I have worked with a ref who is very rigid in his refusal to speak to anyone but the captains of a team. He absolutely refuses to speak to a coach, or any player or answer any questions about anything unless it is the captain. Player asks how much time is left. "Player, only your captain may speak to me..." Player asks if it was he/she offside, politely and appropriatly IMO, and is told "Have you captain speak to me" Coach goes to apologise (Civilly IMO) about his parents getting upset for playing on while an injured player was down and is berated for not sending his captains to speak to him. He insists that the laws of the game and rule require him to only speak with the Captains. I think it is too much and silly, resulting in him/refs looking silly and rigid. Any thoughts?
Your analysis works for me. As far as I'm concerned, the captain is the one who goes up for the coin flip. I'll talk to anyone - when it's convenient and they're polite! It's a lot less convenient to talk to coaches and spectators, but sometimes it helps. It also sometimes backfires!
It is a bad technique. Although there are times when it is appropriate for referees to defer any conversation with a player or team official, it is arrogant and disrespectful to refuse to speak at all times and under all circumstances. Nothing in the laws supports the notion that only captains may speak with officials. The captains have no such special privilege. (FIFA Additional Instructions.) This referee has made a choice, based on his personality, only to speak with captains. For most of us, there are many benefits to being open and approachable. In its guide for new referees, the USSF talks about listening to players: "Listen to what players are saying. Allow them to vent for a few seconds before calling it dissent. You might find out about fouls you are missing, or there may be something else going on that can be easily corrected. This tactic also lets the players know you are willing to listen up to a certain point. This type of exchange should not go on often in a game and should not last for more than a few seconds. If it goes on longer, you must deal with it. The more experience you have as a referee, the easier it is to set boundaries and to know when and where to set them."
Talking to players as Doug points out is actually a great thing. In a tough spot, it might be the safety valve that gets you off the hook without a major disturbance breaking out. I would talk to your common assignor. This guy appears to be so far off base, that he is courting long term trouble. Rigidity is not something I like in a fellow referee. Call the game that is happening in front of you at the moment, not the one that is happening in your little rule book. R
I, for one, am pretty much in regular communication with the players within earshot. Yeah, I only do AYSO right now, so it's recreational & instructional, but I find I can keep a lid on fouls & let 'em play if I'm telling them when they're getting close to a foul ("Number Nine, please watch your elbows.") & encouraging the kids who've suffered a tough break ("Clever shot! Too bad that defender got in there. You've got a real nose for the goal." or "You all right? Wow, you really took one for the team there.") At least in my little context, I cannot think of one reason why a ref would only speak to captains. Unless the game isn't about the kids, of course... Be well, Sandcrab
For myself, I have found that when approached by a player about a foul they felt I missed the simple reply of "Sorry if I missed that foul, I did not that but if I see it I will call it" in an easy, solid manner that much is forgiven from a player. You never know when a player will end up telling a coach or other player, "hey- he's not such a bad guy....", which can buy more peace in my life that any whistle might. We are not there to be a friend, but we are supposed to be human and decent, not on a power trip.
I can find 10,000,000 players who will take that statement and follow it with: "Maybe should open your eyes";"Apology accepted, you still suck";"*insert smart-a$$ comment here*". I could see players hearing that is "my bad guys". I know kids on my team would. Say there was nothing wrong there? If he persists, ignore him. The player will get the point. I really see thats my best trick to prevent complaints and escalating the severity of dissent.
I presume you have a different reply if indeed you did see what he is referring to and deemed it fair, or doubtful and trivial yes?
Yes. My point is that if the players are treated in a consistant and respectful manner then we have only reinforced our position in being even handed and as fair as possible. I am not advocating a running conversation, but simply feel that a very brief response that evidences our ability to listen as well as speak can only help us in the long run. I have no question that most will still feel me to be an inept old fart blind in one eye and deaf in the other.
And if they follow your statement with the quotes in your first paragraph, out comes the old yellow card. I wouldn't say "sorry." Keep it short--"I didn't see it, I'll keep an eye out for it" if it wasn't in your vision. If you did see it, and called it differently, just say "Not what I saw" or "50-50 ball, no foul" or something descriptive. You should communicate, briefly and in a non-antagonistic way, when there may be some dispute about whether you saw something--"Handball, ref." "Trivial" or "Arm was next to the body" or somesuch.
I couldn't find anything in the LOG that had any comment whatsoever about who could or couldn't talk to the ref. I think this is very poor officiating. I have no problem with refs limiting their responses to factual questions ("What was that call?") but to refuse to talk to anyone but a captain ever smacks of a major power trip.
Idk, im all for keeping it short and sweet all the time. I got heated as a player and i love it when refs dont give me anything to get mad about. I know its not our job as officials to do that, but i think its a nice touch to keep everyone good.