Graham Poll - Signal to Manager so He Can Sub Player Out

[Footballer]

http://www.freefootball.org/read-news.php?newstitle=soccer/07/04/09/SOCCER_Charlton_Quotes

Did anyone see this? What do you think of this?

Certainly in the youth level, I can understand. But these are professionals. I think many of us have done adult games where you do the best you can to minimize problems/issues, but sometimes, you have one of those games where whatever you do, you know they just want to kill each other. So you do the best you can and leave it at that.

But what do you think of this situation.

[jclepp]

Interesting...Certainly outside of the LOTG, however, the referee is there to serve the game. Would the game and players have been better served if the Managers request had been ignored and the second yellow displayed? Sometimes professional respect and the spirit of the game win out.

That said, the approach of the manager probably had a lot to do with the way Graham responded. Graham has certainly opened himself up for second guessing down the line (but what referee decision is not subject to that)?

I applaud him.

[jacoismyhero]

I think that this exercises the Common Sense Law reasonably, and is a perfect example of making a decision for the better of the game. Song was "on loan from Arsenal" and they already had two injury related hardships, so why punish the team more for a relative "outsider" to the team?

I, too, applaud him.

[Ref Flunkie]

I like it and see no conflict with the LOTG.

[gosellit]

This is what we are asked to do at college showcase tournaments.

[Englishref]

The official line is that Alan Pardew went to see Graham Poll to ask if he could give a sign during the second half if Song was getting close, but managers aren't allowed to speak to referees at HT according to FA/PL rules, so was turned away. However, in the second half, Song committed one or two tackle that brought him very close to a SBO, and so Poll had a quiet word with Luke Young (Charlton skipper) to get him to have a word with Song and tell him that he basically one more foul away from a second yellow. This message was then relayed to the benches, and Pardew subbed Song.

Arguably not technically correct, but it's something we all do. If you're having problems with a player, and you like to use common sense and man-management in your game, then you might have a word with the skipper and see if he can sort him/her out.

[Wreave]

As a referee, I generally know when a player is one foul away from a PI card. I would have no problems notifying that player or coach if requested. Normally, I give a verbal warning to the player, but that's not so much a "next one is a card" threat as threats can come back to bite you.

Here's an article: http://www.freefootball.org/read-news.php?newstitle=soccer/07/04/09/SOCCER_Charlton_Quotes

And a key quote:
"I said if he makes another challenge which you are unhappy about, I cannot do nothing if it is a silly one, I know that - but if he is making silly ones and the next one is going to be it, then please let me know."

That seems very reasonable on the part of the manager and on the part of the ref. Good game management and communication.

[DadOf6]

As a referee, I generally know when a player is one foul away from a PI card. I would have no problems notifying that player or coach if requested. Normally, I give a verbal warning to the player, but that's not so much a "next one is a card" threat as threats can come back to bite you.

When Adu was called for his second handling during FCD@RSL game on Saturday the CR walked up to Adu and clearly showed two fingers. That should notify both the player and the coach.

[intechpc]

Well I'm late to the party for this thread. However, I personally have no problem with this. It's a little odd in a pro level and to have the coach ask, but I've seen and done this myself. Usually in youth matches, if I have a player that I've addressed once after noticing he/she is getting heated, if they don't cool down, I'll try to make a quick comment to the coach about it. Usually in those matches (where unlimited substitutions are allowed), the coach pulls the player at the next stoppage and cools them down. Certainly works better for match management than letting it get to the point of a caution or send-off. Now at higher levels, admittedly I don't do this much if at all. But I can tell you coaches and (whether they know it or not) players do appreciate the communication.

[LoewenBoy]

http://www.freefootball.org/read-news.php?newstitle=soccer/07/04/09/SOCCER_Charlton_Quotes

Did anyone see this? What do you think of this?

But what do you think of this situation.
Am late to the party too, but I guess I am the lone voice in the wilderness on this one. What about the OTHER coach? Does this act not take away impartiality? Had he stayed on and been sent off the clear advantage to the other team would have been taken away by this act. Is Pardew THAT out to lunch he cannot tell when his player is close to explusion?

I can see this at youth games, folks, but the EPL? Give me a break.:rolleyes: These are big boys with millions of dollars on the line. I have a real problem with this at this level.

