I do agree with this. I'll occasionally tell players U-14 and below to shake hands, but probably not a good idea at any older. At best, you're being needlessly humiliating and condescending, and at worst you've opened the door for violent conduct, ranging from an excessively hard squeezing of the hand to an undefended punch in the face. Sometimes the players will elect to shake hands themselves, but if not, I sure am not going to make my job harder by trying to make them.
Exaclty. It might be good for the peanut gallery to tone it down a bit. You weren't there. Was it handbags at five paces, or Foreman-Ali? You read the words, and form a picture in your mind, and come to a conclusion. Who knows how close your imagination is to what really happened? I read the same material, and, like Jayhonk, think "handbags, give em both cautions and tell them to siddown and cool off." I need to tell the rest of the players that I'm not going to tolerate this behavior today. Was it more than handbags? We don't know. We weren't there. All we know is that the referee, on that day, in that match, decided he could send the message with an AC, and he turned out to be right.
Exactly, and for all we know that's what happened in the OP's case. I would never try to make HS players shake hands any more than I would ask them to kiss and make up, but I've seen it happen on their own initiative any number of times (the handshake, not the kissing).
This could be true for any red card situation in many games. It does not make it right when a red card is clearly called for in the Law. PH
COL. (Chuckling out loud.) Well, with guys, anyway. NEVER gonna see that in a girls' game. With guys, you may have guys that will pat each other on the back or the butt, shake hands or even say "good tackle." May. But I can't recall that I've ever seen that in a women's game.
Sorry - was confusing my direction as a USSF referee here - ATR says: "Only in the case of attempting to strike in which there is no contact should even the possibility of a caution be considered." Law 12 says DFK foul is strikes or attempts to strike but as you said not specifically any card Thanks for making me look!
My team was playing after this game. Not a partisan of either team to be clear. The closed fist came above the shoulder. I was in the stands and confirmed with others what I saw. Crowd roar was really enough though. Although I will admit it was more of a "get away from me" punch and not one he was trying to connect on. An obvious punch but not one with malicious intent. Or at least a ton of it. Idk if this is extremely relevant but after the throw-in, white sent a ball a little too long and as the goalie went sliding to collapse on it, another player in white challenged with a sliding poke/tackle. Toe was down but was clearly late on the challenge. Another no call but what surprised me the most was that the blue team didn't throw a fit after either situation. The earlier scuffle was soon forgotten and only the goalkeeper asked for a foul for the challenge on the through ball, not the rest of the team. I think the blue team was either ignorant of what should/shouldn't be a call or was too afraid to talk to the ref.
I love reading these posts because I know what types of referees that I have worked with 30 years would have the same reaction. Your anal retentive types who most likely have never played the game at a serious level and can memorize every law and follow every directive to the letter are crying on this board for a card. The more anal the official, the darker the color of the card. The kid needs to be taught a lesson and he will just do it again the next game are often used defenses. These are the guys who in a 10-0 blow out will yell and scream if you call a game a couple of minutes early even though everyone wants the game to be done with. They do not consider what type of game they are doing, what the skill level is, etc. they see the game as being the same no matter what the level or league. These guys are less likely to use advantage and call a lot of trifling fouls. Your non anal retentive types are more likely to have played the game at a serious level, who simply want to go have a good, but fair, game and understand what is going on in players minds. They are only concerned about what is in the best interest of the game at that point. They use man management and they talk to the players instead of simply reaching for their pocket. These referees are more respected by the players because players understand at that level, who is a top level referee who wants the game to be fluid. They are more concerned about not effecting the outcome of the game. They will more likely use advantage and let the players decide the match.
That's the thing, LOTG do not clearly call for a red card in this situation. LOTG call striking, or attemping to strike a DFK foul. LOTG call for VC to be a red card and send off. Nowhere does it say attempting to strike is clearly VC. It can be clearly VC as in a round-house sucker punch that missed. Or it can not be VC, all situations are different and a good referee is always looking for options within the LOTG to manage the game and players.
The laws don't specifically call for a red but there can be little doubt that this form of striking or attempt to strike was anything other than an attempt to injure. Per the contact above the shoulder paper this would be use of a hard surface like the elbow as a weapon, or at the very least, a tool. Red most likely but at least a yellow. This is all based on my reading of how the incident was originally described. Yes we have some leeway as referees but at some point we have to use common sense and not be last weeks ref, I highly doubt the situation will be remembered in context if the ref does give a red for this in the next.
Agree with you. What I don't "get" is how it isn't at least unsporting. Third man in, swing that doesn't connect. YHTBT obviously, but how isn't it at least a very loud AC accompanied with a YC. No way I want that guy on the pitch.
Absolutely total crap. Do you give out a resume to the players when you do the coin toss? That is about as big a generalization I have ever read on this board. The overwhelming majority of officials in most major sports have never played the game at a serious level. Most players, unfortunately, wouldn't realize they had a good, solid, game reading referee in their presence. Nor should they. The kid who throws a punch as I read in the OP (and as I visualized it) must go. It has nothing to do with the next game, which I'm not refereeing. It has everything to do with the game at hand. I do all of the things you mentioned in your second paragraph, and some of the things you mentioned in the first. No, I never played the game at a serious level. That is certainly no hindrance. And as a word of caution, I once was involved with shortening a game because that was what the coaches "wanted". The next call I received was from the SRA. Shortening the game voided it, and a coach who was dismissed was reinstated, allowing a State Cup match to be replayed with a different result. No, it wasn't a State Cup match that was shortened, it was another match with another team the coach ran. Since his card was retained by the referee on the shortened match, he was unable to coach later that day in a State Cup match.
