Open Age What do you reckon?

[RobOda]

Assume you're in a game with plenty of running commentary from players. You've had enough. You call in both captains and explain thus:

"Alright lads, I'm getting lots of comments from the players for almost every decision I've made, I'm getting sick of it now, I'm asking you both as captains to settle your teams down and ask them to cut it out please."

Home captain accepts.

Away captain chirps up: "Well, with the decisions you're making what do you expect?" and runs off.

Your call?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Since when is running commentary dissent?? Games are boring without any chatter, no issue with appealing, thats perfectly acceptable isn't it??

 

[RustyRef]

I think if you get to that point and the away captain reacts like that I would C2 him. But I would question why you get to the point that both captains need to be called to you together, it is very rare that this happens and I would rather see the individual players dealt with. You have the tools to deal with dissent, even more so now with sin bins, make an example of a couple of the players making comments and you don't get to the point of needing to get the captains together.

 

[RobOda]

Since when is running commentary dissent?? Games are boring without any chatter, no issue with appealing, thats perfectly acceptable isn't it??

Hmm, chirping I would say rather than general colour commentary.

even more so now with sin bins, make an example of a couple of the players making comments and you don't get to the point of needing to get the captains together.

I should have clarified: No sin bins available.

It's hard to put into words, but say, it's not outright obvious dissent that can be identified and cautioned, it is continuous comments on a low level scale. (FWIW in the match in question, there was an early caution for dissent that cut things out, in the context of the poll, this was shortly into the second half with players consistently disagreeing enough that it was getting annoying.)

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Chirping? Still, their are degrees of what’s acceptable, trying to belittle you or blatant dissent are one end, some players chirp in a nicer way, not so much dissent more a running commentary, can be irritating but not all out let’s card him!

 

[RustyRef]

Hmm, chirping I would say rather than general colour commentary.



I should have clarified: No sin bins available.

It's hard to put into words, but say, it's not outright obvious dissent that can be identified and cautioned, it is continuous comments on a low level scale. (FWIW in the match in question, there was an early caution for dissent that cut things out, in the context of the poll, this was shortly into the second half with players consistently disagreeing enough that it was getting annoying.)

Fair enough, but still shouldn't get to the point that both captains have to be called in, I probably wouldn't be impressed if I was observing and that happened. If it is so low level that it doesn't merit a caution then you just have to deal with it, if any player crosses the line you then deal with them individually, be that by a quiet word, public word, using the captain, or caution, etc.

Calling in both captains sends out the impression that you have exhausted all other options and really should be a last resort.

 

[RobOda]

Fair enough, cheers.

 

[CanuckRef]

So my opinion is that, when it comes to dissent, you decide what constitutes the line and stick with it. If you're happy to have low-level back chat, then you allow low-level back chat. The frequency of the chat is not the issue, nor is whether or not you find it annoying. If you've decided that a certain type of behaviour is acceptable (which you decide when you do not sanction that level of behaviour) then it will have to be acceptable for 90 minutes.

Perhaps you can learn from this that your tolerance for back chat is too high. Next time, it might be worth nipping it in the bud early. First instance is a public rebuke for the player; second instance is a caution. Let them know where the line is and then you cannot be blamed if they decide to cross it.

 

[SurreySuperRef]

Since when is running commentary dissent?? Games are boring without any chatter, no issue with appealing, thats perfectly acceptable isn't it??

I think it can slowly creep over that line in dissent.

For example, let's say a player goes "our ball ref!" Most of us (I hope) would ignore it or respond in like.

Then that player goes "Ref penalty!" Again, I would elect to ignore this, maybe have a quiet informal word at the next break.

Lets say you continue. Now you give a corner and the player goes "Ref that's never a corner!" To me, this is where it is starting to border on dissent. The player has now ever so slightly started to question your ability and integrity.

I think it's important to identify these sort of things early on in the game. A ticking off early on saves a sin bin or caution later on. And worse case scenario, it sets the player up for the fall later if he does continue: "well I warned you mate and you still carried on..."

I have quite a high tolerance for dissent but one thing that does annoy me is when I see the same players appealing for every little thing time and time again. Once or twice, I do not mind. But 90 minutes of a player harping on in your ear is not fun to deal with.

