Dissent

[SpeedyGonGoalie]

This was posted on officialforum.com in the soccer board by SoccerRef (sorry if I can't give total credit):

"The rules state that a player should be cautioned when they object by word of mouth or action to any decision given by an official.

There are a wide variety of reactions shown by players to an officials calls.

Where should we draw the line?"

I bet this debate has been raised many times, but I'm going to be refing intramural soccer at Indiana, and the program has a reputation of lots of whining (especially from frat boys, but that's another post for another forum), and I wanted to get some feedback on my philosophy on this (sorry I wrote a book about this). Here it is.

In any sport, at any level, there seems to be four types of officials. One type lets players, coaches, and fans get away with any type of disagreement. Another cards someone everytime they so much as throw up there arms in the international symbol of "wasn't me". A third hears some disagreement (legitimate or not) in his/her first game and quits. And finally there are those who get it right.

I think that it's very much a personal decision, but there are some relative absolutes. As soon as it changes from a disagreement about a call to a personal attack, stop it right there. Calls are fleeting. You'll never get more that 50% of people involved in a match agreeing with a call. Stand by your call, but don't get personally attached, like you're handing down the Ten Commandments. But as soon as a coach/player/fan pulls out the "you suck, you're the worst ref in the league/country/world/time, you shouldn't be a ref, etc," you have to stop that immediately.

As soon as someone drags out any sort of profanity, even relativly minor profanity (which you may find offense), such as G-- D---- or hell, I'ed shut that down pretty quickly.

The idea is not to give out as many dissent cards as needed, it's to make sure as few are needed as possible. Try talking to a player. "Another outburst from you and it's a card" will go a long way to shutting up a coach or player.

I said don't get attached to calls/non-calls, and now that I think about it, that really personal. As a general rule, treat personal attack as much worse, but sometimes you really feel strongly about a call, which is ok. Cards are my big thing. Just as I reserve the right to card people for certain offenses based on my judgement, I reserve the right to not card people for certain offenses based on my judgement, and I don't tolerate much demanding of cards.

Also, notice the difference between disagree with a call, and whining just to whine. You can normally tell if you blow the whistle in a situation where the call could have gone either way, and before any signal at all, a coach/player/fan is yelling at you. Don't take that, if you're gonna disagree with my call, I'ed appreciate it if you waited to find out what it was before you argue it.

Any thoughts on this? I'ed really appreciate it.

[whipple]

Speedy,

As an assignor, I can tell you that your post echos the sentiments of many referees I bring up from working in the town and rec level to the premier level. The key skill they must acquire is to learn the difference between that which is expected behavior for the game they are doing (level and intensity) and that which is misconduct, which you as the referee must deal so that you do not allow the game to fall into disrepute.

Let's take an example. A defender makes a tackle on an attacker and in the process fouls that attacker in the penalty area. You stop play and point to the mark indicating a PK. The defender jumps up and says "C'mon, ref, I was playing the ball!"

Is this dissent?

Now the word dissent means to express a differing opinion. If you think about it, the player's statement may be true. He was playing the ball, but it was careless and a foul was committed. He probably did not mean to foul the opponent, but did never-the-less, so you can consider his remarks expected behavior, and maybe come back with something like "yes, but you took out your opponent in the process, be more careful next time." then get on with the PK. No misconduct.

Remember, one must judge fouls and misconduct independently or each on their own merits.

Now, lets take the same situation, but this time, rather than accepting your remark, the player persists, not to the extext of foul or abusive, but simply not dropping his differing opinion, even though you have indicated your's, and even acknowledged his. Now, he is interfering with you getting the game going, not leaving the PA, possibly inciting his teammates. Now you must put a stop to it.

It may take a look, maybe just quietly putting a finger to your lips, or maybe a card, but the card should be your last choice. The idea is to communicate what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Now, as a variant, if a teammate with no involvement in the play, questions a call, even if a captain, you usually give less lattitude. Nothing wrong with replying to a question, but you need to make it clear that this is where it ends. There will be no follow-up and no dissent. Just say "enough" and get play moving. A moving ball is the referees greatest friend. If they persist after you move to restart play, this is where it may actually be beneficial to caution and show a card.

