Procedural question

[todler]

I had an interesting occurence in a HS playoff game last night. Led to some interesting conversations between the ref crew afterwards as well.
70th minute, white player receives second YC for DR, and since this is HS she gets shown her "soft" red. At that point she turns and swears at me in what the military would call a "loud, clear voice". pretty much everyone in th estadium heard her. So, I showed her a straight "hard" red.
Which was not the best form, but led to the discussion.

To wit, when multiple misconducts occur, which has precedence? Was it the original soft red, or the hard red. I know that we punish the more sever violation during the run of play, but what about a dead ball situation? Additionally, since it's HS - and there are differences - going from one send off to another.


Incidentally, I received word from the league that I was to report it as a straight red, and the appropriate punishment would be applied.

[MassachusettsRef]

Not sure how this plays out in HS rules, but in USSF this should never be an issue.

Once a player is sent off, that's the end of it. If misconduct persists, it's noted and submitted in the match report (you don't show a second red card to the same player).

As far as severity goes, nothing is more severe than the red card in that match, so that's all you need to worry about. If the suspension matrix makes the subsequent misconduct more severe (say, VC committed after a 2CT has been shown), then that's the league's concern and they will address it properly if your report is thorough.

And, finally, the restart would never be affected because the reason for the original stoppage (likely a foul leading to a DFK or possibly even a throw-in or corner kick, in your case) determines the restart--not the level or severity of misconduct (whether it's coupled with the stoppage, like a foul, or subsequent, like DR or dissent). The only time "severity" of an offense is taken into account when determining which restart is needed is when two simultaneous offenses are made at the same time. That's not what is happening in your scenario.

[ref47]

i do not see anything unique in the hs rules that would cause us to deviate from the ussf procedure mentioned by mass. once you issued the original soft red the player was done with the match and any subsequent misconduct merely should be aded to the match report for league consideration.

[vetshak]

Interesting the league wanted it reported a straight red. That's not procedurally correct either.

Officially, it should be the soft red (for the second yellow), then report the FAL in the game report as having taken place after the send-off. No card for the FAL. The player was guilty of two offenses that led to her ejection, and should be reported accordingly. Her behavior after the ejection was above and beyond the actions that led to her dismissal; it needs to be reported, and it should result in further discipline.

A governing body with any kind of guts should give the player a 1 game suspension for the ejection plus at least 1 game for the inappropriate behavior after the ejection. Problem I have run into at the HS level is that the HS league typically limits discipline for only what is under the referee's jurisdiction; any misconduct occurring after a send-off, I have been told, falls under the authority of the school to enforce.

Case in point, last year as an AR in a boys' game I called my center over to administer a second yellow to a coach for his persistent loud insulting comments that were inflaming his own players against the crew. So the guy gets his second yellow, turns to me, and starts chanting "Open book!" in reference to the NFHS test being open book.

I made my own report to the state HS authority and was told any further suspension beyond the one game for the ejection was at the discretion of the school.

Personally, I find that to be a load of crap. If the AD is there and decides he/she doesn't like how we are officiating, he/she could just keep the suspension to time served as his/her personal protest to our actions.

I had a situation identical to yours a few years ago... I live in a border city and was working in the neighboring state under reciprocity. Kid gets a second yellow and walks off the field screaming about how I'm a #&$ing this and that. Found out he only got one game, two games later comes back, curses out the referee and gets a straight red... clearly because the lesson had not sunk in, and I have no doubt the reason being that the kid was not actually punished for swearing at me after he had received his red card.

I asked the state authority for an explanation why the player got only one game when he clearly was guilty of send-off level behavior after his initial ejection. I wrote them two letters and never got an answer. So I finally mailed them back my badge and told them I was done working for them.

There is no point in working for a league authority that will not protect you once you have consumed all of your own options with regards to discipline. The only way to get them to act is to motivate them through referee attrition.

[intechpc]

This is an interesting predicament that is created for us by the idiocy of the NFHS and their modifications to the the LOTG that the rest of the world play by. As noted, in the world of USSF/FIFA, all you can do in this situation is add the additional information to the report you provide to the competition authority.

I'm actually trying to understand why you showed her the straight red? I'm guessing that you did so with the intention that now her team would play short rather than keep 11 on the field following the soft red. I will say I think this is wrong even under NFHS rules. Once you dismissed her with the soft red, she's no longer a player. As far as I know, a team only plays short if a player is dismissed with a "hard" red. Since she was no longer a player at the point of her additional mis-conduct (Offensive, Insulting or Abusive language) the team should not play short.

Not what complicates this is that if they did play short, I think you accomplished the result that would be consistent with what NFHS intends with their rules. This may be why the league wants it written up as a straight red. Of course, it could also be that they're just trying to cover your butt and theirs for making a team play short that shouldn't have had to play short.

