Coach inciting foul play

[DerbyRam54]

The first half of a U-19 boys match (tournament play) has been about what you'd expect. The field is too small for the level of play, but it has been fairly well-controlled. Nil-nil at the half.
In the second half, team B appears to abandon any attempt to play football and win the match, and starts playing in an intimidating fashion. Five cautions and one sending off later, the 25 minute half is finally over with no injuries. Playing time was probably about 17 or 18 minutes as each disciplinary action was deliberately prolonged. Team A has kept their cool and won the match 1-0.
After the match, the following comes to light: team B is out of the competition regardless of the result of the match, hence the cautions and sending off are meaningless (it's also the end of the season and, for many players, the end of youth football.) AR-1 tells you she heard the team B coach instruct a substitute to go on the field and "level them".
My question to you all is this: if AR-1 had given you this useful information during the match, what would you have done?

[MassachusettsRef]

After the match, the following comes to light: team B is out of the competition regardless of the result of the match, hence the cautions and sending off are meaningless (it's also the end of the season and, for many players, the end of youth football.) First, I would have known this before the match--there's absolutely no excuse not to be prepared if the information is available and you have the time to obtain it.

AR-1 tells you she heard the team B coach instruct a substitute to go on the field and "level them".

My question to you all is this: if AR-1 had given you this useful information during the match, what would you have done?If the AR is sure of the intended connotation, then the coach is dismissed. And I'd be pretty ticked off at my AR if he told me that after the match.

[macheath]

The first half of a U-19 boys match (tournament play) has been about what you'd expect. The field is too small for the level of play, but it has been fairly well-controlled. Nil-nil at the half.
In the second half, team B appears to abandon any attempt to play football and win the match, and starts playing in an intimidating fashion. Five cautions and one sending off later, the 25 minute half is finally over with no injuries. Playing time was probably about 17 or 18 minutes as each disciplinary action was deliberately prolonged. Team A has kept their cool and won the match 1-0.
After the match, the following comes to light: team B is out of the competition regardless of the result of the match, hence the cautions and sending off are meaningless (it's also the end of the season and, for many players, the end of youth football.) AR-1 tells you she heard the team B coach instruct a substitute to go on the field and "level them".
My question to you all is this: if AR-1 had given you this useful information during the match, what would you have done?

Stop play, immediately go talk with the coach, and tell him that his team is playing out of control and needs to settle down. I don't know if I'd quote the AR--that might just lead to a tangential argument ("I didn't say that...", etc.) I would include what the AR heard in a match report. The issue is match control and player safety, and you've already observed the change in player behavior, so that needs to be controlled, whether the coach said anything or not. I assume you're increasing how close you are calling things, and also giving loud verbal directions to the teams to "lighten up," "play fairly," etc.

Just say his team needs to get their behavior under control, and tell him he needs to tell them to play fairly. Also, if you see continued persistent, dangerous fouling, you'll take further action. That could ultimately include dismissal of the coach or suspending the game, depending on how out of control things get. But don't specify "if you do this, I'll do that." Just let the coach know that you can and will take harsher actions as needed to restore fair play and safety, and take them without hesitation. This is one of those games where they won't like you, but too bad.

And talk to the AR about comunication (and maybe re-examine how the ref team is handling communication during the match). In the future, be sure and cover in a pregame that you need to hear relevant information from them during the match, not after.

[USSF REF]

First, I would have known this before the match--there's absolutely no excuse not to be prepared if the information is available and you have the time to obtain it.

If the AR is sure of the intended connotation, then the coach is dismissed. And I'd be pretty ticked off at my AR if he told me that after the match.

All good points.

[DerbyRam54]

First, I would have known this before the match--there's absolutely no excuse not to be prepared if the information is available and you have the time to obtain it.

If the AR is sure of the intended connotation, then the coach is dismissed. And I'd be pretty ticked off at my AR if he told me that after the match.

The way that tournament was set up, there was no time to trek over to the tent to check on anything. You are absolutely correct about doing that, but it was back to back matches with barely time to go to the bathroom! I only discovered it after my last match, when I finally had time to go look over the results.
I've avoided doing that tournament, needless to say. Anybody who schedules U-19 premier level boys on a field that looked barely minimum legal size is asking for trouble.

[refmike]

The coaches' comment should still be marked on the game card and reported to the district referee administrator. That coach must be sanctioned, possibly by pulling his license for a year or two.

[Alberto]

The coach is an idiot. I would have spoken to him, his assistant coaches, the team captain and any player the coach directed those remarks to that this type of behavior is not tolerated. The coach if he argued would be asked to leave the field of play.

[Ref Flunkie]

The coach is an idiot. I would have spoken to him, his assistant coaches, the team captain and any player the coach directed those remarks to that this type of behavior is not tolerated. The coach if he argued would be asked to leave the field of play.

