Listen to this story, it's a classic: Before the game started, the ref comes up to our team. He goes through the normal pre-game check (shinguards, cleats, ect.). Then he talks about the league policy on taunting (automatic red card). Then, during the 2nd half, a kid on the other team screams at our striker "Shut up. Dude, aren't you sick of losing. You guys suck" (or something along those lines). I'm the sweeper and I heard this clearly. The ref proceeds to give the kid who screamed at our striker a yellow card. I ask the other ref who is right next to me why it was a yellow and not a red. He responds dumbly saying that the kid probably said something to the ref (eventhough he almost certaintly had heard the comment). Conclusion: What's the point of making rules if the refs are gutless and are not going to enfore them?
The point of making rules is that we have something to enforce. We all have stories about refs that either don't know the rules or don't enforce them. This board is for intelligent discussion of referee issues, not for slagging on those of us who have a bad game or are incompetent.
Your question does raise the question of how to deal with inexperienced or incompetent referees. My suggestion is to work through the assignor. Do other refs have better or more effective suggestions?
no need to get uptight While the tone or flavour of the commentator rubs the edge as we grind our teeth, there is a very valid point being raised. WE can all accept an honest error and recognize effort but if you specifically tell the players I will do this your credibility is TOTALLY shot when you do not!. We need to be smarter than that. We need to rephrase our comments to remove the word SHOULD implying "must" into the word COULD impliying "choice". Pregame talks are not risk free but by a greater understanding of perception we can eliminate some not all unfortunately of the unpleasent attitudes that creep in to a match.
I read an excellent article that applies here called "digging a hole" or something to that effect. One of the main points was that if referees make catagorical long winded statements before a match they are setting themselves up for failure. As soon as you state "I will not accept".........you will. I dont think anyone wanted reffs to have ZERO discretion on any issue. Mandatory sentencing has its drawbacks in the courtroom and on the soccer pitch.
The ATR if I recall is quite clear as are many higher level instructors, that one should avoid giving entensive pre-game talks about what will not be tolerated or called. You open yourself up to gamesmanship on the part of players and coaches if you detour from your pre-game. Best to just go over a simple set of instructions. 1. Play until you hear my whistle. 2. Captains are responsible for their teammates. 3. I like to play advantage, so keep playing. You'll hear me call it out and signal it. 4. Before I blow my whistle to start each half I tell the players to have fun (if youth) or have a great match gentlemen.
Kinda like when a referee tells a coach "one more word and you going to be watching this game from your car!" After working myself into enough corners like that, I'm learning not to use definitive phrasing with players and coaches when I can leave myself leeway otherwise. Scott
My theory is: "Don't fight fights you don't have to fight" Which is another of saying what you guys said ...
Re: no need to get uptight i agree, to a point. with respect to pre-game talks (or statements made during a game), the point is well taken that, as a ref, you need to be careful not to make statements that you do not intend to carry out. credibility is important if you're going to keep control of a difficult game. however, i think it goes too far to say that you need to eliminate all such statements. you just need to be prepare to carry through on them. i had a game several years back between a couple of competitive youth teams. we were starting the game late and were going to be pushing our luck on sundown. i told them that if i blew a whistle for a foul, to leave the ball alone. if they kicked a ball away i would assume they were delaying the game and would card them. 5 minutes in it happened. i carded the kid. the fans yelled at me. the game restarted. fortunately it didn't happen again, but if it had i would have kept issuing cards. i don't see anything wrong with this, and even think that it is fair to warn them about my pet-peeves. again, the key is whether you're prepared to follow through.
The ref here put himself in a hole in his pre-game with the captains; the less said, the better. Do the coin toss and get the game going. That said, I hate it when leagues have stupid rules like this. I'm there to referee a soccer match, not to settle disputes between a bunch of babies - "he said something that hurt my feelings!" SHEESH, shut up and play. If I feel that it's unsportsmanlike, I'll handle it.
I had two players come up to me before a game last weekend to ask me -- and they were polite about it -- to "watch the elbows". I just nodded my head, meanwhile thinking "You have got to be kidding me ..."
Almost every game I get that comment, or something akin to it, almost every game. I get it from players and coaches. What are they thinking? It's really a not so subtle form of dissent. I also usually nod my head but if it persists I tell them to knock off the comments and play. They usually get the hint.
done politely, before the game, at halftime, or after a game, this doesn't bother me at all. in fact, although not a standard practice of mine, i've had games where i have at halftime asked both of the coaches if they have any comments or concerns about the officiating. i do it separately, and basically let them know that as long as they are professional about it, they have a minute to lobby me to the extent they think it is necessary. i then make clear once the minute is up, that i don't want to hear anything further from them for the rest of the game i think this is something that is personal. i don't want to hear about it during the game. i don't want it done in a rude or intimidating manner. but i don't see anything wrong with hearing their views about how the game is going to be played out. of course, just because i'm listening to them, doesn't mean that i'm calling anything any different than i would have without the conversation. . . .
They were probably thinking, "this is a big physical team, last time we played, I got an elbows in the chest and ear. The last ref didn't call much. Maybe we can get some protection today (or some favorable calls)." I know as a coach, I've been there. I've also heard similar comments from coaches and players. Such comments to me as a ref usually are a warning that this may not be an easy game, be ready for a moment of truth.
