saturday or Sunday amateurs play for the glory of wining their league or not getting relegated with no regard for financial considerations. All about the on pitch glory and bragging rights. By deciding to ignore the LOTG and not applying mandatory cautions uou are letting players who should otherwise be suspended through accumulation of cautions etc play. you are potentially cheating other teams in the league. This is highlighted when your refereeing colleagues do their job properly. You do not.

And I don't buy this "it's only grass roots" as an excuse crap. If you are too good to referee their games properly, stop refereeing them and do higher leagues and divisions where you would be too scared to be last weeks ref.

I think your inference that its only L7s that apply common sense/make it up as we go along! is a massive generalisation.

I have been out with level 4/5s and have often heard "I would have done x, y z if that had happened on Saturday/my usual league" or whatever" - clearly stating they referee differently at different levels.

All referees adapt their style to the game in question, at all levels. I've seen and heard OFFINABUS at Premier league level that is ignored, if it happened in one of my games at 10% the level I have seen/heard it would be a red card - explain?

We've all seen GKS at the top level in same colour as the officials - it happens regularly so clearly not picked up 'above" - why?

To say above a certain level all referees referee "by the book" is a gross simplification IMHO.

 

[Gary Milton]

I have no comment for whether I believe this applies to games under the age of 16 because I avoid refereeing these games

Well SM i certainly think you have made a valid distinction there, albeit with splinters in your backside! haha. I appreciate that you don't tend to referee younger age groups.. and quite frankly i don't blame you.

I simply wanted to make the distinction that games do get refereed differently (inconsistently if you like), and this generally occurs U18 and below.
IMHO many of the referee's on here arguing that the LOTG is black and white and should be stuck to 100% every time are being hypercritical in demeaning those who have been honest that on occasion they have dealt with situations differently/leniently, generally in football below OA. Unless they stick with these principles from U5 football upwards, you cannot take that stance as remember we only have one LOTG, and if you take the moral high-stance you must stick with this! In distinguishing at all at any age level you too become a "DIY referee how makes it up as they go along"

 

[one]

I have one question for those who argue that they would caution on every single mandatory occasion. Do you caution at every occasion that the an act of decent occurs (including a low level dissent with no aggression)?

I have no issue with a caution in the OP after the context was explained.

In some cases one size does not fit all.

 

[Josh]

I have one question for those who argue that they would caution on every single mandatory occasion. Do you caution at every occasion that the an act of decent occurs (including a low level dissent with no aggression)?

I have no issue with a caution in the OP after the context was explained.

In some cases one size does not fit all.

I will throw this out there. "What constitutes dissent is all in the opinion of the referee"

Because if that's correct then there is a difference. Whilst Dissent is open to interpretation as to what constitutes dissent. What the Caution in this case was for is not open to interpretation.

Anyone disagree with that?

 

[Russell Jones]

Just gonna throw this out there... What I have noticed from my time on here is that the posters who stick stringently to the law are also the ones who seem first to call others names...

I'll name names if you like but if you read up and on other similar threads then there are the same probably 3/4 posters who when questioned, instead of giving an argument turn to name calling and personal insults. Personally I find that very disappointing...

I come on here to give my opinion on refereeing matters, to learn and to hopefully help others learn... Not to be called a cheat, lazy, inadequate etc

Callum, I think that's a very fair observation and I'd agree that at times the 'passion' of those handful of refs can spill over into unhelpful vitriol .. but hey, thats what the lovely Mods are for .

The one thing I would say in their defence (assuming I wasn't included in that bracket!) is that their passion / irritation probably stems mainly from the fact that they get it in the neck from players on their games because others on here ("last week's refs") didn't enforce a particular Law. So they feel undermined and unsupported by the actions of others .....

 

[haywain]

I think that some people on here take themselves way too seriously

 

[Brian Hamilton]

In the absence of vanishing spray, I sometimes make marks on the ground by dragging my studs across ground to indicate where the 10 yards are so they don't encroach, so should I stop doing this then? As it would be setting a bad example

Yes. It's not rugby where the law requires a "mark"

 

[SM]

I have one question for those who argue that they would caution on every single mandatory occasion. Do you caution at every occasion that the an act of decent occurs (including a low level dissent with no aggression)?

I have no issue with a caution in the OP after the context was explained.

In some cases one size does not fit all.

Don't start about dissent. It's sooo vague as to what consistutes dissent; protesting against a decision verbally or non verbally. That is a whole load of grey between easily dissent and certainly not dissent.



That's a long discussion!

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I have one question for those who argue that they would caution on every single mandatory occasion. Do you caution at every occasion that the an act of decent occurs (including a low level dissent with no aggression)?

I have no issue with a caution in the OP after the context was explained.

In some cases one size does not fit all.

No because a player can protest or comment without an act of dissent. Dissent is down to referee tolerance level. Mandatory cautions should not be.

Well SM i certainly think you have made a valid distinction there, albeit with splinters in your backside! haha. I appreciate that you don't tend to referee younger age groups.. and quite frankly i don't blame you.

