2018-2019 Laws of the Game Changes

[Definitelynotanotherref]

I actually would like to see more instances where yellows are issued for getting mouthy even at the cost of having to give the red. We talk about the lack of respect towards refs yet we condone this behavior.

It never looks good (in my eyes) to write a red card report where the 2nd caution is dissent. I would be embarrassed to write that report. And I have had 2nd hand embarrassment from witnessing my dual partner in high school giving 3 yellows for dissent in 2 minutes over 1 call, ending the game early because 2 of those yellows went to the only coach.

If 1 dissent caution doesn't curb the dissent, your doing it wrong.

 

[outside!]

I know a player that once got 3 yellows in one game (none of them for dissent). Player was somewhat embarrassed, but the fouls were not overly rough. We all thought it was funny the ref lost track (but so did everyone else). gkrent might no who I am referring to.

 

[Surfref]

I know a player that once got 3 yellows in one game (none of them for dissent). Player was somewhat embarrassed, but the fouls were not overly rough. We all thought it was funny the ref lost track (but so did everyone else). gkrent might no who I am referring to.

That isn't the referee's fault, it is the referee crew's fault. The AR's should have been keeping track of cautions and kept the referee from restarting the game after the second caution without an ejection.

 

[NickName]

I know a player that once got 3 yellows in one game

Well my kid got kicked out after 1 yellow!
Oh, its not a competition?
It was deserved

 

[baldref]

It never looks good (in my eyes) to write a red card report where the 2nd caution is dissent. I would be embarrassed to write that report. And I have had 2nd hand embarrassment from witnessing my dual partner in high school giving 3 yellows for dissent in 2 minutes over 1 call, ending the game early because 2 of those yellows went to the only coach.

If 1 dissent caution doesn't curb the dissent, your doing it wrong.

Do not concur. In some instances, the dissent is so obvious that not giving the second yellow for it would (should) be embarrassing. I wish it was done more at higher levels so the kids didn't think it was acceptable.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

Do not concur. In some instances, the dissent is so obvious that not giving the second yellow for it would (should) be embarrassing. I wish it was done more at higher levels so the kids didn't think it was acceptable.

I qualify my original statement with: if you do something over the top and give me a good excuse to want to give you the second yellow then you deserve it. But it has to be so obvious and egregious that when I finally write the report, it would read that I basically had no choice but to give the 2nd yellow.

Cards for dissent have no "fairness impact" on the game in the short run. Sure, it would be great if we could stamp out all the dissent altogether in the long run by all holding hands and agreeing to be more strict, but it won't work because referees like me (a lot) would rather move up and be seen as game managers as opposed to pseudo-parents. Essentially, we would "scab" from the referee union trying to stamp out dissent for our own personal gain.

No parent or player goes "oh good, the other team got the yellow for dissent, whew, otherwise this game would have been unfair for us". No one cares about the yellow for dissent. It doesn't appease either coach, either team, or either spectators. The only person that feels good after giving a yellow for dissent is the referee.
And if you give a 2nd yellow for dissent, you have essentially ruined a competitive game to satisfy your own feelings... oh and justice is satisfied too I guess; starry-eyed college students and 1st graders that tattle-tale are proud of you.

 

[espola]

I qualify my original statement with: if you do something over the top and give me a good excuse to want to give you the second yellow then you deserve it. But it has to be so obvious and egregious that when I finally write the report, it would read that I basically had no choice but to give the 2nd yellow.

Cards for dissent have no "fairness impact" on the game in the short run. Sure, it would be great if we could stamp out all the dissent altogether in the long run by all holding hands and agreeing to be more strict, but it won't work because referees like me (a lot) would rather move up and be seen as game managers as opposed to pseudo-parents. Essentially, we would "scab" from the referee union trying to stamp out dissent for our own personal gain.

No parent or player goes "oh good, the other team got the yellow for dissent, whew, otherwise this game would have been unfair for us". No one cares about the yellow for dissent. It doesn't appease either coach, either team, or either spectators. The only person that feels good after giving a yellow for dissent is the referee.
And if you give a 2nd yellow for dissent, you have essentially ruined a competitive game to satisfy your own feelings... oh and justice is satisfied too I guess; starry-eyed college students and 1st graders that tattle-tale are proud of you.