I was refereeing a college intramural league that had the absolute stupidest ground rule I've ever heard. Any player using the "F word" during a game (even if they uttered it under their own breath after tanking an easy shot) was to be removed from play for the rest of the half. No exceptions. Talk about a rule that's impossible to enforce! Ugh! Not to mention the idiocy of telling college students that saying dirty words will make us sit you in a corner... Turns out our suspicions were confirmed -- the whole reason the rule was implemented was because some dean with a stick up his butt was walking past the field, heard players swearing, and threatened the IM-REC coordinator that Intramurals would be pulled if the language wasn't stopped.
Regarding the "watch the elbows" comment: From a player/coach perspective, I have done this a couple of times before a game or at the half when playing against a team (or a specific player) that has a record of using the elbows dangerously (or tackling from behind, etc.). I do this for a few reasons, all related to protecting my players (not trying to get someone tossed so we can be up a man): 1) Sometimes the player may not intentionally be using the elbows as a weapon, but clumsily beats you with them. I have had refs tell me (after one of my guys went off with a bloody nose) that the offending player "didn't mean any harm" or something similar, and the offending player never even received a talking to. Some of these guys have no clue that they are doing anything wrong. I'm not trying to get the refs to toss these guys, I just want to keep my guys in one piece. 2) I know some players who approach the game with the attitude that the first couple of shots are free ones, that will only get a whistle at worst. (I played with a guy in college who advised me to make my first foul of the match early and hard, which was how he played, because he believed that no ref would give a red in the first few minutes of the game.) If I know a player approaches the game that way, I want the official to be aware. 3) There are some guys who are masters at disguising their fouls, so that the ref and other onlookers can never be sure if the guy did something wrong or not. I took cracked ribs from a guy like that once. If I know a player plays that way, I want the official to be aware.
I was notorious in college. I had no qualms about cautioning or ejecting players who were idiots. If a guy did something stupid in the opening seconds of the game, I would personally ensure it was his last minute of the game. I took a lot of flak for it, but I didn't have to break up many fights, either. I think I got this from my first ref instructor in Massachusetts, who said that he went into every game hoping that something happened in the first few minutes that would merit action on his part. That way, the players would know early that he was not going to take crap from anyone. Turned out to be the best advice I ever got. I was refereeing a pretty headed intercollegiate club match between USC and Weber State in Long Beach, CA, and in the first half, I sent off two players (one from each team) for separate incidents. After the second send off, the players and coaches respected me much more and it turned out to be the best game I ever worked.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not calling refs "gutless." Can you tell a non-ref is there is a written (or unwritten) rule about second yellow cards? It seems that a player who has already been booked often gets away with fouls, dissent and the like that merit yellow cards. At times, the player may have been booked for almost the same thing earlier in the match. The consensus I hear from announcers, coaches, players and (a couple times) refs is that "Yeah, it may have deserved a yellow but a player shouldn't be sent off for something like that." To my way of thinking, whether or not the player already has a yellow should not factor into the ref's decision. Once a player gets a yellow, that player should have to play a bit more carefully. If the player does something that deserves a yellow, that player should get a yellow, even if it means that player is sent off. Am I right in this? In those instances where a ref has given the second yellow to send off a player, I often hear complaints that the ref is affecting the outcome of the game. (I hear the same complaint if a referee awards a PK late in the match.) To my way of thinking, failure to make the tough calls also affects the outcome of the game in favor of the offending player's team (i.e., a player who pulls down a player in the box keeps him from scoring, etc.).
I couldn't agree more. A player doing two stupid things deserves a shower. The NBA is similar. Refs almost never give that sixth foul, especially if the guilty party is a "key" player.
I'll tell you how I handle a situation like this. I'm not an MLS referee, but I am not afraid to give a second caution. A referee has a number of tools to help deal with players. Cards are one important tool, but people skills are just as important and effective. If I caution a player and he comes in with another somewhat dicey challenge or mouths off a bit, I can use that caution to keep the player in the match, depending on the circumstances obviously. All I have to do is say, "#12 you're already in the book, keep it up and you hurt your team. Your choice." Most of the time, this is effective. Now if the second action is more blatant than the first, then I go with the second caution right away. However, the next bookable offense after I try to man manage the situation, the player is gone. I have been instructed to avoid a second caution for failing to give 10 yards. That's a crappy way to send a player off. If there is a situation like this in a wall that merits a caution, I'd caution the player next to the guy in the book already. If it's a player on his own, I tell him "that's a sad way to get sent off, just get back 10 yards." I think the key to this is not giving a "cheap" caution to a player and keeping track mentally of the players already in the book. Now what I wrote is more or less my general style. Others may disagree with me, or have differnt ways of doing things. Also, each situation and each match are going to be a little different. A number of factors will play into an individual decsion in an individual match. I know that may not be completely satisfactory in terms of an answer, but refereeing is more art than science.
Once a player earns a yellow, I'm usually not in the mood to keep him around. If he earns a second, I'm usually more than accommodating.
This is TRUTH. The decision to "let one go", not show the second yellow or award the game deciding PK affects the outcome just the same. I agree with this sentiment 100%. Referees must understand and accept that they have to make tough decisions, those that do not are in fact "gutless". They need to simply enforce the laws of the game consistently. They are not supposed to be administering justice.