The trouble is the referee lit a fuse without knowing how long it was. In this case it was longer than the game, but that's luck, not skill. He's done no one, not himself, not the teams, not the player, any real favor. He's certainly deprived the offended team the opportunity to play up a man that they deserved. Yes, when a player attempts to hit someone the game needs a red. It's not even been a year. Have we already forgotten that a single punch can kill on the soccer field?
Since none of us can predict the future, the attempted punch not dealt with by the referee turned out okay here. But, what happens if the match is 5-0 in the second half? And retaliation is in the wind? If a punch is thrown in one of my games, the thrower goes. I cannot fathom a scenario where he stays. I don't care if it is in the first minute, or a state final, or worse his last game where there are no suspensions to serve. The thrower of a punch has to go.
There is no decision that results in nothing. If you go with affecting the game because its 11 v 10 or 10 v 10 and its the second minute, then you are affecting the game by not having it 11 v 10 just as much. If a senior does not wish to sit out most of this game and maybe the next or their "last game" then they need to play within the LOTG. What if one team is undefeated, and has won 2 straight state championships, and is the utmost in sportsmanship, grades, - the model team and players/coaches that everyone loves. It's late in the second half, game is tied, their opponent, who has a terrible reputation, you have already sent the coach off and awarded several YC for dissent and generally nasty play - is attacking and scores. Everyone would want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose so you disallow the goal? Of course that's silly but a goal is scored if... and a player is shown the red card if... Striking or ATTEMPTING to strike is not judging the severity of a foul. If you are watching play and a player goes in hard you judge if it was careless, reckless or excessive force - judgement. I do not see how you can judge a closed fist swing, no matter how hard, to be anything but an attempt to strike, if you see it. If you and no one on the crew does then of course no where to go as we must be sure but in this case it was seen, it was a closed fist swing so just as the goal stands as it was 100% within the LOTG so must an attempt to strike be a Red Card.
What you describe is an advanced concept used by experienced referees to talk to other experienced referees. Such ideas are a huge impediment when trying to teach new referees to use the tools given to them to control the match. Only once they've passed the Misconduct Tools 101 should they begin thinking of alternate ways to deal with problems. So I ask you to please consider your audience before saying this stuff. We imagine that readers here are all experienced referees, but I guarantee there are new and potential referees reading in the background. Fomenting the myth that "only bad referees use cards" really hurts us. That's not what you said but that's what people hear.
I think "game management" is being thrown around far too loosely as an excuse for not giving cards here. There are times when things are gray enough when something that might normally be a card can be downgraded, or when you might card an offense that's lighter than would normally earn a card, if you think these decisions can help keep the game calm, or organized. But there are also absolutes. If there's an clear DOGSO in the 1st minute, you're not going to say that the game doesn't need a red card that early. And similarly (but yes, not identically), if there's obvious VC, it should be a red card, regardless of how it's going to affect the game later. Game management is what you do after the red card in this case, not an excuse not to give it.
Anyone who would see a player throw a punch and not give a red card should not be refereeing. Your #1 priority is to ensure the safety of the players. There is a reason that a punch (with or without contact) is an automatic ejection (and suspension) in the NBA, MLB, NFL, and (AFAIK) all college sports.
If you don't give a red for the "swing and a miss" here, how do you give a red card when a player from the other team gets pissed off and does the same thing in the 78th minute? Or better yet, what happens when you don't send him off for the attempted strike in the 2nd minute, and he does it again in the 30th, except this time connects and succeeds in serious physical damage. In this society, you don't think you'll get dragged into court with a lawsuit. "Sorry judge, I decided to ignore the Laws of the Game in respect to violent conduct and allowed a player clearly prone to violence to stay on the field and commit further violence. But no, I don't think you should take my house, car, and all of my assets to pay this enormous civil suit." Good luck with that. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. Give the red for the punch. Red or yellow for 3rd man in, depending on the situation, and be done with it. Kid doesn't want to sit out, he shouldn't take a swing at somebody.
careful now. dont want to give any one ideas about trying to get out of the current mortgage situation.