[DWickham]

The referee has the power to reverse the decision to show the second caution (unless play has restarted) and could use that power to then punish the abusive language. IMO, however, it's a dumb idea in this circumstance to use that power.

Everyone knows that the events occurred in the following order: the player has been shown "soft red" for delaying the restart of play and then began to use abusive language towards the referee. The referee who reverses the first decision will be seen (and probably has) to be taking things personal and to be biased against the team who will now play short. Once the referee's credibility as a neutral is gone, it will make for a long afternoon. Better, IMO, to stay with the initial decision and file a report about the continuing misconduct.

Contrast that situation with the "soft red" for DRP followed by the former player striking the opponent. When the referee reverses the decision on the second yellow and goes to straight red, the referee is acting to protect the players from striking. The credibility of the referee as a neutral may go up.

[todler]

Vetshak - I get the feeling that the girl is facing multiple games from this incident, and that could be why they wanted the straight red reported. Either way, my report had a full documenting of the events, and it went to the league commish. One of the focuses this year is appearently FAL.

Intechpc - I'm slightly ashamed to admit that the straight red was shown in a bit of disgust, but also to identify to the bench, and my 4th that something else had happened. The 4th and I talked it through, and both teams played 11 v 11. Also, the ATR allows for the changing of a card, but I know it isn't a direct comaprison to NFHS. But it did provoke an interesting discussion either way.

DWickham - that thought was what occured to me as well, that the ref can reverse his decision before play is restarted. Either way, it didn't matter, as we went full strength.



By the way, thanks for the discussion on this. It's good to get other input, to see if I'm in left field or not.

[Doug the Ref]

Soft red was the first call and allowed for a substitution. The Soft Red player is not a player anymore so the language doesn't really get her a Red card. I think showing the card was for information purposes only, and advised everyone that something significant has happened in addtition to the original altercation, the DR. Team plays with 11, and one is sent off. Reports to follow. Nicely done!

[ref47]

in theory you can change your call before the next restart in this situation. but, would it really be wise? you recind the soft red to get to the hard red - but, the issuance of the soft red is why you have the hard red to begin with. if you did not believe the dr needed a card, then you would not give it in the first place and the player would not have had opportunity to earn the further misconduct. agree with dennis.

[ref2coach]

Laws vs Rules, pet peeve of mine is people not checking to see if NFHS has a rule that differs from USSF, when being paid to work an NFHS game. :(

When a NFHS player is to leave the FOP and a substitute is to be allowed s/he does not cease to be a player until the substitute is Beckoned.

3.3.2 Situation E: Player A2 is issued a yellow card for misconduct and makes a profane remark to the referee (a) the substitute has not been beckoned onto the field; (b) the substitute has been beckoned onto the Field. RULING: (a) A2 is issued a red card and the team plays short; (b) A2 is issued a red card and the substitute is allowed to participate.

In the described situation a Soft Red was issued, since the NFHS rules allows a substitute for a Soft Red then until you Beckon the Substitute you are to punish the subsequent more serious behavior and the team should play short.

The ruling you got from your league is correct based on the written NFHS rules.

When you accept their money enforce "their" Rules or Law as appropriate.

To bad Nevadaref was not in here today. He has in the past copied from his NFHS paid rules subscription, I had to type the above reference. :rolleyes:

[vetshak]

Thanks to ref2coach for some crack research on that!

I am going to take some issue with the ambiguity of this ruling. That ruling says that the player is being cautioned, but doesn't mention if it matters if the the caution is a second caution.

NFHS requires the substitution of a player for any caution. So yes, if I caution a player for dissent and then he/she swears at me, I can administer a straight red and force the team to play short, as long as the sub hasn't been beckoned (as the guilty player is still the player of record).

But in the event of a second caution, the question is here is when the sent-off player ceases to be a player? Maybe the sub hasn't been beckoned, but does that mean the guilty player is still a "player" until the beckoning takes place? That doesn't make sense... they have been sent-off... they can't be a player any more, and the referee no longer has any disciplinary authortiy over them.

Every other organization considers the player to cease being a player when he/she is sent off. And please correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe NFHS's rules modify this (I may be wrong, I don't have them sitting in front of me).

This falls in line with one of my many issues with NFHS and the way they tinker with the rules. I don't have a problem with the tinkering for the sake of providing a different emphasis, but then in doing so they create situational problems. In USSF/FIFA, the sub can't enter until the subbed player leaves the field. Period. No ambiguity. (Of course, lots of officials ignore this, but that doesn't make it right!)

By saying a sub becomes a player "when beckoned" it creates all sorts of potential hassles. Which is fine, but then they have to provide rulings for all of these potentially farcical situations, which is just another thing to remember.

If it ain't broken...

[o5iiawah]

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?