The question is under what circumstances does that which is expected behavior cross the line to become misconduct? There are no hard and fast rules. You must do what is approprate for that specific game and the particular situation.

The same applies to foul and abusive language. In an adult amateur game and a player whiffs a kick, "S**t!" would be mild, and "******************!" would probably be the expected behavior. This would not be expected in a U12.

[Wolves_67]

Originally posted by whipple

The same applies to foul and abusive language. In an adult amateur game and a player whiffs a kick, "S**t!" would be mild, and "******************!" would probably be the expected behavior. This would not be expected in a U12.
Of course, where this abusive language was directed comes into play. If just a reaction to a play, error or a referee or linesman call directed at no one in particular, that's one thing. Directed at a player, coach, linesman or the referee is another.
Great post whipple.

[kevbrunton]

There are a lot of discussions on what should be said to players before the game and mine has evolved over the years and also varies depending upon the level.

But there is one thing that I state before every game at all but the very youngest levels. "Guys, my style is that I don't mind explaining a call as long as it doesn't get in the way of letting play proceed. If you're not sure what I'm calling, I want you to know so the behavior will stop. HOWEVER, that does not open it up for discussion -- I'll answer your question, we'll move on and that will be it."

I've only had to give 1 card for dissent in my 7 years of refereeing.

As far as OIA goes, here's a thread where we discussed this pretty well. http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23778

In particular, I liked the way Tame Lion quantified the nature of it.

[whipple]

Originally posted by kevbrunton
But there is one thing that I state before every game at all but the very youngest levels. "Guys, my style is that I don't mind explaining a call as long as it doesn't get in the way of letting play proceed. If you're not sure what I'm calling, I want you to know so the behavior will stop. HOWEVER, that does not open it up for discussion -- I'll answer your question, we'll move on and that will be it."



Kev,

In practice, what you describe above, is excellent as to what you do, but committing to it in your check in with the players, could cause problems for you down the road. Remember you can't get in trouble for what you don't say.

By this I mean that there may come times when you need to shut down questions from players, paticularly if you are faced with a very heated and controversial match. This way you avoid players comming back to with a "but ref, you said...."

If you say nothing in advance and just do it, even if you then tighten up later in the match, you will not appear to have been inconsistent or gone back on your word.

The less said to players before the game, the better. Toss the coin, wish them luck, and have fun.

Sherman

[kevbrunton]

Sherm,

You might be right -- you certainly have a lot more experience that I do. But it seems to me that the few times that I've NOT gotten to give that sort of speech such as tournament games where the refs don't do the checking are where I've gotten much more grief. It seems to me that when I've given the little speech it sets the tone that I'm not going to tolerate a bunch of whining. 90% of the games I'm doing these days are U16 to U19 boys/men -- from local select level to the highest level leagues and tournaments.

I'll be starting to move into the adult amateur and semi-professional world this summer. Could it be that this level will be where I best leave things such as this unsaid?

[IASocFan]

It sounds like your speech works for you. I found that if I include how I want substitution to go, and how I want free kicks to be taken (requiring 10 yards even if not asked), I have fewer issues with these once the game starts.

If Kevin stresses that "if it doesn't interfere with play", then when he's ready for play to restart, backs away from the ball and yells, "OK, let's play," then the players should be ready to play. How much the CR talks to the teams during pregame is dependent on his personality and what he finds works. I've learned a lot listening to other CRs while I AR. Some by what to say and what not to say.

[whipple]

Originally posted by kevbrunton
Sherm,

You might be right -- you certainly have a lot more experience that I do. But it seems to me that the few times that I've NOT gotten to give that sort of speech such as tournament games where the refs don't do the checking are where I've gotten much more grief. It seems to me that when I've given the little speech it sets the tone that I'm not going to tolerate a bunch of whining. 90% of the games I'm doing these days are U16 to U19 boys/men -- from local select level to the highest level leagues and tournaments.

I'll be starting to move into the adult amateur and semi-professional world this summer. Could it be that this level will be where I best leave things such as this unsaid?

