I am a State Trooper in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and constantly hear how units not only write a ticket but lecture the individual on the dangers of speeding. I hate this and see that referees do a similiar thing when the decide to lecture a player before issuing a booking. I believe you get your point across with the card only and if you want to lecture it should be as a warning and nothing else. I enjoy seeing officials brandish the card quickly with nothing said as I believe it adds to the drama. What do you think?
With a red card, you don't need to say anything. However, for something between reckless and violent, you need an orange card - a yellow card with an ass chewing. It shouldn't be lengthy, but you need to get across the idea, "not in my game."
Unlike a foul where the the stoppage is usually signalled and the offense is often clear, the referee's actions are usually sufficient but, when dealing with misconduct, which may be at the next stoppage and considerable time may have elasped since the incident, someadditional communication is usually a good idea, Remember, showing the card is not the caution or send-off, but the way we signal what we have done, after the fact. My sense is that the most effective mechanic is to 1) separate the player (sort of like cutting out a steer from the herd), 2) have a word such as "#9 that was really nasty", 3) gauge the result of your comment as you write in your book (or not), 4) Then annnouce your decsion (ie. "#9 you are being cautioned for unsporting behavior" or not) then 5) show the appropriate card, or not, and if a send-off, wait for the player to leave before you start play or if a caution, get play started quickly. The reason I say "or not" is that often, once you single out the player, you may find that that a caution or send-off is not necessary, and a few words would better serve the game and be more effective managemnet. In my opinion there is nothing that makes a referee look more foolish is to see them flash a card at a player twenty yards away or throw it in a players face, like one at the WC. This was an embarrasment. (for all the criticism we can heap on Mr. Moreno, he certainly had a classy way of signaling misconduct) Remember cards are just tools. It takes a certain amount of skill to learn how to use them. Sherman
I agree with Sherman on this, after having finally seen the light that the yellow card is a tool for my game management as opposed to a punishment for a player. There are times that a card needs to be at least visible right away, for example for a particularly nasty foul when you want all to know that the justice with be served. Still, you should take the time to talk to the player with the card still by your side. This should be done in the most calming matter available at the time. Explain that the behavior was unacceptable and cannot be tolorated again. Then formally let the player know that he is being cautioned and why, showing the card when you are done with the talk to the player. Scott
It also depends on the local culture. When I lived in the DC area, I often took my time and talked to the player when issuing a card. This slows the game down and diffuses the situation. It also allows the reff to appeal to the players sense of reason and ensure he knows what he did. Sometimes it is good to whip it out nice and quick to prevent the retaliatory fouls and show the opponants that you are in control. I liked the way a reff (Hugh Dallas?) from scotland(?) handled cautions in a match he did. He was VERY deliberate and spoke to both players at length. This is a great way to calm tempers........he also failed to add enough time after the match for the delays. But that is another subject.
I usually do a three step process when I caution: 1. Separate the player from the pack 2. Present the card, and announce the reason,"you are being cautioned for ______________" 3. Note it in my book, and then talk, sotto voce, to the player, and gently explain my actions. I think it is important to also announce loudly the reasons for calling certain fouls. For example, in a recent game, perhaps the best player on the field twice clipped heals when the ball was gone; the second time I announced the foul loudly so all could hear, " a trip -- watch those feet when the ball is gone." Third time he did it?? Out came the card, and my announcement "Your are being cautioned for persistent infringement, tripping a player again after the ball is gone." Then EVERYONE, players and parent specatators alike, know exactly why it was done, and there is no grousing or confusion
Simply showing a yellow card with nothing said doesn't accomplish much with the player. However, usually the recommended procedure is to talk to the player FIRST before showing the card. Once you show the card you walk away and get the game going -- no sense in hanging around after showing a card unless you want to give out more
Not to pick on you in particular Statesman, but I'm a little surprised that this seems to be a sentiment that has been consistently expressed throughout this thread. The simple fact is, there is no certain manner for delivery of a card that can be used in all circumstances. I can think of dozens of cases in the past year when I issued a card with no words whatsoever and I got the desired result. I can also think of many where I had a lengthy talk with a player and also got the desired result. The key is knowing when to take which approach. No referee should simply have one certain method of issuing cards. As an example, Karl Keller listed his three steps for issuing cards. In many leagues and many situations his second step (explaining "you are being cautioned for _______") would not go over well at all. Many players know exactly what they're being cautioned for and they want to get on with the match. Picking and choosing the situations for verbally admonishing a player is a vital component of good man management. To be a good referee, an official not only uses the cards as a tool of game management, but he also uses various methods (the plural being very important here) of delivery to control the match.
