I was at a Texas high school playoff game last week. Third round so all of the really bad teams are out and every team is at least mildly competent and competitive. Two minutes in, Blue6 puts a hard, fair challenge on White8 to win the ball. Ball trickles out of bounds, White throw, but two players are tangled on the ground with Blue6 on top. White8 looks like he's mad about the no-call and how long Blue6 is taking to get off of him. White8 gets up and throws an obviously punch but misses when Blue6 steps back. Punch wasn't hard enough to knock the kid out, more like a swipe with a closed fist. Blue6's teammate sets up and chest bumps White8 to the ground. Referee saw everything. Calls over Blue6's teammate and White8, has both players shake hands and continues to the throw-in. No cards given, foul called or time stopped. Crowd cheers but not sure why. I guess they thought it was just a gentlemen's agreement. Game proceeds and no more scuffles occur although intensity is still high. From what I've read, this board frowns on the avoidance to give cards just because players make mistakes or the refs don't want to ruin the game. So question is not so much what the ref should have done but how to discourage the mentality of just letting players sort it out without the referee really covering his responsibilities. Is that on the organization (UIL, for Texas high school) to really press their standards or is this just unavoidable with lower levels? Or something else? (I'm not a referee, if that wasn't clear enough.)
Refs don't give cards, players earn them. Sounds like they earned them here. Can't fathom not giving the cards here.
Depending on the area, most of those games were handled by high level referees. Many are nationals, most are states, a few are 7s or state candidates. Likely it was handled with a stern word or something less visible than a traditional ass chewing. Mentally, I can picture this not requiring a card and maybe better served not giving it that early.
"White8 gets up and throws an obviously punch but misses when Blue6 steps back." Are you kidding me? You can picture this not requiring a card?
Geez. I suppose it's possible that the lack of punch in the punch could come across to the referee as more of a shot across the bow than violent conduct, much like a chest bump could be below the threshold of violent. The reaction of the crowd is a big selling point that this whole thing was handled acceptably well. I am tempted to say excellent restraint exercised by the referee, although I doubt that I would have let them both go without a caution.
This works, for that referee, in that match. The part I hate about our wonderful, high level, charismatic referee is that the kid didn't learn anything about consequences. The rest of us get to deal with this kid next week and then we're the "not good" referee for pulling a card. No. Don't put this guy on a pedestal. He looks good but he hasn't done you or the kids any favors here. Just himself.
He threw a punch and you think it was seen by the referee? And he wasn't shown the red card, and there are some on this board who think that's a good thing? As that meme said a couple of posts ago....What? Anyone who wouldn't give a red card in this situation please explain why.
just to throw some philosophy in here, is your responsibilty to the game you are reffing or to The Game? if your game does not require the card ITOOTRshould you do it anyway for the greater good?
I (probably) would have given the plastic here. The second blue player is "the third man in," and that's a classic card, since it potentially escalates a situation that may have been just between the other two guys in a way that can produce a brawl, even though that didn't happen in this case. However, while I am not from Texas, I can envision an environment in which referees may not want to give red cards in these situations, unless they "really have to," since the red carded player from the winning team is out of the next game. I did a state semi-final some years ago in which a guy did something stupid in the last two minutes of the game that his team was winning, so he didn't get to play in the championship game, his senior year. And, yes, his team lost in the final. What if, what if, what if??? I can also envision referees thinking that way because their association, their assignor, the schools/coaches and/or the state high school organization has "encouraged" referees to avoid red cards as much as possible. Whether they should nor not is a different question, frankly above the pay grade of most of us. But, philosophically, there is an interesting divide here. Are cards to be given automatically, regardless of circumstances, or are they merely tools to control the players' behavior, i.e. if there were no further problems with these guys, then a card wouldn't be necessary, at least in retrospect.
You can debate philosophy all you want, but if you don't punish someone for an attempted punch, they're more likely to do it again. The next time, they might connect and seriously hurt someone. Still happy with your management skills then?
Ah..... I get it now. Refs don't give cards, players earn them. Sounds like they earned them here. Can't fathom not awarding the cards here. Sound better?
I'd like to expand on my earlier thoughts. Let's assume that this is a competitive 4A or 5A sectional semifinal (most likely given the description). Yes, these should be two very good teams. And a very good referee crew. We are 2 minutes in. Not much time for much to happen in the game. The game shouldn't need a card at this point. Period. The referee doesn't need the card either, as a send off here would completely define the game and could actually result in a loss of match control. Now there is a fair argument that the player needs the card here - especially that third man in (I'm giving that one no question but I'm also working to prevent that card from happening in the first place). The attempted punch is either a red or nothing and I'm inclined to go no plastic on that. And again, I'm also going to try to prevent that in the first place. But I have no problem with how this was handled and I've seen it handled that way before. I'm not going to stop the referee if I'm on his line and say you have to do XYZ here. It's taking a risk and it sounds like the payoff was huge as there were no more incidents in the game.
As to dealing with the kid that threw the punch in the future, if they loose there is no next week. If they won, they played tonight. The referees that were in the middle tonight are more than capable of dealing with any situation.
I don't see how you can present plastic to the third man and let the one who threw the punch get off free and clear. I tend to lean toward red for the punch and red for the chest bump/knockdown to the third guy. But I'd rather see no cards over a single one.
You are of course assuming the referee thought it was an attempted punch. Is it possible the Referee saw an attempted push?
Yes sorry should have been clearer. If no card for the punch then certainly not giving the yellow for the other. My point was it should be managed such that the punch doesn't happen, and it does I'm not giving to either here.
Personally, my thoughts on cards--especially in more heated games--is that they are there to be a game management tool for me . I'm very selfish about how I use my cards; I don't try to use them for any concept of "fairness" (okay maybe DOGSO is an exception for this one), I don't give them because I think a player "deserves" one, and if I can help it, I try to use them as sparingly as possible and liberally interpret the laws of the game in order to do so. Rather, I think of them almost exclusively as a way to maintain control over the match. So if a referee is able to maintain control over the match without giving cards here, then I can't justify saying he was wrong. Now, it's quite possible that he was simply lucky that he was able to keep control, but I'd have to have seen the game to determine that. But I definitely consider myself (and I know some people here disagree strongly on this) in the camp that a referee should do the all that he can to end the game with 22 players on the pitch without losing control, even if it means going soft on some situations that in a vacuum would warrant a card.
Haha. I'm being a bit extreme in my wording; I will still enforce the laws of the game in a match I have control over, such as FRD, delaying the restart, entering/exiting without permissions, etc. But my overall point is that in tough games, it can be beneficial to conserve your cards so that they can make a larger statement later.