# 2018-2019 Laws of the Game Changes



## Surfref (Jun 5, 2018)

There are not many changes to the Laws of the Game for 2018-2019.  The first link is to the IFAB page that has links to the changes and LOTG.  The second link is to the changes, reasoning and interpretation.  I have included some of the changes that will effect the youth game. It will take coaches and players a while to learn the changes and spectators will be losing their minds for a few years until they learn the changes.

http://www.theifab.com/news/laws-of-the-game-201819-coming-into-force-1-june
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/653/131333_200418_Laws_of_the_Game_2018_19_Law_Changes_explained_EN.pdf

Changes to the LOTG
Modifications
• There is no limit on the number of substitutes that can be used in youth football
Law 3
• Competition rules may permit the use of an additional substitute in extra time (even if not all permitted substitutes have been used)
Law 4
• Player who has left the field because of an equipment issue and returns without permission and interferes is penalised with a direct free kick (or penalty kick)
Law 7
• Drinks breaks should not exceed one minute
• Allowance must be made for time ‘lost’ for drinks breaks and VAR checks/ reviews
Law 10
• Kicks from the penalty mark – a replacement for a goalkeeper cannot take a kick in that ‘round’ if the goalkeeper has already taken a kick
Law 12
• Biting is included as a direct free kick and sending-off offence
• If the referee plays advantage for a DOGSO the offender is cautioned (YC) whether or not a goal is scored
• Where 2 separate cautionable (YC) offences are committed in close proximity, both cautions (YCs) must be issued-off offense; same principle if one is a sending-off offense 
• If a player commits an offence outside the field of play (ball in play) against someone from
their own team (including a team official) it is an indirect free kick on the boundary line
Law 15
• A player must stand to take a throw-in (kneeling, sitting etc. not permitted)


----------



## RedCard (Jun 6, 2018)

I read somewhere that it's a straight yellow if a player does the VAR symbol ( making the square box with their hands ). Should be no problem with the U-littles but I can see some teenage kids doing that thinking it's funny.


----------



## Socal United (Jul 3, 2018)

RedCard said:


> I read somewhere that it's a straight yellow if a player does the VAR symbol ( making the square box with their hands ). Should be no problem with the U-littles but I can see some teenage kids doing that thinking it's funny.


That is funny.  I had my 2012's last night, they were making that symbol for every ball on the line for a shot or any foul and I said play on.  It was a riot, but I am happy as it means they were all watching the games.  We spent 15 minutes at practice watching the Neymar memes.  He is getting destroyed on twitter, thank goodness.


----------



## Surfref (Jul 3, 2018)

RedCard said:


> I read somewhere that it's a straight yellow if a player does the VAR symbol ( making the square box with their hands ). Should be no problem with the U-littles but I can see some teenage kids doing that thinking it's funny.


I think it would be funny if a player or coach in a youth game gave me the VAR symbol. And, I went over to the parent video taping and took a look at their video then told them no change in the call.  I am just not sure everyone would understand my warped sense of humor.


----------



## espola (Jul 3, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I think it would be funny if a player or coach in a youth game gave me the VAR symbol. And, I went over to the parent video taping and took a look at their video then told them no change in the call.  I am just not sure everyone would understand my warped sense of humor.


I think it would be funnier if you changed your call.


----------



## outside! (Jul 5, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I think it would be funny if a player or coach in a youth game gave me the VAR symbol. And, I went over to the parent video taping and took a look at their video then told them no change in the call.  I am just not sure everyone would understand my warped sense of humor.


I will act like I don't know you if you want to look at my camera.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

With regard to this change:
• *There is no limit on the number of substitutes that can be used in youth football*

Does anyone know if this will be adopted by Cal-South/SCDSL?
What about DA?  DA is youth football.  Clearly the smart people at IFAB realize that kids don't need to be playing a full game like adults.  Will the USSF believe them?


----------



## espola (Jul 17, 2018)

timbuck said:


> With regard to this change:
> • *There is no limit on the number of substitutes that can be used in youth football*
> 
> Does anyone know if this will be adopted by Cal-South/SCDSL?
> What about DA?  DA is youth football.  Clearly the smart people at IFAB realize that kids don't need to be playing a full game like adults.  Will the USSF believe them?