Nonsense.

 

[baldref]

I qualify my original statement with: if you do something over the top and give me a good excuse to want to give you the second yellow then you deserve it. But it has to be so obvious and egregious that when I finally write the report, it would read that I basically had no choice but to give the 2nd yellow.

Cards for dissent have no "fairness impact" on the game in the short run. Sure, it would be great if we could stamp out all the dissent altogether in the long run by all holding hands and agreeing to be more strict, but it won't work because referees like me (a lot) would rather move up and be seen as game managers as opposed to pseudo-parents. Essentially, we would "scab" from the referee union trying to stamp out dissent for our own personal gain.

No parent or player goes "oh good, the other team got the yellow for dissent, whew, otherwise this game would have been unfair for us". No one cares about the yellow for dissent. It doesn't appease either coach, either team, or either spectators. The only person that feels good after giving a yellow for dissent is the referee.
And if you give a 2nd yellow for dissent, you have essentially ruined a competitive game to satisfy your own feelings... oh and justice is satisfied too I guess; starry-eyed college students and 1st graders that tattle-tale are proud of you.

again I do not concur. yellow cards are management tools. they are sometimes needed and are effective. i'm not sure what you're going for here, but you missed in my book.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

again I do not concur. yellow cards are management tools. they are sometimes needed and are effective. i'm not sure what you're going for here, but you missed in my book.

Watch what happens in the first 3 minutes:

Every single card was clearly justified, but the referee still looked bad while it happened. He appears defensive, panicked, and self-righteous when he gives out the final 2 cards for dissent. There are probably a 100 other methods he could have used before resorting to making a 9v11. I agree with you yellows for dissent are necessary. But we must be aware that cautions can sometimes escalate the situation. The manner, timing, and method of our cautions are so important when it comes to dissent. Especially considering the other team doesn't really care about the dissent.

Watch the dealing with dissent at 3:33. It was swift, calm and effective. All the protests stopped at that moment the yellow came out.

I'm not saying never give out yellows for dissent, I am saying that we shouldn't be giving them out every time our feelings are hurt. We don't give out cautions for the sake of justice, but for the sake of game management.

We are not the heroes the players deserve, we are the heroes they need.

 

[espola]

Watch what happens in the first 3 minutes:

Every single card was clearly justified, but the referee still looked bad while it happened. He appears defensive, panicked, and self-righteous when he gives out the final 2 cards for dissent. There are probably a 100 other methods he could have used before resorting to making a 9v11. I agree with you yellows for dissent are necessary. But we must be aware that cautions can sometimes escalate the situation. The manner, timing, and method of our cautions are so important when it comes to dissent. Especially considering the other team doesn't really care about the dissent.

Watch the dealing with dissent at 3:33. It was swift, calm and effective. All the protests stopped at that moment the yellow came out.

I'm not saying never give out yellows for dissent, I am saying that we shouldn't be giving them out every time our feelings are hurt. We don't give out cautions for the sake of justice, but for the sake of game management.

We are not the heroes the players deserve, we are the heroes they need.

"Because he got the ball first..."

"It happens all over the world..."

Please continue.

 

[Surfref]

I qualify my original statement with: if you do something over the top and give me a good excuse to want to give you the second yellow then you deserve it. But it has to be so obvious and egregious that when I finally write the report, it would read that I basically had no choice but to give the 2nd yellow.

Cards for dissent have no "fairness impact" on the game in the short run. Sure, it would be great if we could stamp out all the dissent altogether in the long run by all holding hands and agreeing to be more strict, but it won't work because referees like me (a lot) would rather move up and be seen as game managers as opposed to pseudo-parents. Essentially, we would "scab" from the referee union trying to stamp out dissent for our own personal gain.