Start asking players and coaches what they want out of referees. It will not be... "let me do what I want" "only call the fouls that need calling" "the game didn't need it" "charismatic, man-manager" "Grade 6 or higher" "FIFA referee" "See? This guy doesn't use cards. What an awesome guy!" I guarantee you that once your sample size gets large enough, the dominant emergent answer will be "consistency." Now what they see as consistent won't match actual consistency but that is merely a skewed reflection of what they believe they're getting. They still want it.
My experience is that there are two types of referees who would use a "shake hands" for misconduct. The first is an inexperienced referee who is trying to manage the game without cards. They don't know when cards are essential. The second is the elite referee who knows how to manage the game when players engage in acts of temporary insanity. Their ability to read all the circumstances of each player on the field, their understanding of how far they can allow things to progress, and their skill to adjust the flow of the game to bring it back to a fair and enjoyable match, let's them be successful with this technique. Me, I need two yellow cards here. I'm not good enough. (I'm only good enough to spot the ones who are. The scary ones are in the first group, but think they are in the second.) PS: One of the elite became an assessor. He told me that he now has to use more cards in his matches because referees might do what he does rather than what he tells them.
What he is saying is that good referees can get away with not using cards. And, I don't think any developing referees would hear that and say to themselves, "I should try that." Hasn't everyone seen the Sorcerer's Apprentice, and noted how well that works out? Actually, what sjquakes is saying is that he holds his cards in his pocket to use later. By far the easiest route is two Reds. This might be the 'right' path is this particular case. I could also see two YC. This is HS, so the perps have to sit and chat with their coaches. I can see certain referees going the way that this referee went. (It is Texas, after all.) For those who say that there is no other course of action than Red, is that how you ref every one of your games? The situation is fairly common: high temperatures, collision, entanglement, slow to separate, frustration, lash out at the opponent, miss. Do you show red for this every time? U-12, Adult, High School. If you do, fine. Would you card Beckham's WC98 kickout every time? If you would, fine. But, I am not sure most referees would; and not because they are failures.
A punch? A guy takes a swing at someone? Every single time. Don't care what the level is. Are you a predictor of the future? Because if you aren't, then you have no idea when the retaliation or finishing of the miss will occur. I don't want that to happen in my game.
First, the answer is yes. Any time I see obvious VC, I'll give a red card. Any time, any game, any situation. Second, I think you're watering down the issue at the end of your comment. Let me quote the original post again, "White8 gets up and throws an obviously punch" We're not talking about merely lashing out...we're talking about throwing a punch. If he connects, there's the potential of serious injury. This is a red card every time.
Unless HS rules have different definitions, that is not quite right. This in nitpicky, but nothnig in Law 12 defines striking or attempting to strike as a send-off offense. Viloent conduct -- "excessive force or brutality" -- is the offense for which a send-off is given. While a "real" punch or attempted punch is always going to be VC in by book, a pansy get-off-of-me-swing/push might well be careless or reckless striking or attempted striking,* but lack the element of "excessive force" that transforms it into a send-off offense. This is so much of YHTBT event -- and we have no idea what the referee saw or how he interpretted what he saw. Depending on the exact nature of the swing, I could easily see a send-off for th punch being the only appropriate call. I could see what he did being perfectly acceptable. And, very readily, can I see Mr. Wickham's inclination to have two cautions for USB. (As a general matter, I see going the same punishment for both miscreants -- unless there is a very appreicable differnce between the conduct, differential treatment will be an enemy to game control.) ______ *If no contact is made, it would have to be attempted striking, as attempted pushing is not a foul.
Never. But I have seen a swipe with a closed fist, occurring out of frustration, that misses; for which I have shown a Yellow card.
The original post was made by someone who is not a referee, by his own statement, and, therefore, is a partisan of one team. So he may have seen what happened with a, shall we say, certain inclination. It must be said that players and teenage boys in particular will not infrequently have hands and arms flying in random directions, particularly as they try to get their feet back under control. That doesn't excuse everything and anything those hands and arms do but it certainly requires me to interpret the player's intent, especially when there is no actual contact. I double rep DWickham's comments above. Quod licet Joves, quod non licet boves. Loosely translated, the gods can do things that mere mortals can not. Yes, sometimes less skilled referees try to do things that they aren't capable of pulling off yet. I've seen, for example, long experienced referees greet well known coaches by their first name. You can see from the ARs' body language that they're thinking, "That's so cool. I need to be that way." So they try it on their next game and the coach's reaction is, essentially, 'who the hell are you?' It doesn't work for them because they don't have the hash marks yet to pull it off.
