OFINABUS?

[Mintyref]

Whilst it's correct that players see pros telling the ref to **** off all the time, it is absolutely not true that players think that it's ok to do it. I've never played with a player who thinks that.

I agree with your other sentiments, but let's not think that players are daft or naive, they're neither.

That's really odd as quite a few have told me exactly that............

 

[Ben448844]

That's really odd as quite a few have told me exactly that............

I'm sure they do and I've played with many players who have said the same. But it's an excuse. You learn from being very young that you can't abuse the ref, never mind tell him to **** off. Many ignore it, but everyone knows that you can't.

 

[Grayson]

Often in this kind of scenario I will call said player over and explain that according to the laws I would be 100% within my rights to sin bin or send them off. I explain what the law is and why what they've said is dissent / OFFINBUS. Depending on the situation, severity of what they've said, aggressive nature etc, I would then take no action or sin bin / send them off.

"This is what the Laws require me to do, however this one time I won't..."

 

[Justylove]

Yea agree with that.

I think a lot of occasions are also times to educate the players. Most players have no clue of the actual laws and most see pros telling the ref to fck off and think it's OK for them to do it. Often in this kind of scenario I will call said player over and explain that according to the laws I would be 100% within my rights to sin bin or send them off. I explain what the law is and why what they've said is dissent / OFFINBUS. Depending on the situation, severity of what they've said, aggressive nature etc, I would then take no action or sin bin / send them off.

In this example I think I would just be having a very firm word and would leave it at that, with a warning that another comment is going to be a red / sin bin. But I think that is a huge issue right? As this forum is showing a player could make the same comment three weeks running and receive three different punishments. Now the player shouldn't be saying the comment in the first place, but I also think it's harsh on the players to get three different outcomes to the exact same comment.

Same approach for DOGSO @TSHudson ??

 

[RobOda]

Often in this kind of scenario I will call said player over and explain that according to the laws I would be 100% within my rights to sin bin or send them off. I explain what the law is and why what they've said is dissent / OFFINBUS.

Very risky thing to do and something I wouldn't advise unless it was a very unusual situation that needs common sense to be applied.

 

[one]

I'm with others on telling player you are not doing what the law requires yoy to do. It's a slippery slope from there. You are setting wrong expectations. The law also requires you to report send offs. How can you justify you can't do it when they ask you not to report it?

Adjust your tolerance (within law) to match what you want to do. But once you have decided what an action is, punish for it according to law. For example if you decide it's a careless challenge then you must give a free kick. If you are not giving a free kick you must decide it was a fair challenge. You can't decide it's a careless challenge but not give a free kick.

 

[GraemeS]

A couple of things I've done that have a similar effect, but aren't quite as blatant "I'm making this up as I go along" announcements:

"I didn't catch what you said there, but if it was what I think it was, you could have found yourself in serious trouble"
Pull 2 players over and say "I know that one of you just swore at me, but I don't know which one. If you do that again and I spot who it is, you'll be off, understand?"

 

[Justylove]

A couple of things I've done that have a similar effect, but aren't quite as blatant "I'm making this up as I go along" announcements:

"I didn't catch what you said there, but if it was what I think it was, you could have found yourself in serious trouble"
Pull 2 players over and say "I know that one of you just swore at me, but I don't know which one. If you do that again and I spot who it is, you'll be off, understand?"

At our County Cup final event we had a football league AR give a talk.

He recounted the funniest ever send off he saw. Packed penalty box at a corner and out of the crowd of players came the words "You F*****g Cheating C**t Ref". He had no clue who had said it so he said "I beg your pardon" to which the offending player obliged by stepping forward and repeating it.

I'll leave you to guess the rest....

 

[one]

"I didn't catch what you said there, but if it was what I think it was, you could have found yourself in serious trouble"
Pull 2 players over and say "I know that one of you just swore at me, but I don't know which one. If you do that again and I spot who it is, you'll be off, understand?"

I'd be honest ref. It was me.

 

[TSHudson]

Very risky thing to do and something I wouldn't advise unless it was a very unusual situation that needs common sense to be applied.