The actual words from FIFA/IFAB are "Youth football competitions have freedom to decide on the number of substitutes'.

http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/682/132133_310518_Law_by_Law_summary.pdf


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

espola said:


> The actual words from FIFA/IFAB are "Youth football competitions have freedom to decide on the number of substitutes'.
> 
> http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/682/132133_310518_Law_by_Law_summary.pdf


At least it's not confusing.  This appears to be a document with more detail:  http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/653/131333_200418_Laws_of_the_Game_2018_19_Law_Changes_explained_EN.pdf

It says:  For any level except competitions involving the 1st team of clubs in the top division or ‘A’ international teams: •
-     the number of substitutes each team is permitted to use up to a maximum of five, except in youth football where the maximum will be determined by the national association, confederation or FIFA.

 Explanation:
 The 2017 AGM approved a major revision of the Modifications to the Laws of the Game which aimed to increase participation but unintendedly reduced participation in some countries which already allowed 7 substitutes in youth football; this clarification therefore enables more than 5 substitutes to be used in youth football.


Regardless -  Does anyone know if SCDSL will allow for more subs in the 05 and older brackets this year than they did last year?  Or if there is any impact on DA or ECNL?


----------



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

timbuck said:


> At least it's not confusing.  This appears to be a document with more detail:  http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/653/131333_200418_Laws_of_the_Game_2018_19_Law_Changes_explained_EN.pdf
> 
> It says:  For any level except competitions involving the 1st team of clubs in the top division or ‘A’ international teams: •
> -     the number of substitutes each team is permitted to use up to a maximum of five, except in youth football where the maximum will be determined by the national association, confederation or FIFA.
> ...


The SCDSL has no limits on the number of subs, subject only to the size of the roster.  So generally about 7.  The limitation is returning to the field and this is really just preventing unnecessary delay tactics.  The one rentry rule is fair.  Thus, a player can come off, talk to coach, take a break, and then go back in.  If that player comes off again, he/she has to wait for the next half at the younger age.

SCDSL

2005 and 2004 One re-entry per half, per player. Each half stands on its own 
2003 and older No re-entry in the first half and one re-entry in the second half, per player. Each half stands on its own.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

MWN said:


> The SCDSL has no limits on the number of subs, subject only to the size of the roster.  So generally about 7.  The limitation is returning to the field and this is really just preventing unnecessary delay tactics.  The one rentry rule is fair.  Thus, a player can come off, talk to coach, take a break, and then go back in.  If that player comes off again, he/she has to wait for the next half at the younger age.
> 
> SCDSL
> 
> ...


I’d argue that it only makes sense with regard to trying to stop coaches from wasting time. 

03 girls play 40 minute halves. If a kid gets slightl hurt in the 1st 5 minutes of a half and subs off, she can’t get back on the field for 35 minutes. 
If a kid is coming back from an injury and isn’t match fit for 40 non-stop minutes, then coming off and going back on will help her. 

What are we preparing these girls for?  
High school play= unlimited subs
College play = unlimited subs

How many kids will make a national team roster?  Those kids are on DA teams.  Their sub rules suck even more, but at least it makes sense because of the next step on those player’s “pathways”. 

There are certainly teams out there that run a constant heavy press and would sub every 3 minutes to keep fresh legs.   But at least girls are getting playing time that way.


----------



## espola (Jul 17, 2018)

MWN said:


> The SCDSL has no limits on the number of subs, subject only to the size of the roster.  So generally about 7.  The limitation is returning to the field and this is really just preventing unnecessary delay tactics.  The one rentry rule is fair.  Thus, a player can come off, talk to coach, take a break, and then go back in.  If that player comes off again, he/she has to wait for the next half at the younger age.
> 
> SCDSL
> 
> ...


Who keeps track?


----------



## espola (Jul 17, 2018)

timbuck said:


> I’d argue that it only makes sense with regard to trying to stop coaches from wasting time.
> 
> 03 girls play 40 minute halves. If a kid gets slightl hurt in the 1st 5 minutes of a half and subs off, she can’t get back on the field for 35 minutes.
> If a kid is coming back from an injury and isn’t match fit for 40 non-stop minutes, then coming off and going back on will help her.
> ...


Colledge play is not unlimited subs, but it does allow essentially unlimited rosters.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

Sorry about that.  You are right. One re-entry per player in college, right?

But 8th graders arent the same as college kids.


----------



## espola (Jul 17, 2018)

timbuck said:


> Sorry about that.  You are right. One re-entry per player in college, right?
> 
> But 8th graders arent the same as college kids.


Different in first and second half (and in first and second overtime periods).


----------



## espola (Jul 18, 2018)

espola said:


> Different in first and second half (and in first and second overtime periods).


I thought I had added more details to this, but it's not here, so try again --

From NCAA 2018 and 2019 Soccer Rules, pp 20-21.

