With the recent thread about the David Beckhman WC '98 send-off, I began thinking about Kim Milton Nielsen's mechanics - cautioning Simeone and then sending-off Beckham. I have been taught that in a foul-retaliation situation where 2 cautions will be given, you caution the original instigator first, and then punish the retaliator. But what happens when the retaliator needs to be sent off? I have also been taught that if you are going to send someone off, do it before anything else and get them away from the area of conflict. If a cautionable foul occurs, and the player who was fouled gets up and left hooks the guy and spits in his face, he needs to be sent off. But which do you do first, the send-off or the caution? Now, the Beckham retaliation was by no means violent, so the level of conflict was not as high. But Nielsen felt he needed to be sent off. In that case, which card would you have shown first?
Well, from my years of training, the 'order' has not be specified. This differs from which foul to "penalise first," which we know is the most seroius first. In light of the becks thing, It seems that on caution occured while the ball was in play so that he would be cautioned. Then Becks retailated, so then he would be sent off. In that order. I guess those who have gone farther than I have may have a different perspective, but I would caution the first offense, then the sending off offense. In my judgement in similar situations, I was already cautioning the player (in my mind) so thats what I will do first. Then the 'retailiation' so therefore that would be then next logical move. Ball in play, cautionable play. Caution player. Then retailiation, Send off player. This is not documented somewhere, but I understand the "punish the most serious" idea, but that comes into play if both actions are done by the same team. Otherwise I really don't think it matters, however in game management, the way it was done makes the most sense to me. Others may disagree, but my "objective' hehe, opinion would be caution then send off. It also is easier for players/spectators to understand. I am cautioning for the foul, then sending off for the retailiation. This is all academic, and I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the call, just explaining the mechanics ANR
I think you need to decide what is best for management reasons. Often times the retaliator needs to be dealt with first for calming reason. One time I did two at once was on a yellow card tackle, while on my way in to card a teammate of the offended player pushed the original tackler (not enough to VC). I had to deal with the retaliator first since a mob was forming and trouble was coming. As I cautioned him, the original offender wandered off (I now cover this in pre-game!), and I carded him after. Two cards served in reverse order of what happened and everyone seemed happy with the way it went. I also now cover in my pre-game, on multi-card things like this, please help me keep track of someone who wanders away from the area.
Hi falcon. The way I see it, there are two ways you can handle these kinds of situations. You can card the first guy and then the second, or card the second guy and then the first OK, so kidding aside, I think NHRef is correct that it depends on man management for that situation. Although I believe the most typical scenario would call for the red card first, and the caution second. The only time I might think of the yellow card first is when there has been a bit of a scuffle and everybody already knows the first guy will receive yellow but they might not be sure you are going to actually red the second guy. Then you can take care of the yellow in a business-like fashion, booking the guy and getting the yada yada out of the way. After, you turn to the other guy, and get quiet and stern and serious... seperate him from the pack and then -- boom -- red card. It kind of provokes an "oh... sh*t!" response from the players, and the built up drama tends to knock the wind out of their sails if they are thinking to protest. Pretty much all other times, most players will instantly have "red" flags going off in their mind, where if they DON'T see a red card immediately then they are going to be very upset! So, you should definitely deliver on their expectations by sending the offender off ASAP. When an obvious red card offense gets committed the players tend to not focus so much (or at all) on the fact there was a yellow card offense too.
This can be seen as similar to the mechanics we use for any misconduct. Generally we are told to separate the player, talk to him, explain why the conduct cannot be tolerated, write his name/number, and then show the card. But if the situation warrants it, we can flash the card right away to hopefully manage things. For example, showing the card might discourage the opponents from retaliation. In the normal scheme of things, we would show cards in the order they were earned. But if the situation requires diffusing, we may need to show the red first.
Found the definitive answer from Jim Allen. SEQUENCE FOR ISSUING CARDS Your question: A question came up in a game about the proper sequence in the order of issuing cards and I can't find the immediate answer in the guide of officals etc. The question is: Is it proper to issue an ejection first then a caution to the second player in an incident? The incident Player A Team A elbowed to the face player B Team B. Player B retaliated with a push to player A. Please advise. USSF answer (October 31, 2006): You first issue the card that is most needed to defuse the situation and prevent further escalation. In the absence of a need to defuse a tense situation, the normal order is to issue a card first to the player who committed the first misconduct and to follow in the order in which the misconduct behaviors occurred. You then record both or issue one and record, issue the second and record. http://www.drix.net/jim/past064.html ANR
This is common sense and player/game management. As the astute Jim Allen points out, do what you have to do to diffuse the situation. Deal with the harsh misconduct first. This will appease the team that recieved the harsh/egrigious misconduct and calm th situation. It is all about "man" management. The second card (in this case yellow) tells everyone that you are in control and will not tolerate retalliation. Simple. Just my opnion.
What are you talking about Yellowshirt? "The second card (in this case yellow)" has nothing to do with retalliation... The yellow card is for the original foul... the RED card shows you will not tolerate MISCONDUCT... Not so simple. Just my opinion. ANR
The question in the Jim Allen thread dealt with retalliation. The question in THIS thread was when both need to be sent off. Again, deal with whatever you have to deal with first to diffuse the situation. In the case at hand...a quick red to the player who committed the first misconduct...then the red to the reatlliator (wish I could spell) If the situation is such that you need to remove the retalliator quickly you do that first. Not difficult...much of soccer is player management....do what you need to do, within the Laws to control the situation....that is why there is no definitive mechanic for situations such as this as each may be different.