So it appears that there are differing opinions on if the coach should be removed right away or talked to. I've never run into the problem, but if I did, I would WANT to remove him ASAP (I would have to be sure about his intent though). Not sure if this is considered "just" in the eyes of the soccer refereeing gods, but it would be my desire.

[LoewenBoy]

Had a similar issue 4 years ago. I was lucky....the "dirty" team got so dirty I ejected enough players to abandon the match.:D And it was my SR maintenance assessment too. They game did not qualify but the SRA said I only missed one yellow. End total: 5 yellows, 7 reds.:eek:

[LoewenBoy]

The coach is an idiot. I would have spoken to him, his assistant coaches, the team captain and any player the coach directed those remarks to that this type of behavior is not tolerated. The coach if he argued would be asked to leave the field of play.
True. But he could have simply meant play hard (though we all know what he really meant).

Now, if the player goes in, having had those instructions overheard by the AR, and commits SFP or VC or another ejectionable offense, then you send off the player and have the conversation with the coach. I agree you want to stop things before they happen but we cannot presuppose an infraction BEFORE it occurs.

My game last night I heard a coach yell, "track him down. hunt him, hunt him." His context was "don't give up" or "don't give away space". His player acted accordingly. Now, had that player engaged in a cautionable or red card offense, I would have been over to talk to the coach in a heart-beat.

[chrisrun]

If I heard something like this being said to a player by a coach, I would go to the coach and call the player over.

I would ask in a non threating tone, "Did you ask this player to hurt the other team?"
Of course the coach would deny it, or else explain that "hurt" meant something non-violent.
"OK, that's what I figured coach. I must have heard it wrong."

This way both the player and the coach know that I am on to them without accusing them. It allows me to procatively prevent anything from happening, rather than waiting for the foul and card.

[LoewenBoy]

This way both the player and the coach know that I am on to them without accusing them. It allows me to procatively prevent anything from happening, rather than waiting for the foul and card.
Not sure that we can prevent anything from happening. If they want to take someone out they are going to do it and there is nothing you can do to prevent the situation. You can try to head it off, but preventing it? I wish we were so powerful.

[MassachusettsRef]

My game last night I heard a coach yell, "track him down. hunt him, hunt him." His context was "don't give up" or "don't give away space". His player acted accordingly. Now, had that player engaged in a cautionable or red card offense, I would have been over to talk to the coach in a heart-beat.What? Why? You just admitted that the connotation of the statement was quite clearly an encouraging "don't give up." So if the player shows some over-exuberance and commits misconduct, you're going to then go to the coach? Why? What would you say? If you thought what the coach said was a perfectly fine instruction on the one hand, on what grounds do you have to go to him after the player goes a little too far?

If a player commits misconduct, you deal with what's occurred; you don't deal with it and then go back to something that was said minutes ago by the coach that might have or have not prompted (intentionally or otherwise) the misconduct. I mean, when a player commits a clearly retaliatory foul for what you deemed a clean tackle a few minutes earlier, we don't revisit that incident, do we? We deemed it clean, so we move on. In this case, if you deem a coach's comment benign, we move on.

As for this underlying point of this thread, I think we're starting to over-analyze. If there's any real question as to intent or meaning, as a referee, there's not much you can do and probably nothing you should do; confronting a coach over a comment that could easily be explained does you no good. Plus, there are some grey areas here; surely no one would discipline a coach for instructing a defender to commit a tactical foul or even DOGSO, if he felt it was within his team's best interests, right?

However, if there's a clear statement, overheard by you or your AR, that instructs a player to intentionally hurt another player, I don't see how anyone can advocate an action other than immediate dismissal.

[LoewenBoy]

What? Why? You just admitted that the connotation of the statement was quite clearly an encouraging "don't give up." So if the player shows some over-exuberance and commits misconduct, you're going to then go to the coach? Why? What would you say? If you thought what the coach said was a perfectly fine instruction on the one hand, on what grounds do you have to go to him after the player goes a little too far?
Because clearly if the intention of the coach was one thing, but the execution of it was another either I ahve one of two situations on my hands: 1) a coach who may unknowingly be inciting his players, or 2) a coach whose intent all along may have been to do harm.

It is tough to convey the situation via the Net, but I think we can all recognize when to approach a coach and when not to. Context is usually fairly appearent. But still I see nothing wrong with talking to the coach in a professional manner illustrating how his player might have misinterpreted his statements. "Hunt him down" is not standard coaching jargon for "closing space" or "holding ground". Sure this is Texas and they use different language here.:D But still, it is a bit odd to hear that and then see a y/r foul occur. If it walks like a duck....