Why? Do you apply the law 100% on every occasion for dissent and OFFINBUS? If not you are doing the exact same thing just without any explanation or visible interaction to deal with the player and offence. I would only ever do this for dissent / OFFINBUS, when the law is completely subjective. I find a chat along the lines of "another ref would be sin binning you / sending you off here, you're lucky I don't take offence so easily. However this is your first and only warning" goes a long way to managing the player better than just a straight punishment. Especially when the outburst is a genuine one and born out of frustration and not meant as a direct insult.

When a player is just being a d*ck, they get the appropriate punishment.

 

[TSHudson]

Same approach for DOGSO @TSHudson ??

Is DOGSO subjective? This whole discussion shows that depending on the referee there is a huge scale of OFFINBUS. Some won't red card a player for swearing at them, some will red card them for a playground jibe! OFFINBUS is totally subjective depending on the referee, which I have previously said I don't like or agree with.

 

[Big Cat]

Is DOGSO subjective? This whole discussion shows that depending on the referee there is a huge scale of OFFINBUS. Some won't red card a player for swearing at them, some will red card them for a playground jibe! OFFINBUS is totally subjective depending on the referee, which I have previously said I don't like or agree with.

I'd use a slightly different tact for marginal behaviour... "Explain to me why you shouldn't walk for that outburst"
Depending on the response, caution, brief and stern warning... and comment to the skipper that the player is on very thin ice
Any sniff of a repeat and the player has to go, no hesitation
It's dodgy ground to announce that you may have swerved a Law because the opposition will pick up on it, with a potentially slippery slope thereafter

 

[RobOda]

Why?

Because, as @one has already explained, you're basically saying 'this is the law, but I'm not enforcing it', and whilst you may get away with it, you're opening up a very dangerous can of worms for when something happens later on in the match and players start wondering why you're not making exceptions in those situations.

Additionally, believe it or not, it will get you a reputation among the players and at some point that reputation is going to feedback into the refereeing system and it is not something you'd want hanging above you.

Do you apply the law 100% on every occasion for dissent and OFFINBUS? If not you are doing the exact same thing just without any explanation or visible interaction to deal with the player and offence.

Dissent? Yes. 100%, because early on in my career I was consistently docked points going for promotion because I didn't deal with clear dissent appropriately, taking similar lines of reasoning as you did.

Since I started cautioning dissent at every opportunity, my match control has become more secure and my marks have gone up. In my experience, observers love a referee that will caution dissent and take a dim view of referees who avoid it.

As for OFFINABUS, I think that people make the situation harder than it needs to be by trying to blur the lines between 'industrial' language and OFFINABUS, but also by trying to rationale that they have to be offended or insulted personally by such language. Context matters, obviously, but if a player is making a remark to you about your family, wife, kids, parents, whatever, they are generally trying to insulting, offensive or abusive. That you find their comments so pathetic that it doesn't even register as offensive or insulting or abusive to you personally, I feel, is besides the point, they know what they're trying to do and so, should be punished accordingly.

Also, I feel it needs to be pointed out, sometimes the best education you can give a player in regards to the LOTG is to give them a caution/dismissal for the offence they commit. That is educational, and for all you know, these players may have been sent off many a times for these offences and you're taking a massive assumption that they're clueless about certain aspects of the law, in order to give them a weaker sanction (or no sanction), in which case, they've pulled a blinder and are laughing all the way back to the changing rooms. So, punish the offence, get yourself a reputation as a referee that will punish those offences, rather than a referee who might look naive, or as my old assessments used to say; 'wishy-washy'.

 

[TSHudson]

ecause, as @one has already explained, you're basically saying 'this is the law, but I'm not enforcing it',

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "OFFINBUS is an offence. Some referees would find what you've said an offence and punish it." That is what every single one of us do whether we vocalise it or not, otherwise you would be issuing multiple red cards in every game. I'm choosing to visibly talk to a player and engage with them, not just ignore what they're saying for everyone to see.

 

[TSHudson]

So, punish the offence, get yourself a reputation as a referee that will punish those offences, rather than a referee who might look naive, or as my old assessments used to say; 'wishy-washy'.