Kev,

Actually, I see this as more of a problem at the 15-16 boys than either the older youth or adult. I should point out that I do mostly youth and high school and was doing more adult three years ago than I am now.

The thing is that you want to avoid making any promise you cannot keep. Instructing a team about subs, time, expectations, equipment, etc. are normal and will not get you in trouble, however, making a committment to respond to their questions, might. An alternative would be to do this as it occurs. A player questions a call, you reply and then tag on the instruction, "that's it, let's get back to the game". Here you have not made it policy, but situtational.

Even though I see more discussion/dissent at the men's level, it is actually less of a problem than at the 15-16 level. The teens are always trying to push the limits and if you give them an opening they will often find a way to abuse it and when called, try to turn it back on you. It is, I think, this authority thing.

At the men's level, there is often a lot of expression, but is it expected and if you listen to it, you will often realize that it is of little cosequence and can sometimes be helpful, particularly when you are there alone with no assistants. It does, however, take a little getting used to. I had no problems with this doing the outdoor games, but was uncomfortable doing the adult men't indoor, possibly because the chatter is so much louder and distracting. This current winter, so far, I have only done adult and college women's matches.

[pkCrouse]

This is developing into one of our better threads on dissent. I think one of the many issues to consider is the dignity of the player, particularly when dealing with older teen boys and even men in their early twenties. Sometimes they get their mouths into gear and just can't help themselves. Someone, either the referee or better yet the team's captain, needs to lend a hand. Skilled referees have a way of balancing the need to cut off the dissent before it becomes disruptive, while being careful not to humiliate the player to the point that their dignity becomes more of a concern to them than playing the game. I recall one referee in particular who is very good at this. While backing away from an exchange with a 20 year old player that was on the verge of escalating to dissent, he quietly said (with a slight smile): "Excuse me sir, I thought you were asking for an explanation. Was I wrong, because if you're looking for an argument, those come in two colors?" Dignity intact, the player quickly refocused on the game. Ultimately, that's the best result for everyone.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by pkCrouse
This is developing into one of our better threads on dissent. I think one of the many issues to consider is the dignity of the player, particularly when dealing with older teen boys and even men in their early twenties. Sometimes they get their mouths into gear and just can't help themselves. Someone, either the referee or better yet the team's captain, needs to lend a hand. Skilled referees have a way of balancing the need to cut off the dissent before it becomes disruptive, while being careful not to humiliate the player to the point that their dignity becomes more of a concern to them than playing the game. I recall one referee in particular who is very good at this. While backing away from an exchange with a 20 year old player that was on the verge of escalating to dissent, he quietly said (with a slight smile): "Excuse me sir, I thought you were asking for an explanation. Was I wrong, because if you're looking for an argument, those come in two colors?" Dignity intact, the player quickly refocused on the game. Ultimately, that's the best result for everyone.

The issue is a personal one as many posters have stated on this thread. There are no hard and fast rules and most cautions for me fall into two categories. One is the player that constantly questions every call. He doesn't respond to a quiet word to focus on the game and leave the decisions to the referee. The other is the player that makes such a scene that you have no choice but to caution for match control and to maintain your authority.

If the player was fouled and he jumps up to demand a caution, I tell him I got it covered, relax, I saw it and I'm dealing with him. Depending on the situation, you need to let players blow off some steam. Soccer is a passionate game. However, if the player after a brief word continues to argue I tell them to stop or I will caution them. All the time I am focused on getting the players to restart the match. I'll blow my whistle and get into position for where the action will go.

After having done this for so many years I find I am significantly less tolerant of dissent. When a player pushes my buttons, I tell them to walk away and play. If he continues I caution.

My hard and fast rule is that I will not tolerate behavior from players that I would find objectionable in the work place. They are men and they are treated as men. If they can't control their behavior they get cautioned.

With regards to cursing I will not caution men's and older boys for getting down on themselves and saying things like shit and ********. They are very much the part of our common vocabularly and as long as they are not directed against another player I fine with it.

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by Alberto
... All the time I am focused on getting the players to restart the match. .... Which is of course the smart thing to do. Players are much less likely to continue the dissent when the ball is back in play. If they don't refocus upon the live play, their teammates generally get on them. Good advice Alberto.