No parent or player goes "oh good, the other team got the yellow for dissent, whew, otherwise this game would have been unfair for us". No one cares about the yellow for dissent. It doesn't appease either coach, either team, or either spectators. The only person that feels good after giving a yellow for dissent is the referee.
And if you give a 2nd yellow for dissent, you have essentially ruined a competitive game to satisfy your own feelings... oh and justice is satisfied too I guess; starry-eyed college students and 1st graders that tattle-tale are proud of you.

While a second caution for dissent is very rare from me, it has happened. No one (players, coaches or refs) like to hear a player bitch about calls and non-calls and question the referee crew's authority. That is just as bad as watching Neymar roll around and exaggerate an injury. I gave an adult player two cautions (USB and Dissent) with the second being dissent in a game last fall. I got thanked from players from the other team and even one of his own players. His teammate said, "I am so tired of hearing him constant bitching. Just play the game and shut up."

Of course any decent referee will try to handle the dissent by means other than giving a caution. I have given plenty of cautions for dissent that had a positive impact on the game. True dissent isn't just a player venting their frustration, but an attack on the referee crew's authority. If a player meets the "public, personal, provocative (or derogatory)" criteria for dissent, then maybe they should be cautioned. If I or a teammate can calm the player down by talking to them or even a hand gesture from me, then a card is not needed. But if a player truly meets the criteria for dissent, there is a good chance they will be cautioned whether they had a prior caution. By not issuing that card for dissent when the criteria is clearly met or exceeded, it can have a negative impact on the authority of the referee crew which will ultimately have a negative effect on the game.

I never feel "good" when I have to caution or eject a player for anything. Once I issue a card then I start a self-assessment and try to figure out if I could have done anything to prevent the misconduct. Sometimes I will come up with something I could have done different and sometimes I can find no fault with my actions leading up to the misconduct, but regardless of the outcome of my self-assessment I never feel "good" about having to issue a card to a player.

 

[baldref]

Watch what happens in the first 3 minutes:

Every single card was clearly justified, but the referee still looked bad while it happened. He appears defensive, panicked, and self-righteous when he gives out the final 2 cards for dissent. There are probably a 100 other methods he could have used before resorting to making a 9v11. I agree with you yellows for dissent are necessary. But we must be aware that cautions can sometimes escalate the situation. The manner, timing, and method of our cautions are so important when it comes to dissent. Especially considering the other team doesn't really care about the dissent.

Watch the dealing with dissent at 3:33. It was swift, calm and effective. All the protests stopped at that moment the yellow came out.

I'm not saying never give out yellows for dissent, I am saying that we shouldn't be giving them out every time our feelings are hurt. We don't give out cautions for the sake of justice, but for the sake of game management.

We are not the heroes the players deserve, we are the heroes they need.

So, you're saying that even though the referee was completely justified in his actions, he shouldn't have given the two reds because "he looked bad" doing it? Again, I'm not following you. I thought that sequence was done well. I want to see more of that actually. Crowding around the referee and showing obvious dissent for long periods of time is one thing that needs to stop.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

While a second caution for dissent is very rare from me, it has happened. No one (players, coaches or refs) like to hear a player bitch about calls and non-calls and question the referee crew's authority. That is just as bad as watching Neymar roll around and exaggerate an injury. I gave an adult player two cautions (USB and Dissent) with the second being dissent in a game last fall. I got thanked from players from the other team and even one of his own players. His teammate said, "I am so tired of hearing him constant bitching. Just play the game and shut up."

Of course any decent referee will try to handle the dissent by means other than giving a caution. I have given plenty of cautions for dissent that had a positive impact on the game. True dissent isn't just a player venting their frustration, but an attack on the referee crew's authority. If a player meets the "public, personal, provocative (or derogatory)" criteria for dissent, then maybe they should be cautioned. If I or a teammate can calm the player down by talking to them or even a hand gesture from me, then a card is not needed. But if a player truly meets the criteria for dissent, there is a good chance they will be cautioned whether they had a prior caution. By not issuing that card for dissent when the criteria is clearly met or exceeded, it can have a negative impact on the authority of the referee crew which will ultimately have a negative effect on the game.

