Procedural question

[refmedic]

are there any HS refs who are tempted to just throw a straight red in place of a 2nd yellow (avoiding the soft red and punishing the team)

Lets say a team had a player who has been committing fouls all night and at 55' you issue a yellow for PI. 3 minutes later he goes in hard on an opponent which would be borderline reckless/Ex-force. Is it tempting to throw the straight red and punish the other team by playing a man down? Does this silly soft red rule influence your decision?

I think the whole "soft red" nonsense is garbage. If I can possibly find a way to justify the second yellow as a straight-red offense, I do it. 2 yellows equals a red, and I'm not going to punish the team that is behaving well. If a player earns a red card, their team is playing short. Otherwise, you are punishing the team that didn't earn the red card. If you can justify the straight red, then do it IMO.

[nonya]

Respectfully, nonya, I do not see any language in the NFHS rule book (which I now have sitting in front of me) which declares a player having received a soft red is still a player until he/she is substituted for.

THAT is the question. When does a player, cease being a player. In a substitution or yellow card, it is when a player is beckoned on to the field OR play resumes with a team down. In a red card situation where a team must play short, it is when the referee decides to issue the red card (not when the red card is actually given.) There really is no definition in a red/yellow situation except that since you can substitute it has no choice but to fall in the same category as a regular substitution or a yellow card.

12.8.2 clearly states that:



In 12.8.2 (or 12.8.3, which covers hard reds), there is no clarification on when a disqualified player ceases to be considered a player.

I agree that 3.5 states:



I do apologize, but I cannot find any reference which defines a "player" as someone on the field of play. If you could refer us to the definition which states this, I will humbly stand corrected.

Such a definition, if it exists and is truly that simple, would create indefinite further ambiguities and complications. As an example, a substitute that runs on to the field without the permission of the referee must be defined as a player. Such an individual could commit fouls, give possession to the other team when last touching the ball before it enters touch, etc.

NHFS 2008-09 rule book page 68 bb. A team member who occupies a position on the field of play...

I'm going to respectfully question the logic in this statement.

Let's say a soft red is given and the team chooses to not replace the DQ and play short. 20 minutes later, the DQ is sitting on the bench, having removed his/her equipment, and spits on an opponent or the AR as he/she runs by. So we are to presume that 20 minutes after the DQ, this person is still a player, simply because no substitute was ever beckoned?

NO, once play resumes with a man down he ceases to be a player.


What is the DQed player defined as during the time period between the administraton of the soft red and the beckoning of the sub? They are a player, but they can't play? They are not a substitute, a substituted player, or (apparently) a disqualified player.

(The actual answer to this question is probably that they are in NFHS purgatory!:p)

Yes, it is exactly the same as a yellow card. The player must come off the field and become a bench player, however until a player is beckoned on or play resumes with a man short he still a player of record.

I will also question the logic here. How is it that a hard red means the player is immediately a disqualified player, but with a soft red the player is not immediately a disqualified player? Simply because the team chooses not to name a substitute? I guess I'm confused, because the rules do clearly state that a soft red player is immediately disqualified from further participation.

Because when the hard red occurs, the team MUST play short.

I understand in both nonya's situation and todler's the reasoning for the states insisting on the hard red. The players in both situations were guilty of more severe misconduct that normally results in the teams playing short. But that does not cover the deficiencies in the rules.

Personally, I just wish NFHS would get rid of the stupid soft red rule. I've seen a lot of referees (including myself, I guitily admit) use a soft red when SFP or VC should be used. A player is on a caution, then does something deserving of a straight red, and we pull the second yellow so we don't punish the other players on his/her team. Except that in doing so, we just punished the entire other team for making them play straight up against a team that should be down.

I agree.

You're screwed either way... you go soft with a second yellow and the other team thinks you're backing off to keep the opponent from playing short. You go hard and the player's teammates are pissed you didn't just use a second yellow, and now you've punished them all. It's a dumb rule that invites criticism that we simply don't need.


I hope that clears it up

[vetshak]

nonya, thank you for pointing out that reference in the NFHS rules, I had missed it. :o

I'm not particularly pleased to see it, because as I suspected, a substitute on the field of play is a player under this definition. That opens so many cans of worms, I don't even want to go there.

I do follow your logic in determining when the cautioned player ceases to be a player. I do apologize for my skepticism, but I would rather NFHS define that clearly.

I understand the state rulings that the soft red players were "players of record" when they committed hard red offenses, but I still have a logic issue with the concept of a player who has received any type of red card being considered a player capable of committing further misconduct. This should be outlined far more clearly in the rule book. If two message board members have had it happen, then it must happen far more often than anybody would ever have expected!

And I still think they should just get rid of the soft reds...:(

[refmedic]

Just make sure that your report reflected what you actually did, and from what you say happened, you can't write it up as a straight red. The player was sent off, but you said that you allowed that team to play at full strength for the rest of the match. To me, that sounds like a soft red, even if you wanted to do something else. You have to write it up as a soft red while also reporting the other behavior and then allow the competition authority to punish the player as they see fit. It is not your responsibility, and IMO would be highly inappropriate, to doctor your report to fit what the competition authority wants it to be so as to make their life easier when disciplining the player. If you let them play with 11, then you have to write it up as a 2CT. If you made them play with 10, then you have to write it up as a straight red. You can't, however, do one thing, and then write it up as something else.