Or there is a third option! OFFINBUS and dissent is all about helping you in match control. It's not an offence or violation in law that has any impact on the game, like DOGSO or handball. It's only there in law to help control the players. If I feel I have get better match control by talking to players as humans and not dealing with low level dissent or minor OFFINBUS with strict punishments, that is surely the desired outcome?
I agree completely that dissent and OFFINBUS should be clear and not subjective and applied at every level. But when official guidance is "don't send players off for OFFINBUS to ruin the experience for spectators" it makes a mockery that you can be penalised lower down for not applying it. It makes a mockery of the law and makes it completely subjective.

 

[zarathustra]

If you think dissent and/or offinabus don't have an impact on the game then I've got a bridge for sale.

 

[Mintyref]

Or there is a third option! OFFINBUS and dissent is all about helping you in match control. It's not an offence or violation in law that has any impact on the game, like DOGSO or handball. It's only there in law to help control the players. If I feel I have get better match control by talking to players as humans and not dealing with low level dissent or minor OFFINBUS with strict punishments, that is surely the desired outcome?
I agree completely that dissent and OFFINBUS should be clear and not subjective and applied at every level. But when official guidance is "don't send players off for OFFINBUS to ruin the experience for spectators" it makes a mockery that you can be penalised lower down for not applying it. It makes a mockery of the law and makes it completely subjective.

Here's the rub......no such thing as "minor" OFFINABUS, either it is or it isn't....if it is, red card all day, every day...........if your tolerance level is high enough that you don't think being told to "f#@k off" is OFFINABUS, then I pity any referee following your footsteps.....

And as for it not having an impact on the game you are just wrong......once one gets it past you the other sfollow suit..........

How you cannot understand that as a level six I do not know....

 

[Peter Grove]

I find a chat along the lines of "another ref would be sin binning you / sending you off here, you're lucky I don't take offence so easily. However this is your first and only warning" goes a long way to managing the player better than just a straight punishment. Especially when the outburst is a genuine one and born out of frustration and not meant as a direct insult.

That's quite, quite different to what you said earlier though. You said you would tell a player that what he did was definitely dissent or OFFINABUS, that in fact you would explain to the player exactly why what he did was an offence and then, having told the player (and in some detail) that he had actually committed said offence, you would then tell him you weren't going to punish him for it. That's what everybody was taking exception to.

Telling the player that he is getting close to the line and any further similar behaviour could put him in serious jeopardy is one thing - telling him he has committed an offence but that you're going to ignore it, is quite another.

 

[TSHudson]

Here's the rub......no such thing as "minor" OFFINABUS

So have you issued a red card for every single OFFINBUS offence in every single game you've officiated? So every single time an attacker has called a defender a p*ick you've sent them off? That claim is as untrue as it is absurd. EVERYONE, as this whole thread shows, has a sliding tolerance for OFFINBUS. Most of you seem to be pretending, both on here and on the pitch, that you don't. Some of you have even admitted to pretending / acting like you haven't heard it during the game. Instead, I choose not to ignore it and to talk to a player like about what they're doing, that's the only difference here.

And as for it not having an impact on the game you are just wrong

I was talking in the context of why laws exist. Fouls (in all forms, tripping, kicking, pushing, pulling etc) and handball laws exist because they have a direct impact on the game and if they didn't, we would be playing rugby and not football. Dissent and OFFINBUS have no direct impact on the actual game and the law only exists to help with match control.

 

[TSHudson]

telling him he has committed an offence but that you're going to ignore it, is quite another.

So you're officiating a game, attacker calls a defender a fat p*ick, do you send him off? That is definitely insulting and so is an OFFINBUS offence under law. If you do send someone off every single time without fail then fair enough, but I imagine you don't end up with many players left on the pitch in the games you officiate. If you don't send them off, then you are doing exactly the same thing I'm doing, but just ignoring what's going on. By visibily calling the player over and talking to them, telling them that what they're saying is an insult and could be a red card so they need to calm down, it manages the situation better than ignoring what's being said. Defender doesn't get frustrated, attacker knows you are listening and aware of what's happening and if he doesn't calm down, has no complaints if he is sent off.

How you're all acting like this is seriously wrong when the official guidelines is to ignore OFFINBUS at higher levels because customers pay is a joke. Officially refs are told to ignore the law, then you're jumping on me for not applying the law every time!