I never feel "good" when I have to caution or eject a player for anything. Once I issue a card then I start a self-assessment and try to figure out if I could have done anything to prevent the misconduct. Sometimes I will come up with something I could have done different and sometimes I can find no fault with my actions leading up to the misconduct, but regardless of the outcome of my self-assessment I never feel "good" about having to issue a card to a player.

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.​

 

[baldref]

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 showing the card.​

disagree again. sent off immediately.

 

[baldref]

and how are you preserving the integrity of the game by allowing a player to so blatantly show disrespect for the game?

 

[Surfref]

.....Crowding around the referee and showing obvious dissent for long periods of time is one thing that needs to stop.

Crowding around the ref to argue and sometimes delay the restart really annoys me and seemed to hit a new high in the World Cup. It was also a problem in the clip above that the referee initially dealt with, then seemed to let the player in the arc irritate him. If referees would just get the game going, most of the dumb stuff by the players will resolve themselves. I think the referee should have just told the white player in the arc to back out and not approached him. Had he done that and proceeded with the kick, White #6 would probably not have lost his mind and got ejected. I definitely would have ejected #6 since he approaches the referee in a threatening manner and laid a hand on the referee. The one thing we do not know is what the players said to the referee. Did they use profanity of disparaging comments? Either of those could get a player cautioned or ejected.

 

[Surfref]

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...

I have to disagree with the actions you would take for a player that said, "Fuck you ref, suck my balls" at a moderate volume that hopefully only 4-6 other players heard. This is a profane and personal verbal attack on the referee. If the players are 14-20's years old especially men, and you do not deal with that harshly you will continue to have problems. If you only warn or caution the offending player, you have just gave those 4-6 players that heard the comment permission to use similar comments. If it is me, I tell the player loud enough for the other players to hear, "Those types of comments and language will not be used on this field" and show him a Red card. The other players will clearly know why the player was ejected and it will send a message. I have had similar situations with different profane language and ejected the players and had no further dissent or verbal problems. I have also seen partners, one last weekend, take your approach and end up with increased and continual dissent and verbal abuse toward the referee.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

I have to disagree with the actions you would take for a player that said, "Fuck you ref, suck my balls" at a moderate volume that hopefully only 4-6 other players heard. This is a profane and personal verbal attack on the referee. If the players are 14-20's years old especially men, and you do not deal with that harshly you will continue to have problems. If you only warn or caution the offending player, you have just gave those 4-6 players that heard the comment permission to use similar comments. If it is me, I tell the player loud enough for the other players to hear, "Those types of comments and language will not be used on this field" and show him a Red card. The other players will clearly know why the player was ejected and it will send a message. I have had similar situations with different profane language and ejected the players and had no further dissent or verbal problems. I have also seen partners, one last weekend, take your approach and end up with increased and continual dissent and verbal abuse toward the referee.

I think with my method it is not as much what is said by the referee as much as it is how it is said. I can see a referee use that tool and fail like you have said/seen, and I have seen it work marvelously as far as impact for the rest of the game. I picked up that tool from a national assessor who was offering different ways to manage a game.

I think the beauty of being a center referee is that it is much more of an art than a science. What may work in one game may not work in another. A quick yellow one game can stop dissent in its tracks, or it can escalate the game. A patient yellow where you give it at the end of the rant may save you from the MLS ref double yellow, or it may cause you to get run over. Every situation needs to be read and assessed. As for me, I would rather try and fail to manage a game with my personality and by doing so gain a valuable experience as opposed to what is disdainfully referred to as "hiding behind my cards".

 

[Surfref]

......I think the beauty of being a center referee is that it is much more of an art than a science. What may work in one game may not work in another.....

I completely agree with these statements. The problem I have run into over the past 6 months is that too many of the referees are reluctant to issue cards and referee all games the same which is why I see them getting in trouble. Almost all of these referees are in their 18-late 20's and come off as arrogant, over confident, inflexible and not open to feedback unless you are a National assessor. Two traits that will doom a referee are arrogance and inflexible.

 

[watfly]

A player says in a moderate volume "Fuck you ref, suck my balls".

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.