[DWickham]

In Southern California, the policy has been that if the disqualification offense involves hard contact during a challenge for the ball, it is always treated as SVP (for excessive force) and not a second caution for a unsporting behavior (for reckless challenge). The "straight red" policy is always a hot topic during instruction.

[todler]

Vetshak - Thakns, That is exactly what I was going to point out. The ambiguity regarding second caution is the source of the problem. Where is that line drawn, and does the red take effect immediately, or once the player leaves the field?

I know that I can change from a yellow to red in a first yellow situation, but what about a second? NFHS makes their rules, where typically different, very explicit in how they differ. So it looks like I found a new scenario.

Wonder if it'll be on next years test? :D

[nonya]

According to the definitions.

A "Player" is someone who is on the field of play, etc. A substitute becomes a player when he/she is beckoned onto the field of play by an official, at which point the replaced individual is no longer a player." (And logically therefore the player on the field now becomes a substitute and is NO longer a player and not subject to the provisions for playing short for a red card)

If you show the soft red, the opportunity for substitution exists. Until you beckon a player on the field, OR you restart the game (if the team elects to play short) that player is STILL A PLAYER. Once you beckon the player or you restart, that player now becomes a disqualified player and may no longer participate.

If you showed the straight Red for something. Then that player immediately is a disqualified player because there is no opportunity to sub.

I had a similiar wacky situation happen to me. Player received a red/yellow and as he was leaving the field, punched another kid. A sub was never beckoned on, and he then received a straight red and had to play short. The coach protested saying that you couldnt give a red after a red/yellow, etc. The state decided that he was still a player of record and therefore could receive a red. Only when a straight red with no opportunity for substitution does one not become a player.

Also, and this happened to me as well. Game is about to start I blow my whistle the ball isn't touched yet, two players swing at each other across the halfway line. Ball still hasn't been put in play, both are DQed, and allowed to be replaced since the game didn't start yet. None of the 22 participants are PLAYERS until that ball is touched and moved forward.

[todler]

Interesting, and thanks for the personal experience. I'll use it at the monthly clinic to argue where I screwed up, and hopefully we can get some guidance from the state. Although, based on how they asked the card to be recorded, I'm going to say until the sub is beconned on, the player is the one on the field.

Hopefully we can get some guidance from the state.

[vetshak]

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.

12.8.2 clearly states that:

A player(s) shall be disqualified (yellow and red card) and the number of players on the field shall not be reduced for:

...

b. subsequent caution.

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:

A substitute becomes a player when he/she is beckoned onto the field of play, at which time the replaced individual is no longer a player.

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.

nonya wrote:

If you show the soft red, the opportunity for substitution exists. Until you beckon a player on the field, OR you restart the game (if the team elects to play short) that player is STILL A PLAYER. Once you beckon the player or you restart, that player now becomes a disqualified player and may no longer participate.

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?

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)

nonya wrote:

If you showed the straight Red for something. Then that player immediately is a disqualified player because there is no opportunity to sub.

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.

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.

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.

[o5iiawah]

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.

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.



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?

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)



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.

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.

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.

:eek: wow, a 2nd yellow for VC? I guess it all depends on who the ref is. From what i've heard, a lot of HS refs are pointyball or basketball refs who do it for a little extra pocket change.

I posted earlier that i wondered if anyone had ever given a hard red as a 2nd caution if the 2nd foul was borderline yellow/red either in terms of USB/language or reckless/exforce. Maybe if I ever become a HS ref someday it will occur to me. i guess im too much of a purist that if a player earns 2 cautions, his team should pay a penalty.

[IASocFan]

I'm glad Iowa has done away with the soft red. There are only REAL Reds in this state!

This thread sounds like a good reason for the other states to follow suit!

[vetshak]

o5iiawah, I think most good referees know to give the straight red for blatant VC. But I have seen referees use a second caution and call it unsporting when, for example, during a dead ball a player pushes an opponent to the ground. It depends on the situation... the referee knows the player needs to be sent-off, but the option of the soft red allows them to not punish the player's teammates for his moment of insanity.

This goes along the same lines of the referee who argues you don't give a PK in the last five minutes because, "I don't want to affect the outcome of the match." By not giving a PK on a foul that deserves one, guess what? You just affected the outcome of the match.

This soft red rule does the same thing. "I don't want to give a hard red because it will swing the match by making the team play short." Well, by using a soft rather than hard red, you're still swinging the match by not giving the other team a deserved man advantage. But the fact that it's an option creates a conundrum.

I think HS would be far better off by just leaving a red a red and not tinkering with this. And yes, there are days where I wish I could just avoid HS all together. But here in Minnesota, if you want to work soccer in the fall, you have to do HS or NISOA. Sorry, we're just not as "evolved" as most of you other states...