I simply wanted to make the distinction that games do get refereed differently (inconsistently if you like), and this generally occurs U18 and below.
IMHO many of the referee's on here arguing that the LOTG is black and white and should be stuck to 100% every time are being hypercritical in demeaning those who have been honest that on occasion they have dealt with situations differently/leniently, generally in football below OA. Unless they stick with these principles from U5 football upwards, you cannot take that stance as remember we only have one LOTG, and if you take the moral high-stance you must stick with this! In distinguishing at all at any age level you too become a "DIY referee how makes it up as they go along"

We actually have 3 LotG. One which most of us work to and then 2 versions for mini soccer

I think there is a point that has not been made yet...
Applying the LOTG as they are stated is the way it should be.
However, when we start out, there is not one level 7/8 referee in his first few games who would vary from that ideal, as cautioning players for technical offences like, say, marking the pitch takes a measure of bravery. I would not have done it.
Now, it's second nature and I would not think twice.
Being brave enough to make what can look like unpopular decisions comes with experience, I don't care what anyone says.

Very, very good point. After 15 seasons I can issue this caution. In my 2nd season Id have been so unsure I'd have let it slide

I have said it twice no @HullRef but it's difficult to stop. I'm resorting to throwing away all my kits at the end of this season.


Yes. For only the second time in 15 seasons, I cautioned a player before kick off.


matt, you will find as you progress in your career that you reach a point where failing to issue a mandatory caution will see you lose marks and possibly a promotion or honours appointment.


Quite the opposite, it took the edge off the pre-match tension between 2 teams with poor disciplinary records.


Gary, this is done every season with all promotion candidates and also throughout the season at Referees Association meetings. Unfortunately there are a large number of referees out there who attend neither. It is these referees who often make life harder for the rest of us.


Paul I already said higher up the thread I will warn players where they might commit an offence involving another player but not his offence on this occasion. He marked the field, making a mark I couldn't get rid of. It's a mandatory caution. No surprises.

Thanks SM for squeezing it all into one post

 

[SM]

I think your inference that its only L7s that apply common sense/make it up as we go along! is a massive generalisation.

.

Not what I was inferring at all.

More that the majority of people arguing for "applying common sense"/ignoring mandatory cautions are the least experienced in refereeing terms.

So more of an observation I would say.

Not an observation of all level 7s o will stress. I know plenty of level 7s who are who have been refereeing a damn sight longer than me, know the lotg better and I dare say some are better referees. Happy to referee at the level of their choosing.

 

[Mike]

Just going back to the OP, the keeper has had a Weston doing that. You always wait until the ref's not looking then do one on the edge of the box in the middle and two on the six yard box level with the goalposts!

 

[DaveMac]

Personally any mandatory caution I'm going for it. If I get to do it before kick off even better. Because if 22 players think I'm a right jobsworth then there will be no complaints from them when the lemons start coming out.

I would also say to turn a blind eye doesnt help match control. I always assume each game has the potential to escalate and become heated and its my job to make sure that doesnt happen. If you look like a walk over from the get go then players will take advantage. I had a game at the weekend, 2nd minute attacker flies into a tackle on a defender, boarderline careless/wreckless. I chose to bring out the yellow as felt if I showed I'd tolerate this sort of tackling from the get go the game could spiral quite quickly. Turns out both teams played hard, but were happy with a tiny bit of niggle and no complaints. That first yellow ended up being the wrost tackle of the game. In hindsight I wouldnt give it, but I dont regret it as it set the marker early on. So my point is the more we let things slip the more players think they can get away with and will very quickly push things further.

 

[one]

I will throw this out there. "What constitutes dissent is all in the opinion of the referee"

Because if that's correct then there is a difference. Whilst Dissent is open to interpretation as to what constitutes dissent. What the Caution in this case was for is not open to interpretation.

Anyone disagree with that?

I think that's just another way of saying i choose to caution some but not others depending on the level/context and if i don't caution it then it is not dissent. The definition of of dissent is very simple "A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee’s decision" . protesting is simply an expression of objection or disapproval. So if the whistle is blown for a foul and the player turns back and calmly says "that's not a foul ref. I didn't even touch him", that would be dissent and 99 out of a 100 it would not get cautioned.

If a referee ever chooses to have a quite (or public) word to a player who disagreed with their decision, would that be ignoring a mandatory cautions.

If we are going to choose to interpret what dissent is then i will interpret what 'making marks' is

 

[Russell Jones]

protesting is simply an expression of objection or disapproval. So if the whistle is blown for a foul and the player turns back and calmly says "that's not a foul ref. I didn't even touch him", that would be dissent and 99 out of a 100 it would not get cautioned.

To be fair, if we're going to get picky about it, the commonly help definition of 'protest' would be strong or significant diagreement / disapproval .. not just a calm comment or action. For example, "he protested by shaking his head at the decision' is not a sentence that makes a lot of sense!!

So with dissent, an official's job is to gauge whether the disagreement with the decision is strong/loud/aggressive enough to make it a protest and thus worthy of being cautioned for.

A lot less clear cut than whether someone has made a mark with a view to gaining an advantage ...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The problem is that common sense is about bending the law, not breaking it. If you're not cautioning for this then you're just blatantly ignoring the law. And as referees, it's not up to us to ignore a law we don't like; we're stuck with it. The nonsense about tape on the socks springs to mind.

However....is there scope to consider it trifling? ;-)

 

[one]

That just shifts the problem @CapnBloodbeard . We all have our own idea of what bending the law or breaking it is and then 'trifling' brings a whole lot of new problems. To give you an example; I was mentoring a junior referee last season on a U12 girls game bottom division grassroots. During his game a coach asked his goalkeeper to switch places with a defender because she said she wants to have run in the middle. They swapped jerseys while play was at the other end without asking the referee. Now this is simply 'breaking the law'. My feedback to referee was, its a mandatory caution but in this case all you need to do is explain this to the coach and let him know what the correct process is for future reference.