Funny you replied when I said that MassRef. I had the word "usually" in that sentence quoted but then took it out when I saw I used it in the next sentence too. Guess I shouldn't have, as you are correct and there are definitely times where all that is needed is the showing of the card. The point of my post was more to indicate it's best to talk to the player first before showing the card, then leaving right afterwards. Thanks for pointing that out though
Sure thing, and I guess we agree that different times, different plays, different fouls and different levels all matter in how we approach things. The only thing I'd disagree with you on is when you say "it's best" to talk to the player first. Again, especially depending on the level, talking might be a necessity, or it might be a method that brings more headaches than you care to take on. I truly think that the situation dictates what is "best".
For example... I'd think that two examples where one clearly should and should not take a player aside to explain a card are: (1) Persistent infringement. No explanation means the message doesn't get across in most cases. (2) Dissent. It's clear to the player that the yellow is for dissent, and the goal of the card is to calm things down - a lecture doesn't help achieve that goal. So it does seem that one approach does not fit all cases...
I think in most leagues -- that is most YOUTH level leagues -- explanations for the delivery of cautions go over just fine. Often it's just "caution for reckless challenge." Quick note in the book, and then play goes on. But everyone is clear on the "why?" The reason for the caution may be obvious to you, and it may be obvious to me, but is it necessarily obvious to everyone else? Frankly, I could care less whether a player thinks I am "officious" or not. I am probably a lot less dictatorial than some centers -- my bias is to let players play. I believe that part of my job to center -- since I do only youth level games -- is to get naive parents -- and yes, players -- to understand why things are happening the way they do. It's part of the teaching obligation I feel we should have when we do such games. A professional level game -- which I haven't done -- may be different.
As someone who coaches only at the youth level, you get absolutely no argument from me (and probably a lot of appreciation were you to ref one of our games). It's a much bigger problem when kids are confused over why they've been called for something, much less carded, than it is when people chafe over the fact that the CR is talking to them. Clarity from the CR helps the game and to the extent lectures contribute to this, they're a good thing.
You're not going to let me slip anything by today, are you? I realized when I said "best" that you'd probably call me out on that one as well. I guess I need to be very specific from now on Try this: "Should a situation occur where the showing of the yellow card is necessary, it is wise to first determine whether anything needs to be said. If so, then the recommended procedure would be to talk to the player before showing the card then promptly walking away to prevent any further dissent." I'll give you 10 bucks if you find a statement that doesn't work for you in that
Well, I'm not going to take your 10 dollars, but.... There are times when I would want to talk to a player after issuing a yellow card, too. I'm specifically thinking of situations where you need a quick yellow for match control, but that you also know you can level/reason with the player you're cautioning. Quick yellow, possibly to prevent retalitation, and then a few words with him to explain why you did and and attempt to calm him down. Of course, in the majority of situations, particularly PI, you are correct that if you choose to talk to the player, you want to do so before the issuing of the card.
Glad to see that most of you think that talking to the player is important. Remember that cards were introduced only after the 1966 World Cup in England, the first widely televised around the world. Prior to that cautions were solely verbal, and the act of "booking" was the only signal to fans that it had occurred. Now too many of us just call it a "yellow" and forget the caution part of it. Too many brandish their cards like a weapon, and forget the conversational aspects of game management. Now if I can only remember to hold it high instead of in the player's face ........