2018-2019 Laws of the Game Changes

If a player says that to a ref his intent is not primarily to insult you, but to directly challenge your authority and see if you have the cajones to send him off. He is testing your boundaries. The odds of things getting worse are much greater if you don't issue card, then if you issue a card.

Personally, I think cards should be issued based on the severity of the offense and not based upon the embarrassment the ref might feel on the field from players, coaches and fans or from his peers that read his red card report.
I generally agree with what you say. It is definitely a challenge to your authority. You can respond with the card and retain your authority, but I think you can also retain your authority by putting them in their place. If you call them out on their power challenge and challenge them to repeat it, and then they don't, you have essentially exerted your dominance.

Think about it from the team captain point of view. I knew people who would directly challenge the captain. "Why would I listen to you? Just because you wear a colorful band and you lick the coaches balls?" You have the captains that go, "listen to me because I am the captain" (Using cards) and the captains that just naturally lead their teams and don't really need to band to do it. (Using personality). Both are effective.
 
Let's take an extreme case. A player says in a moderate volume "Fuck you ref, suck my balls". Moderate volume means that probably 4-6 other players within 10 yards heard it, but no coaches or spectators.
By the book that is a red card for foul and abusive language.
You have some options at this point. You can give the red and be perfectly justified in the report and the eyes of the players and coaches (but they still won't like it), you can give a yellow and tell him he is lucky or whatever justification you want. Or here is what I do. Blow the whistle and say, "Excuse me sir, I didn't quite catch what you said, could you repeat that?". If he repeats it or doubles down, he gets a red and his own teammates are mad at him for being an idiot instead of being mad at you, or he mumbles something else and you say, "oh okay, I thought I heard something else, I understand you don't like my call, but that is the way we are going".

I think my way, you have preserved the integrity of the game, demonstrated to the players that you are not to be trifled with, and in no way have you compromised your authority or management of the game. A straight red starts the howling from the other teammates, a yellow is kind of weak, and doing nothing is just chum in the waters. And that is foul and abusive language, I have other tools for dealing with dissent that stops it in its tracks that I can use before the last resort of a card

Now, if the player makes it loud and public, he has essentially tied my hands and he will get the card according to the law. If he is just publically out of control, I try and give his teammates and captains a chance to calm him down. Giving 2 dissent yellows for the same call is poor. Pull out the yellow indicating that a card is coming, wait for the payer to finish ranting, then raise the yellow and issue it when he is done. Bonus points for calmly writing his number in the book while he is yelling, showing indifference, before giving the card.
A red card is required in this instance. If not warranted in this extreme case, then when? Wait for a player to punch someone (which a player that openly says this to a referee is more likely to do)?Otherwise, you are simply ignoring the laws to uphold your personal biased view of game management.
 
I generally agree with what you say. It is definitely a challenge to your authority. You can respond with the card and retain your authority, but I think you can also retain your authority by putting them in their place. If you call them out on their power challenge and challenge them to repeat it, and then they don't, you have essentially exerted your dominance.

Think about it from the team captain point of view. I knew people who would directly challenge the captain. "Why would I listen to you? Just because you wear a colorful band and you lick the coaches balls?" You have the captains that go, "listen to me because I am the captain" (Using cards) and the captains that just naturally lead their teams and don't really need to band to do it. (Using personality). Both are effective.
Cookoo, and a strange fascination with mouths on genitals.
 
Cookoo, and a strange fascination with mouths on genitals.
Language not mine that I use, Just realistic based on what I hear in games.
http://www.psychref.org/2018/01/the-referee-as-game-manager.html?m=1#.W2ev9vllA0M
I am very aware of the laws of the game. I just believe they are flexible in SOME cases. (Basically all the parts of the law that include MUST have to followed to theletter, but those are few). At the risk of appeal to authority, I linked the survey that demonstrates that the higher up the referee, the more they are likely to bend the laws to help game management.
 
A red card is required in this instance. If not warranted in this extreme case, then when? Wait for a player to punch someone (which a player that openly says this to a referee is more likely to do)?Otherwise, you are simply ignoring the laws to uphold your personal biased view of game management.
"It is required only when necessary" is my intentionally vague answer. Consistency is overrated: here is Howard Webb on consistency:
The Laws of the Game are not an end in and of themselves. They are an arbitrary set of laws authored by IFAB and changed every year. They are not the ultimate good. The game is the ultimate good in this case and the laws only help support the game.
 
Back
Top