[MassachusettsRef]

Because clearly if the intention of the coach was one thing, but the execution of it was another either I ahve one of two situations on my hands: 1) a coach who may unknowingly be inciting his players, or 2) a coach whose intent all along may have been to do harm.No, you've got many more possible situations than that.

You could have a player that doesn't listen.

You could have a completely accidental foul caused by a tired player.

You could have a completely accidental foul caused by the superior skill of the attacker.

You could have an intentional foul, that was prompted by something that had been said or done earlier in the match.

The list could go on.

I'm really at a loss as to why and how a benign comment becomes a problem after a foul is committed. The logic is bewildering to me. If you deemed it benign you deemed it benign, end of story. It really is just like a hard foul that you deem clean, but causes retaliation later; after the retaliation you don't go back and punish the player for the tackle that you deemed clean.

It is tough to convey the situation via the Net, but I think we can all recognize when to approach a coach and when not to. Context is usually fairly appearent. But still I see nothing wrong with talking to the coach in a professional manner illustrating how his player might have misinterpreted his statements. "Hunt him down" is not standard coaching jargon for "closing space" or "holding ground". Sure this is Texas and they use different language here.:D But still, it is a bit odd to hear that and then see a y/r foul occur. If it walks like a duck....I would disagree that the context is fairly apparent to all, based on what you're advocating.

And it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to let coaches know what jargon they can and cannot use. They practice and train with their teams, in some cases, daily. They're in a much better situation than you to understand how to communicate and interact with their players. You're walking into dangerous territory when you start lecturing coaches on what terms they can use when instructing their players.

The sole exception to this is the rare case when it's abundantly clear that a coach is instructing his player to physically hurt an opponent.

[LoewenBoy]

No, you've got many more possible situations than that.
Agreed. But like I said, I assume at the outset that the referee has a bit of intelligence here and can ascertain the situation. If a coach is using unsual jargon which appears to incite a player, I see nothing wrong with a friendly conversation?

You could have a player that doesn't listen. You could have a completely accidental foul caused by a tired player. You could have a completely accidental foul caused by the superior skill of the attacker. You could have an intentional foul, that was prompted by something that had been said or done earlier in the match.
I think most referees are smart enough NOT to have a conversation with a coach given the examples you cite. Again, it is tough to convey context. We all know intent when we see it. My formula is simple:

"strange language" + "intent by player' = card to player/talk to coach

I'm really at a loss as to why and how a benign comment becomes a problem after a foul is committed. The logic is bewildering to me. If you deemed it benign you deemed it benign, end of story. It really is just like a hard foul that you deem clean, but causes retaliation later; after the retaliation you don't go back and punish the player for the tackle that you deemed clean.
You have assumed it was benign. Some things are benign in a certain instance, but as situations progress they are no longer. Like chemisty, certain materials are inert in a particular instance. Add heat, cold or other factors and they become volatile.

And it's not yours or mine or anyone else's place to let coaches know what jargon they can and cannot use. They practice and train with their teams, in some cases, daily. They're in a much better situation than you to understand how to communicate and interact with their players. You're walking into dangerous territory when you start lecturing coaches on what terms they can use when instructing their players.

Who said lecture? When did referees give up control of what goes on on the field? If there appears to be a correlation between a coach, using unusual language or techniques to "motivate" his players, and fouls/injuries during a match, I have an OBLIGATION to have a brief talk with the coach. You mean I can only at when he uses obvious negative language like "kill him" or "take him out"? I don't agree. Yes, there are times where coaches you language to incite their players, but that is usually done in team huddles and good coaches give it context which the players understand (i.e., "when the coach says 'hunt him down' little Timmy knows he means close space, get the ball"). But when such language is used outloud it does cause questions and concern. Tell me, what do you say to the opposing parents/coach when they ask you why you allowed a coach to say "hunt him down"?

I guess I am an enigma in refereeing as I also hold a current UEFA coaching license (USSF C equivalent). I am aware of the national coaching programs, what they teach and how coaches are expected to conduct themselves. You can see it when you referee. The coaches who are quiet, polite and almost not there are the ones with higher level licenses. You are trained in ways to motivate players. Also, UEFA referees used to have a clinic each year in how to recognize aggressive players/coaches BEFORE they become a problem. Believe me, odd/cryptic language/instructions was on the first slide in this course as warning signs of potential bad behavior. UEFA's suggestion: Have a short chat with the coach to let him know you are listening.

[MassachusettsRef]

Agreed. But like I said, I assume at the outset that the referee has a bit of intelligence here and can ascertain the situation. If a coach is using unsual jargon which appears to incite a player, I see nothing wrong with a friendly conversation?