3.6 Re-entry Conditions, Restrictions, Exceptions 

3.6.1 Field Players. With reference to periods of play, substitutions are permitted as follows:

First half: no re-entry. 
Second half: one re-entry. 
First overtime period: no re-entry. 
Second overtime period: no re-entry.

3.6.2 Goalkeepers. With reference to periods of play, substitutions are permitted as follows: 

First half: One re-entry. 
Second half: One re-entry.
First overtime period: One re-entry. 
Second overtime period: One re-entry.​


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jul 21, 2018)

Surfref said:


> • If the referee plays advantage for a DOGSO the offender is cautioned (YC) whether or not a goal is scored
> • Where 2 separate cautionable (YC) offences are committed in close proximity, both cautions (YCs) must be issued-off offense; same principle if one is a sending-off offense


These both seem like huge rule changes to me. A player who recklessly tackles an opponent and then stands up and kicks the ball away to waste time. That is essentially a double yellow=red straight off the bat. Seems a little heavy handed, especially if we view card giving as a game management tool. Usually a single yellow is enough to stop those shenanigans in its tracks. With the extreme case exception of 5 minutes left in the game and the player does both on purpose. That is potentially tournament changing for the next game, but not necessarily game changing.

And the DOGSO yellow after advantage. That doesn't seem fair to me at all. You are telling me that if the girl in the below video misses, then the girl that brought her down would only receive a yellow? Just because the attacker had the stones to fight through the red card offense? 





Also, that makes calling advantage after a DOGSO foul a huge judgement call. I am potentially giving a yellow card + low percentage free kick or red card - 10 men for rest of match, game changing decision. I'm not really being coherent I think. Also, when do these changes go into effect again? If it was within last 2 weeks, then I know an assessor who owes someone an apology for the DOGSO advantage yellow thingy.​


----------



## RedCard (Jul 29, 2018)

It’s kind of funny that they finally included “biting” in TLOTG, seeing that the famous Suárez biting incident happened 4 years ago...


----------



## Surfref (Jul 30, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> These both seem like huge rule changes to me. A player who recklessly tackles an opponent and then stands up and kicks the ball away to waste time. That is essentially a double yellow=red straight off the bat. Seems a little heavy handed, especially if we view card giving as a game management tool. Usually a single yellow is enough to stop those shenanigans in its tracks. With the extreme case exception of 5 minutes left in the game and the player does both on purpose. That is potentially tournament changing for the next game, but not necessarily game changing.
> 
> And the DOGSO yellow after advantage. That doesn't seem fair to me at all. You are telling me that if the girl in the below video misses, then the girl that brought her down would only receive a yellow? Just because the attacker had the stones to fight through the red card offense?
> 
> ...


Completely agree with you.  I can see some referees no using common sense and being too quick to issue the double yellows.  For instance if a players gets a yellow for a reckless tackle them gets mouthy with the ref and the ref issues the second yellow for dissent.

I don't think the DOGSO will be that big of a deal since only the referee really knows if the advantage was for DOGSO related.  If the foul occurs in the penalty area I always wait and see if the ball goes into the goal before I blow the whistle.  The last thing I want to do is blow the whistle for a DOGSO and PK too quickly and have the ball roll into the goal as the whistle is blown.


----------



## sweeperkeeper (Jul 31, 2018)

Surfref said:


> Completely agree with you.  I can see some referees no using common sense and being too quick to issue the double yellows.  For instance if a players gets a yellow for a reckless tackle them gets mouthy with the ref and the ref issues the second yellow for dissent.
> 
> I don't think the DOGSO will be that big of a deal since only the referee really knows if the advantage was for DOGSO related.  If the foul occurs in the penalty area I always wait and see if the ball goes into the goal before I blow the whistle.  The last thing I want to do is blow the whistle for a DOGSO and PK too quickly and have the ball roll into the goal as the whistle is blown.



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.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Aug 1, 2018)

sweeperkeeper said:


> 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! (Aug 1, 2018)

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 (Aug 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2018)

baldref said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Nonsense.


----------



## baldref (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 3, 2018)

baldref said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Watch what happens  in the first 3 minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Because he got the ball first..."  

"It happens all over the world..."

Please continue.


----------



## Surfref (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Watch what happens  in the first 3 minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Surfref said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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".
> 
> ...


disagree again. sent off immediately.


----------



## baldref (Aug 3, 2018)

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


----------



## Surfref (Aug 3, 2018)

baldref said:


> .....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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Surfref said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> ......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 (Aug 3, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Aug 5, 2018)

watfly said:


> 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.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 5, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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".
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 5, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> 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.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Aug 5, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> 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.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Aug 5, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> 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.


----------