This argument about when a subsitute becomes a player under NFHS is irrelevant. WHen that subsitute becomes a player has no bearing on how we handle the guilty player that is going off. It doesn't matter when the substitute becomes a player. The player was sent-off. That player ceases to be a player, substitute, or substituted player when they are sent off. THat is why they can't remain on the bench after being dismissed (or disqualified if you want to be NFHS specific). Don't we require players that earn a red card to leave the area of the field completely? It doesn't matter when the substitute becomes a player. The referee can change his or her mind regarding this whole situation up until play is restarted. I think you CAN rescind the 2CT here and give the straight red, but I agree with Mr. Wickham that you probably shouldn't. You don't need to, and you might look spiteful and lose the respect of the players.

In this situation, write it up as a 2CT, and include the other happenings in the report, and then it's not your problem. Just make sure that you write it up how it happened, and not how someone else wants it done.

[todler]

Just make sure that your report reflected what you actually did, and from what you say happened, you can't write it up as a straight red. The player was sent off, but you said that you allowed that team to play at full strength for the rest of the match. To me, that sounds like a soft red, even if you wanted to do something else. You have to write it up as a soft red while also reporting the other behavior and then allow the competition authority to punish the player as they see fit. It is not your responsibility, and IMO would be highly inappropriate, to doctor your report to fit what the competition authority wants it to be so as to make their life easier when disciplining the player. If you let them play with 11, then you have to write it up as a 2CT. If you made them play with 10, then you have to write it up as a straight red. You can't, however, do one thing, and then write it up as something else.

This argument about when a subsitute becomes a player under NFHS is irrelevant. WHen that subsitute becomes a player has no bearing on how we handle the guilty player that is going off. It doesn't matter when the substitute becomes a player. The player was sent-off. That player ceases to be a player, substitute, or substituted player when they are sent off. THat is why they can't remain on the bench after being dismissed (or disqualified if you want to be NFHS specific). Don't we require players that earn a red card to leave the area of the field completely? It doesn't matter when the substitute becomes a player. The referee can change his or her mind regarding this whole situation up until play is restarted. I think you CAN rescind the 2CT here and give the straight red, but I agree with Mr. Wickham that you probably shouldn't. You don't need to, and you might look spiteful and lose the respect of the players.

In this situation, write it up as a 2CT, and include the other happenings in the report, and then it's not your problem. Just make sure that you write it up how it happened, and not how someone else wants it done.


Just to clarify, I wrote it as 2YC and included the details in my report. From what the commisioner has told me, the has state determined it would be treated as a hard red. Official Abuse (language) and sportsmanship were 2 points of emphasis this year.

As far as remaining on the bench, in HS they are allowed to stay, since there generally isn't any where for them to go. It just falls on the coach to keep them under control.

[nonya]

On page 57 of the NFHS rule book it clearly states that DQed players are restricted to the team area. In GA we had a player who was DQed and went to his team bus and hung himself while the rest of team was finishing the game.

I also agree that soft reds should be eliminated for the exception of the handball that denies a goal. I believe that should only be the case of a soft red situation.

[refmedic]

Just to clarify, I wrote it as 2YC and included the details in my report. From what the commisioner has told me, the has state determined it would be treated as a hard red. Official Abuse (language) and sportsmanship were 2 points of emphasis this year.

As far as remaining on the bench, in HS they are allowed to stay, since there generally isn't any where for them to go. It just falls on the coach to keep them under control.

Well done on writing it up properly. It's important that we maintain our integrity at all times. Whichever way the competition authority decides to "count" something or discipline a player is not our problem.

I apologize and stand corrected regarding the the DQ'd player staying in the technical area. Yet another stupid rule that NFHS has regarding red cards.

I agree, nonya, that all soft reds should be eliminated from NFHS. I will disagree with you about DGH, though. IMO, that might just be the worst offense against the SOTG that a player can possibly commit. That is the ultimate form of cheating. I know it will never happen, but I wouldn't be upset to see a team required to play 2 players short for intentionally handling the ball to deny a goal.

I thought I had heard everything, but a player who hung himself on the bus after getting a red card? What is this world coming to? That is a very unfortunate thing to have happen. Hopefully there isn't a referee out there who is thinking: "If only I hadn't sent him off.....". A truly tragic situation.

[nonya]

I only say that about the intentional handball because in all the time I have been officiating (and I am one of those old fogies at the ripe old age of 39 running around with a state emeritus badge) I have only had one situation where I could definitely say that a player deliberately tried to stop the goal. Every other instance it was some stupid reaction that the player had and he just was not thinking. Our job isnt to tell the difference in that situation, or job is to properly penalize the action of the offender.

[o5iiawah]

thats a slippery slope you have there. a deliberate Dogso-H deserves a straight red.

The laws dont differentiate in severity besides trifling, careless, reckless and Ex-Force.

Some referees have the mentality that cautions for stuff like FRD, DRST are ticky-tack and you should never penalize a team for something so small. We have to be able to identify what is egregious and deliberate and what is trifling. Personally, I think NFHS laws are junk.

An offense which deserves a caution is just that and it is no more severe in penalty than another. For all the horror of his performances, look back on Atwell's sending off of carleton cole in the West Ham v Everton game.

I think the first caution was for a reckless tackle and the 2nd was for PIADM which involved a boot perilously close to the head. Announcers, players, coaches and spectators all seem to want to criticize refs who send off a player when one of the offenses is deemed "soft" and it bugs me.