[USSF REF]

Am late to the party too, but I guess I am the lone voice in the wilderness on this one. What about the OTHER coach? Does this act not take away impartiality? Had he stayed on and been sent off the clear advantage to the other team would have been taken away by this act. Is Pardew THAT out to lunch he cannot tell when his player is close to explusion?

I can see this at youth games, folks, but the EPL? Give me a break.:rolleyes: These are big boys with millions of dollars on the line. I have a real problem with this at this level.

It's not really a big deal. The team has to use a sub if they want him to come off anyway. Just remember fans are paying to see 22 soccer players not 21 if we can help it.

I don't really see the harm. As far as the other coach goes - I suspect Poll would have given him the same treatment out of fairness, if the situation had arisen.

[LoewenBoy]

It's not really a big deal. The team has to use a sub if they want him to come off anyway. Just remember fans are paying to see 22 soccer players not 21 if we can help it.
I would disagree. The fans paid to see a match played equally and fairly. If someone gets sent off for being an idiot and the coach is too stupid to be able to read his players and the ref's reaction, so beit. You really think the OTHER fans found this okay? Postings on several fan-based boards suggest otherwise.

I don't really see the harm. As far as the other coach goes - I suspect Poll would have given him the same treatment out of fairness, if the situation had arisen.
Yes, I am sure he would have done the same for both, but that does not make it right. IMHO, this opens doors in which we should not tread. for youth games I can see it, but these guys get paid to play this game. NExt thing you know it will be come habit for coaches to waltz into the offical's chambers at the half and request the "high sign" if one of their players is getting close to ejection. That's a load of rubbish. Agreed that as a single event there is no harm done. But where does it end? When do you say no way? Better to just not go there than to open up MORE game management issues. We have enough to deal with. Let the coach do his job and we do ours.

[ref47]

i agree with loewenboy on this. i will try to keep the match fair and safe. i do not view it as my job to keep anyone on the field (other than me). i will advise players when they are near card issuance, as a warning. but, i will not go out of my way to avoid giving an earned card, and advising a coach on this is a definite no for me.

[ref2coach]

I did something similar two days ago. I was reffing a High School boys match. The match was a "non-district" game. One player had been cautioned in the first half by my partner. (NFHS two Referee System). The player was getting frustrated with about 12 minutes remaining. He had just committed his second foul right after losing the ball each time. I brought the player's obvious, to me, frustration, to the coaches attention. He subbed the player. Meaningless game ended and he still has one of his better players available to play the "district" game they will play later today.

[bluedevils]

I understand both sides of the argument. On the one hand, it is NOT our job to keep players on the field and it is not our job to notify the manager when a player is exhibiting bad behavior and/or close to earning a card. I agree it could become a slippery slope and an easy target for claims of bias by one team's coach or fans.

On the other hand, we already give these sorts of warnings sometimes to the player himself. Isn't it just an extension of managing the game if we give the same sort of information to the manager? I'm not saying we should go out of our way as referees to communicate this sort of information to managers, but if we are able to squeeze in a quick glance or brief word at a convenient opportunity, why not? Nor am I saying we should hold back and NOT give a card simply because the coach has said something like, 'my player will be suspended a game if he gets another yellow this season. If he does something that would normally be a yellow, let me know and I will sub him out of the game.' I've heard that on college games so many times, it gets very tiresome. If they do something that warrants a card, it should be given.

[LoewenBoy]

On the other hand, we already give these sorts of warnings sometimes to the player himself. Isn't it just an extension of managing the game if we give the same sort of information to the manager?
At the levels of play below professional? Absolutely. Heck, in most leagues I think they give the coach the possibility of subbing out players that have either just been carded or have just been "spoken to" by the ref. I think we have even seen cases in lesser leagues where CRs have said to the coach "you may want to sub him here" and allowed a sub to take place. I have no issue with any of that. I have done this as far up as college games I have done. No issues at all with such an approach, but would shy away from it in "big" games.

But we are talking BIG boys here who get millions of dollars a year to play this game, with coaches who get paid tens of thousands of dollars each week to coach. Why should WE take it upon ourselves at this level to manage his players for him? Granted most of us will never set foot in the EPL to watch a game, let alone ref one...but still. We have enough to deal with than to babysit some millionaire footballer who cannot hold his temper. Let the coach deal with it.