I'm with you 100% Rufusabc - what would have happened if the punch connected - just a simple foul? What if it knocked the opponent out? Just a caution. What would require this so called "referee" to sanction the punch thrower - if he murdered someone on the field? Remember Zindane in the world cup - "simple" chest bump got him sent off.
I have been an AR twice in matches where there has been a kick out at a player by someone on the ground. Both times I asked for yellow. After both matches, the referee told me that if he had seen what I had described then it would have been red. That changed my mind on benefit of the doubt on "handbags". Pushing and the occasional forceful shove happen in the u16-19 age bracket and above. But, the throwing of a punch is well above a push or a shove. Of course, Law5 does a great job in explaining we weren't there, and it is hard to distinguish when a partisan is involved, but IF a punch is thrown in one of my matches, then the thrower has to go. The only time I had a full scale brawl in one of my matches was a late season u19b's match where behind my back an incident had occured. Even though my ARs had been pre gamed to watch for everything off the ball especially when I had turned to go up field, he failed to flag it. (He admitted he let it go). 45 minutes later the guy got his revenge during a routine foul. He ran 50 yards to hit his attacker. 5 reds and that was the end of that match. Nothing as much of a peep had occured for those 45 minutes. I do not tolerate a punch. Or now, kick outs. A little push and shove, yes. But anything above that and you will be gone.
Haha I knew there would be some vehement disagreement. I do want to clarify what I meant though, just so as not to be misinterpreted. First of all, I do think that a referee needs to enforce the laws of the game. If there is a case of clear violent conduct, you should send the player off, regardless of how the match is going. But what I do believe is that you can and should have a sliding scale of what s violent conduct or not based on the game you're in. From the description, the player "made a swipe with a closed fist". I don't hear that and think it is something that HAS to be a violent conduct in every game. Of course I didn't see the play, but from the picture I have in my mind it sounds like two players were tangled up and they were messy while trying to untangle each other. It also sounds like the situation diffused relatively quickly, and considering the players shook hands after it, they probably were not right on the verge of starting a fight with each other. In a playoff game that is bound to have bigger fish to fry in terms of game management, I could certainly see myself chalking that "missed punch" up to the fog of war and letting it go with some well directed ass chewing and probably some yellow cards, if necessary. I'm not going to criticize the referee here for not giving a card here without having seen the play and the context it was surrounded in, because based on the description it is more than conceivable to me that a card may not really have been necessary. Frequently, when I 'm deciding whether or not to give a card, the question pops into my head, "would both teams here be surprised if I gave a card for this?" This of course shouldn't be the only consideration we make in this decision, but I do believe it should be one of them. If the victim of the crime doesn't even expect a card, which may or may not have been the case here, a referee should really be questioning whether it is warranted. Lastly, I'm not trying to propagate the myth that if you're giving cards you're a bad referee. Cards are probably the most effective tool we have at communication, and they are there to be used. But what I will criticize is a referee who is overly reliant on using cards, without effectively exhausting his other tools of communication. I think some people under-utilize the influence we can have using all the various degrees of AC we have in our arsenal.
Around these parts, that's called a hook punch. A closed fist is meant to deal damage. Describe it as a swipe or a punch if you want, it's VC. Open-handed is potentially another story. My second biggest gripe with the referee in the OP: that he had them shake hands. That's seriously dangerous business which can turn on you in an instance. If for what ever reason you're going with an AC, do it and send them on their way, but you'll be regretting it if they use that handshake to hold the other player in place for a haymaker.
Yes, totally agree with last paragraph. This past Sunday I had a non-descript u19b match. Good play. Lots of fun, looser teams. Not a lot of fouls, but there was a nick at an ankle that caused a player to stop for a second (even though he had control and space) and kick the ball out and then turn and look at me like why didn't you call that. The opponent quickly apologized but the player wouldn't let it go. I was right there and would have called the foul if he didn't have space and possession. I got between them and called the offended player out on his behavior, and then turned to the other player and said we are all done with this? And the said the same thing back to the petulant one. And we were all done. After the match, one of the coaches came over to tell me he appreciated what I had done because his player always Stops when fouled. And by explaining to him, maybe he will change his ways.