 

[RobOda]

I have quite a high tolerance for dissent but one thing that does annoy me is when I see the same players appealing for every little thing time and time again. Once or twice, I do not mind. But 90 minutes of a player harping on in your ear is not fun to deal with.

Aye, as you say. It was all that sort of appealing through those two periods of the game, super annoying.

Fun one the other week I had an AR call me over to ask to chat to the keeper because he was constantly chipping away shouting for offside. So, I see it's not just me that started to think 'hang on now, pipe down a bit'.

 

[Big Cat]

What I find difficult is when players from both teams are on your case. This can happen in competitive games in which both teams are equally determined to win. It's easier when one or two protagonists can be identified, because I've seen many instances of the problem being solved through effective identification of the bad laddys. It's harder when both teams are chirping. A bit like the same player being fouled constantly by different opponents. Ultimately one of the blighters needs to take one for the team (C2 in this respect)

 

[Kes]

Captains have no special privileges as players but are expected to show some form of leadership/responsibility where their team is concerned.

Personally, if the constant chirping is beginning to distract you and put you off your game, then you did right to speak to them both. Better than trying to communicate how you feel to each individual as and when it happens mate. The only other option you have (outside of actually pulling the card out) is waiting until the ball is next out of play and shouting loudly, but to nobody in particular, something like "Okay guys, next person to comment on my refereeing is going in the book!!" Once you've said that though, you totally have to stick by it.

 

[Viking]

"Okay guys, next person to comment on my refereeing is going in the book!!" Once you've said that though, you totally have to stick by it.

You're very callous. He was only saying 'great decision ref'

 

[Kes]

You're very callous. He was only saying 'great decision ref'

Yep, good call (unless sarcastically said ). Perhaps delete "comment" and insert "criticise".

 

[socal lurker]

The only other option you have (outside of actually pulling the card out) is waiting until the ball is next out of play and shouting loudly, but to nobody in particular, something like "Okay guys, next person to comment on my refereeing is going in the book!!" Once you've said that though, you totally have to stick by it.

I would recommend against something as absolute as that. I think we have more tools than that. I’ve used, with a laugh, “C’mon, if you’re gonna whine can you wait till there is something important enough enough to whine about?” Or to the group, “all right guys, time to let me ref and you guys play.” Or “gentlemen, lets cut down on the comments and play.” Those can get the message across without the ref painting himself in the corner. YMMV.

 

[Kes]

I would recommend against something as absolute as that. I think we have more tools than that. I’ve used, with a laugh, “C’mon, if you’re gonna whine can you wait till there is something important enough enough to whine about?” Or to the group, “all right guys, time to let me ref and you guys play.” Or “gentlemen, lets cut down on the comments and play.” Those can get the message across without the ref painting himself in the corner. YMMV.

Horses for courses mate. My example was given under the notion that the "chirping" has gone on too long and that I'm now past the banter stage which for me, is a major part of my game.

 

[socal lurker]

Horses for courses mate. My example was given under the notion that the "chirping" has gone on too long and that I'm now past the banter stage which for me, is a major part of my game.

Fair enough. But in my view being too dogmatic that something will be a caution harms more refs than it helps--it often leads to a situation where the words of the ref say it has to be a caution, but doesn't seem warranted, giving the ref two not great options.

 

[Kent Ref]

The away captain is attempting to undermine - definite yellow for me.

 

[Martiju]

Fair enough. But in my view being too dogmatic that something will be a caution harms more refs than it helps--it often leads to a situation where the words of the ref say it has to be a caution, but doesn't seem warranted, giving the ref two not great options.

Yeah, very early on I realised this wasn't a useful thing to say. Even if the next thing that's said is really minor, the opposition will be on your back to caution. If you do, you've set yourself up for every minor thing for the rest of the game being cautionable, and if you don't, you've 'bottled it' and set yourself up for a hard time that way instead.

 

[newref]

Assume you're in a game with plenty of running commentary from players. You've had enough. You call in both captains and explain thus:

"Alright lads, I'm getting lots of comments from the players for almost every decision I've made, I'm getting sick of it now, I'm asking you both as captains to settle your teams down and ask them to cut it out please."

Home captain accepts.

Away captain chirps up: "Well, with the decisions you're making what do you expect?" and runs off.

Your call?

Let me guess. Was the away captain losing 5-0?