[USSF REF]

Yes. And in Poll's view the player had not yet done something to warrant the 2nd caution. He did inform the coach that the player was close, per the request. I don't really see this as fundementally unfair the referee indicated that the player was close so the coach chose to use a sub - there is nothing that says the referee must stay quiet and keep his thoughts secret. If the referee feels communicating something to the teams or a team is important then he should be allowed to do this. The coach then has the option of burning a sub if he likes and so he did.

Contrary to what's been said here. I am of the view that it is the referee's job to do his utmost to try to keep 22 players on the field for the whole match. Clearly, sometimes the players make that impossible and then it becomes our duty to send players off - and we must do our duty. However, if the referee can prevent misconduct and subsequently punishment that would eventually occur by being a proactive referee, then the game is better off for it. The fewer fouls we must call, the fewer player's names we have to take, and the fewer players sent off is for the better in my mind. In order to achieve this, maximum communication with your fellow referees and appropriate communication with players and coaches can help prevent fouls, cards, and teams playing short. Preventative refereeing can go a long way to improving the flow of a soccer match - and keeping the players in the game is also a part of that.

For me doing our job correctly and with confidence comes first, but I always try to help the players stay in the game whenever possible. Though, I don't flounder on cards due to this, I just try to keep them from reaching the point where I have to use one. That is why I don't have a beef with what Poll did here, he's trying to keep players in the game and keep the game under control with his management and not his cards.

And for me - this goes for the players at the top too. In fact player management is even MORE important in the Big leagues. Just using your cards and not talking to players will get you into trouble.

[ref47]

yes, they do manage the game differently at that level. how many times have you seen a player accumulate 4, 5 or more fouls and not get a pi yc? too often by the lotg. it's all about the $$$.

[LoewenBoy]

And for me - this goes for the players at the top too. In fact player management is even MORE important in the Big leagues. Just using your cards and not talking to players will get you into trouble.
Hold the phone. Who said we would use our cards and not talk to players? Not me? Did not see anyone else say it either. Certainly you talk to players, calm them down, blah, blah, blah. We just said it is not our responsibility to do the coach's job for him. Our job is to fair, impartial and enforce the LOTG. Not to notify coaches when you have had it with one of their players and are about to send him off? You see what Poll did was being consistent with this mission, we disagree.

Explain to me again how it is fundamentally fair that Poll goes out of his way to make sure ONE team does not play a man down by giving what amounts to special and unusual treatment to that team? Where is the line drawn if we do this all the time? Won't coaches start complaining, "Hey, why did you red card him? I thought we had an agreement at half time you would warn me first?" Do you do this for only second bookable offenses? Do you now warn a coach when a player is comitting PI that he might be on the verge of y/r?

Got to tell you, in 25+ years I have never heard of such rubbish. How long are we going to coddle people? Kids I can see, but pro players? How I long for the old days when people took responsibility for themselves and not placed the burden on the enforcers of the rules.

I like Poll's other way of handling the situation: Just give out three yellows! :D

[bluedevils]

But we are talking BIG boys here who get millions of dollars a year to play this game, with coaches who get paid tens of thousands of dollars each week to coach. Why should WE take it upon ourselves at this level to manage his players for him? Granted most of us will never set foot in the EPL to watch a game, let alone ref one...but still. We have enough to deal with than to babysit some millionaire footballer who cannot hold his temper. Let the coach deal with it.

Reading this, it seems reasonable enough. But the devil's advocate in me wonders this:

1. Why are we willing to assume more responsibility for doing this stuff at the lower levels?

2. Is it really necessary or helpful to NOT take on responsibility at the higher levels? Aren't the game and The Beautiful Game both better off if we better manage the game instead of taking a hard-line 'that's not my job' approach?

3. In your mind, is this responsibility a continuum, or is it a black-and-white thing whereby the ref should go full-bore to work with the coach up to a certain level of game but any games above that level, the ref shouldn't touch this type of responsibility with a 10-foot pole? I suspect most would say 'continuum' but that brings on more questions...what factors determine if this game is a 'It is kosher for ref to work through the coaches' game or not?