Red Card Reporting

[xPositor]

This has just dropped in to my inbox, advising that reports no longer need to be written for dismissals. New process very similar to cautions (other than for "aggravated" offences) - couple of drop-down fields online. The argument being that clubs cannot (should not be) contesting the fine detail of a report, only whether the referee made a mistake (if they appeal the dismissal).

Thoughts?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Much better - got this a few weeks ago

 

[RobOda]

Don't think it's happening in Wales though?

 

[Big Cat]

Am i right in saying that WGS is not ready for yet? According to my RDO

 

[Russell Jones]

Am i right in saying that WGS is not ready for yet? According to my RDO

Correct. Currently only applies on MOAS. Though if you're feeling lazy, WGS will accept a written report on a Red Card that consists of just one blank space .. apparently

 

[one]

How on God's earth would they determine the length of suspension if there is no detail and the severity of the offence is important. E.g. SFP, OFFINABUS. VC (when in the list of VCs)?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

My sceptical head says they don’t care. They get their initial fee and fine and said player is back playing and available for further financial contributions pretty soon regardless of what he did to deserve longer! A longer banned player can’t technically offend can he!

 

[ASM]

How on God's earth would they determine the length of suspension if there is no detail and the severity of the offence is important. E.g. SFP, OFFINABUS. VC (when in the list of VCs)?

There’s standard punishments for each of the offences so all that will happen is the standard punishment will be applied - hence the list of sub categories of VC.

The request from the FA is to submit an Extraordinary Report in certain instances - e.g. discriminatory language/gestures, or where the offence is an extremely severe one (think Ben Thatcher elbow or Roy Keane v Haaland)

 

[one]

There’s standard punishments for each of the offences so all that will happen is the standard punishment will be applied - hence the list of sub categories of VC.

The request from the FA is to submit an Extraordinary Report in certain instances - e.g. discriminatory language/gestures, or where the offence is an extremely severe one (think Ben Thatcher elbow or Roy Keane v Haaland)

Doesn't do it for me. Its a cop out from administrators to rid themselves of costs and administrative duties and responsibility to make it easier for themselves in the name of "you can't write a proper report".

Serous foul play where I am is a minimum of 1 week to a maximum of 2 years (extreme cases when serious injury is caused). Where do you put the standard. Surly a SFP which should attract 8-12 weeks is not considered extremely severe and so no Extraordinary Report is required. Giving it a standard say 4 weeks is injustice. So is giving 4 weeks to a SFP tackle which should get only one week.

 

[QuaverRef]

Correct. Currently only applies on MOAS. Though if you're feeling lazy, WGS will accept a written report on a Red Card that consists of just one blank space .. apparently

I can verify that

 

[Ciley Myrus]

How on God's earth would they determine the length of suspension if there is no detail and the severity of the offence is important. E.g. SFP, OFFINABUS. VC (when in the list of VCs)?

Been this way for decades in Scotland. A red for dogso get xxx , a red for vc gets xxx

As above, anything considered exceptional misconduct gets a report as such, be strange here for a ref to do one of these per season, if not in a career

 

[RobOda]

Serous foul play where I am is a minimum of 1 week to a maximum of 2 years (extreme cases when serious injury is caused).

Minimum is 3 matches here.

I had one SFP last season, a cynical tackle from behind that was a leg breaker. Match had to be abandoned. Got the standard 3 match ban and that was it. He was back on the subs list by the next month when I was refereeing the same team.

I don't think they investigate these things too much in-depth.

The exception is VC against a referee. In that case the player is suspended indefinitely until the FA and/or the police finish their investigation - punishment decided on the end of both investigations I think.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Minimum is 3 matches here.

I had one SFP last season, a cynical tackle from behind that was a leg breaker. Match had to be abandoned. Got the standard 3 match ban and that was it. He was back on the subs list by the next month when I was refereeing the same team.

I don't think they investigate these things too much in-depth.

The exception is VC against a referee. In that case the player is suspended indefinitely until the FA and/or the police finish their investigation - punishment decided on the end of both investigations I think.

Did you deem it as simply serious foul play tho?
Of course had to be there but it must have been close to falling into exceptional misconduct

 

[Russell Jones]

How on God's earth would they determine the length of suspension if there is no detail and the severity of the offence is important. E.g. SFP, OFFINABUS. VC (when in the list of VCs)?

As others have said, there is a standard scale that gets applied. Which for 90% of red cards, makes perfect sense ... especially in a world where clubs were previously able to appeal red cards based on the technicality of what the referee had written rather than the reality of the offense.

However, there's nothing stopping any referee from submitting an additional misconduct report if they believe the severity of the Red card offense warrants it. So the cynical leg breaker or the SFP that's more like a bar room brawl! For me, this has the potential to deliver the best of both worlds ... less admin time overall and greater focus from the FAs on the smaller number of cases that genuinely warrant it.

 

[Big Cat]

It makes sense to automate the process. Why have countless administrators reading about the referee's breakfast and weather conditions when the players all get the same punishment. I'm told that slight errors in detail lead to appeals from teams who will find less recourse when faced with a simple code. Sub-codes and ERs are there for aggravated offences

 

[RobOda]

Did you deem it as simply serious foul play tho?
Of course had to be there but it must have been close to falling into exceptional misconduct

Just the sending off form, yes. I did report it to the league and referee's officer before I started the paper-work, and the advice that came back was to just stress the severity of the incident on the form, plus note the match was abandoned.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Just the sending off form, yes. I did report it to the league and referee's officer before I started the paper-work, and the advice that came back was to just stress the severity of the incident on the form, plus note the match was abandoned.

Not in any way having a go at you here but to me, that's exceptional misconduct and should have been reported as such and not simply as serious foul play....

 

[one]

Just the sending off form, yes. I did report it to the league and referee's officer before I started the paper-work, and the advice that came back was to just stress the severity of the incident on the form, plus note the match was abandoned.

Not in any way having a go at you here but to me, that's exceptional misconduct and should have been reported as such and not simply as serious foul play....

And not having a go at either of you but to me this is exactly what is wrong with the "no details" reporting system. One's exceptional is not another one's exceptional. Its like asking the referees to decide the if the suspension should be high or standard. Referees are to only decide if it's excessive force, not how excessive it is.

Comparing this to the civil justice system. It's like asking the police to only put a report in for severe crimes. Otherwise you arrest them and we put them away for 3 months. If you give details they will get away with technicalities in your report.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

And not having a go at either of you but to me this is exactly what is wrong with the "no details" reporting system. One's exceptional is not another one's exceptional. Even if it is no one's exceptional, all degrees get the same punishment.

Correct. Thats why it would be submitted as exceptional and left for panel/committee to debate.
In Scotland its been that way for ages, the match officials put something through as exceptional if they deem it to be over and above the "expected" misconduct.
Its very very rare tbh....

 

[Big Cat]

Exceptional = Serious injury
Racist/homophobic
Misconduct not otherwise punishable, especially against officials
Anything which leads to abandonment
The CFAs dont want to read about out else