I think all that want to have made their opinions on the OP incident known. For any referees who might be on the sidelines of this discussion, trying to learn something, I would like to give a piece of advice from my own experience: If you have a squabble that you need to break up between 2 players... break it up, tell them to knock it off, and show them the Yellow. Unless you carry an air of "Don't f#@k with me", just separating the two knuckleheads is not enough. By carding them, you gain leverage to take out the garbage if needed later. But equally important, maybe more so, is to let the rest of the players (and coaches) know that "we are not doing that today". Most teams have several players who will escalate their roughness if the referee will allow. Don't give them a green light. During my first year, I had a U15 game where two players get tangled, then get irritated and get chesty, then a third player barges in! I separated them, settled everybody down, and got on with the game. I thought I was being the wise ref who calms the waters. I also thought it would look stupid to just card the third man in. (?!) So I carded no one. I lost control of one team and the rest of the game was a mess. (Although I later found that that coach had a weird hatred of all referees.) Anyway, what I should have done is "Knock it off, play the game", YC, YC, YC. Another time, I had a couple of more years under my belt, but it was the first time working a particular Men's league. So, much as I hate to admit it, a little uncertainty might have crept into my demeanor: Squabble, intervene, no yellow, no leverage. Later on, one of the guilty parties causes more mischief. OK, here is your first Yellow. Stupid me. Anyway, that's my advice, FWIW.
Wow nonya has just lumped anyone who cards a thrown punch in with all the clueless newbs. That is the most arrogant posting I've seen on this board. I'm sorry I prefer not to have punches thrown on my field and will make amends by this weekend allowing choke holds with my response being a sternly but oh so intelligent raised eyebrow in their general direction. I aspire to become one of the elite
A little condescending????? All I know, he calls others anal, but as the old saying goes, "it takes one to know one", plus, "there's always one A$$hle in the crowd"
I think a lot of this discussion revolves around whether some referees can successfully manage a highly charged situation without plastic. Yes, there are 100% misconduct situations. I don't know whether this one was or not because I wasn't there. I will say that some referees, at least on some games, can be so completely in tune with the players that they understand what action the players expect in response to what's happening on the field. I won't claim that I have that feel for the players' attitude every time, but it is a great feeling when you have it. It comes, I think, from a lot of experience of picking up on small indicators. There may not be a consensus amongst the players on every game. There may be a feeling by some of 'no blood, no foul' and other players thinking/saying 'ref, he touched me.' When you've got that situation, you are going to have a long day and there isn't much you can do about it. Call the game that the players expect. It appears that, in this case, the referee understood what the players expected that day.
"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" The above is the description in the OP post. The only issue to discuss is whether the the poster knew what a punch was or not. if we make the assumption that he does know what a punch is, that has to be a red card. enough of the YHTBT crap. you shouldnt have to be there to know a punch is a sending off
maybe true. but as refs/coaches/players there are some situations where you need absolutes. Period. Consider a situation where it is a highly competitive game. adoloscent boys. tense. players giving their all. breakaway and an attacker gets a ball played in, turns to shoot and the AR flags offside. He jumps up and down punches the air and lets out a loud AHHHHHHH, claps his hands furiously and trots back into position. the tension of the game you can understand him letting out some steam. but you can understand the reaction, no dissent, he disagreed with the decision but not really challenging it. Now, same scenario and the attacker steams over to the AR and goes ##$$, you #$$$$ cheating **&&&&. Both scenarios in this tense game the attacker is unhappy with the outcome. In the former there is no dessent. in the latter clearly so. do you let him off because in the context of the game you can understand his frustration? Since you have played the game you can relate to how teams might be frustrated at perceived bad calls. What if he ran over to the official and politely said "you are a cheat" do you let him off the hook them? how about if he said to himself but loud enough for everyone to hear "cheating f***? the point i am making is that if there is abusive language or implying a cheating ref, there has to be an absolute response regardless the context. in the scenarios of the tension is common but only one reaction is okay even though the context is the same.
I can't believe I'm getting into this thread. However, it just reminds me of everything that I hate about the refs that act like insecure traffic cops. Give them a whistle and a law book and they can go take care of any crime that happens, because "it's clearly right here under Law 12, subsection 432 (a) of my law book." Someone posts a situation that I, as did a few others, interpreted as possibly a red. Seems like a player was laying on another for too long and the player on the bottom got fed up with it. We start the thread with some polite, eyebrow-raising-type questions of "really? This is cool to you?". Then we digress into absolutes like "never in my game" and other similar phrases. I can't help but picture all of you guys as the big-talking, boisterous ref in the tent that is the guy that no one wants to work with because you're too black and white. You eat all the pizza while I'm out at the field, as well. Then, after those posts wear out their welcome, we progress to "total crap", "condescending", and "asshole" because someone wants to typecast you guys. Sorry, but by responding like that, you proved you were in the first group nonya described. Consider this your intervention. It's weird how no one that is saying "red card without a doubt" has quoted any of this from the follow-up: Or even this from the first post: Suddenly this forum's use of "YHTBT" goes out the window? We all know this is a red card? Give me a break.
Anyone swinging a closed fist at anyone else is gone. I don't care is he is a sissy soccer player and not a hockey break your nose kinda puncher. I think all you "I'm so much smarter because I understand the psyche of the tormented soul who made a pseudo punching motion but really only meant to express his inner feelings nonviolently" posters are giving the rest of is a bad name. A SWING WITH A CLOSED FIST is by law assault and can land you in jail. There is no place for it in the pitch and those who think they're so much better are just lowering the bar. Maybe you watched too much NY charity hockey.
Maybe we can stop making huge generalizations about each other based on one single play that none of us has actually seen? Jesus folks, we get enough shit from the sidelines, we don't need it here as well. People can disagree, or have different styles, and still be a competent referee, believe it or not.