I think most referees are smart enough NOT to have a conversation with a coach given the examples you cite. Again, it is tough to convey context. We all know intent when we see it. My formula is simple:

"strange language" + "intent by player' = card to player/talk to coachTo be clear here, this part of the discussion didn't start with a hypothetical. It started with a firm example that you gave from "your game last night." In that example, you said the exact language that was used, stated that you understood the language simply to mean "don't give up," and took no action, but then said that, had a cardable offence been committed, you would have returned and spoken with the coach.

Do I have any of the facts wrong or did I misconstrue what you said? Because if I did, this discussion is completely academic. I took issue most with how you said you would go back and talk to the coach only after a cardable offence even though you didn't think it was a problem initially. Are you backtracking from that position or did I misunderstand you?

As for the hypothetical goes, of course I agree it's hard to discern and convey without being there. That's why I advocate only taking the harshest action--dismissal--when you're sure that violence has been incited. Anything short of that level and it's a judgment call as to what you should do based on the level of play and a number of other factors.

You have assumed it was benign. Some things are benign in a certain instance, but as situations progress they are no longer. Like chemisty, certain materials are inert in a particular instance. Add heat, cold or other factors and they become volatile.No offense, but I think this line of reasoning is idiotic--at least on the soccer field. Like I said, take the example of a clean, hard tackle. You decide there is no foul and play continues. A minute or two later, the player that was tackled retaliates and commits SFP. Everyone watching the game KNOWS that the retaliatory foul was because of the initial hard tackle. Under your line of reasoning, we as referees should go back and address the original tackle and sanction that player, too? That's stupid.

Players are responsible for their actions. If the coach says something like "hunt him down" and everyone understands it to mean "mark him hard" or "don't give up" and then a player commits a red card offence, it is the player who bears personally responsibility. The coach is not suddenly guilty of an offence, too.

Who said lecture? When did referees give up control of what goes on on the field? If there appears to be a correlation between a coach, using unusual language or techniques to "motivate" his players, and fouls/injuries during a match, I have an OBLIGATION to have a brief talk with the coach. You mean I can only at when he uses obvious negative language like "kill him" or "take him out"? I don't agree. Yes, there are times where coaches you language to incite their players, but that is usually done in team huddles and good coaches give it context which the players understand (i.e., "when the coach says 'hunt him down' little Timmy knows he means close space, get the ball"). But when such language is used outloud it does cause questions and concern. Tell me, what do you say to the opposing parents/coach when they ask you why you allowed a coach to say "hunt him down"?Like you've said above, it's hard to convey exactly what a situation is like if you're not there. If a coach says "hunt him down" and I understand it to be the jargon a coach uses to mean "mark him" or "trackback" then I'll explain just that to opposing coach/player (I'm probably going to ignore a parent) that asks.

And it does look we disagree, here because I am saying that, with rare exception, the only time we should intervene and challenge the way a coach communicates with his players is when he's inciting violence (being abusive to his own players is another example).

I guess I am an enigma in refereeing as I also hold a current UEFA coaching license (USSF C equivalent). I am aware of the national coaching programs, what they teach and how coaches are expected to conduct themselves. You can see it when you referee. The coaches who are quiet, polite and almost not there are the ones with higher level licenses. You are trained in ways to motivate players. Also, UEFA referees used to have a clinic each year in how to recognize aggressive players/coaches BEFORE they become a problem. Believe me, odd/cryptic language/instructions was on the first slide in this course as warning signs of potential bad behavior. UEFA's suggestion: Have a short chat with the coach to let him know you are listening.Well, if that's UEFA's teachings, I think I disagree. If you're listening and you catch something, then you deal with it. Full stop. Getting in a cute cat-and-mouse game of "I know what you're doing and I'm on to you," just, in my opinion, distracts you from what you're supposed to be doing on the field and potentially leads you down a bad path.

[ref2coach]

Referee magazine once published an article titled something like "Where is your help". The article spoke of the different places you can gather information to assist you in how you choose to control your match. 1st your partners, 2nd the players, 3rd the coaches and a distant 4th the spectators. The idea is to be fully aware of the "information" you are getting from each source. Is there something going on that you are not aware of? Is the reason for something happening on the field coming from an influence other than the immediate situation you are making a judgment upon.

Lowenboy clearly heard what the coach said. He made a judgment (do nothing) regard how he interpreted what he heard. He said "IF" based on the way a player later played, caused him to question the way he had "judged" the information he heard by listening to the coach, he would have then had a quiet, non confronting word with the coach and player. I think this is an example of good game management. I have had the "help me understand" discussion with a coach and seen an immediate change in the play of his team. This did not require any cards and did accomplish a positive change in the match. Do I use it often? No, in a full slate of USSF, NFHS and NISOA game I might do this once or twice a year. Don't be so quick to dismiss a place to get some "help", it is just 1 technique to have in your "tool bag".