This has bit me in the butt twice in the last few months. Game is going on, you know going in that it will be "interesting" as the game has meaning (one was a mens semi-final, one a preview of a state cup final) As the game starts, its going fine, good game, fast paced, players playing, you've identified the play makers and flow and strategy. Then it starts: - you make a call that someone doesn't like, so they chirp about it, nothing real, not dissent, just a quiet comment or question. You work with the person, they don't debate, they take the answer and move along. Fast forward to well into the second half. Somehow, you've gone from that player just making a quiet comment to being across the dissent line. The issue I have is somehow, we got here VERY slowly and gradually. If the player had done earlier, what he's doing now, there would have clearly been a dissent card, he earned it. My issue is "How the heck did I get here?" The player ramped this up over the match very slowly and I fall into the trap of "I didn't card the last one, and this is almost the same....." I know that I have dealt with this by just pulling the card and basically saying it's for the accumulation of comments, not any one comment, but I've had enough and that has worked. I guess what I'm looking for here is two things: 1) How do you detect this is happening to you before you're to far down the road? 2) How do you deal with it as its progressing?
Usually the way it can be "detected" is when players begin dissenting decisions that have no effect on the match, especially throw ins. I use my personality and weigh it against the specific situation. Sometimes I may say," If I was you I really wouldn't argue with the referee over a worthless throw in." Sometimes well used randomness can throw off the player "Yep that was a bad decision but I promise you it won't be the worst one I make today." And sometimes it's appropriate to draw a line in the sand, "We're not gonna do this today; I don't need your help."
1) (No answer. Catch-22: if you saw it coming, you wouldn't be down that road. ) 2) I've been using this lately after the 2nd burst: "You need to get yourself a yellow shirt!" Recently I got to throw in on the next one: "And a rule book!"
In my experience it's usually the same player and after the 2nd or 3rd comment they usually cannot contain themselves and say something like, ref watch the game, or that's the third bad call. I have gone as far as to stop play and say "this is your only warning, nothing else" anything after that is a card minimum and usually a card and a nice AC. Then again, I don't put up with a lot of dissent. If it's one of "those games", I've pulled a card in the 2nd minute for dissent.
How does the rest of the game go when you pull a card in the 2nd minute for dissent? Does that stop the dissent? Or do you wind up pulling lots more cards?
From the tone of NHRef's post, I'm assuming we are talking about a minor disturbance. Something that maybe led to an "avoidable" card/confrontation. Not something that brought the game to it's knees. If that's true, I agree that there is some catch-22 in the dilemma. It’s a subset of giving players rope, but not encouraging them to hang themselves. I’ll go so far as to say that it’s healthy that you find yourself having gone (a little) too far at times. [flowery writing alert! :redface:] One of my favorite metaphors for refereeing is the “Dog Whisperer”. The key lesson it teaches is that all packs have 1 leader. Your dog will either view you as its pack leader, or it will view you as a member of its pack. In the dog world, when a member of the pack gets out of line, the pack leader bites it. Nothing too serious. Not meant to maim. Just enough to ensure Fido knows who is in charge. The part that takes some convincing for many human pack leaders is that this biting process is healthy and normal. In the long run it gives all the members of the ability to relax and enjoy life. So, though I think I understand that you would rather things had not gotten to this point, I don’t think you should view it as a negative that you need to bite back. Assuming you haven’t gone way to far, it should only take a nip and things should return to normal. That's the sign that you haven't lost the game.
I've had it go both ways. Usually the dissent stops and the play cleans up. I have had one instance where they just didn't want to play and it got out of control. The 2-5 mins in card is rare and should only be used if you know it's going to be one of those games. Otherwise, you do risk digging yourself a nice whole in regards to dissent.
And the rest of the pack..... I generally will not put up with a lot of dissent. The first outburst, no matter how small will generally be stomped on pretty vocally. Any repeat by that same player will elict me stopping play at the next opportunity and us having a chat with me first asking him to explain the issue, get it off his chest. I'll then make it really clear, to all parties, that I am not tolerating dissent. I particularly don't stand for players jawwing at my ARs. To go back to the OP, start the cease-and-desist process as soon as you've detected the issue; too late is better than not-at-all. The biggest thing with dissent is backing up your promises with actions. It's a control issue and any wavering/weakness on the part of the referees is fatal.
There is no easy answer - only a few clues you might pick up on. There is always the possibility that some player in particular is just a difficult person and in retrospect should have been cautioned each of the first two acts of dissent and dismissed, to the vastly increased enjoyment of everyone on the field (including the 10 teammates he left on the field who may secretly be glad to see the backside of him even if they would never admit it.) I would say that every act of true dissent needs to be dealt with in some way. How this works depends on your personality. For me, it could be a simple "glare" or negative look. Oddly enough, I am very funny in real life but I don't make jokes on the field, since my brand of humor just doesn't work there. Or it could be a quiet word. Of course, it could be a caution if the dissent is bad enough, or a dismissal if the dissent also qualifies for a more serious offense. But you can't ever let it slide completely. It seems you didn't let it slide, since you said you worked with the player, although you didn't say how. Maybe you were too nice. I've noticed a few trends about when a player's dissent is likely to become a serious problem. If you don't know the player, and he tries to be your friend before the game, watch out for him to turn on you. If the player is disputing decisions about plays where he had no direct involvement, that player might become a problem. For example, if a possible foul occurs and he is neither the recipient nor the instigator. Or, the ball goes out for a throw in, and he is not one of the players who was last involved in play or who was preparing to take the throw in. The players actually involved in a play might express a bit of disagreement which is probably not going to become a problem. It's they guy giving you the running commentary about things happening to other people that is the problem.
Well said, Andy. It's like dealing with a coach. If you ask, ask, tell, tell, tell, tell... You will never get respect. A great piece of advice was given to me years ago. If you are doing something to manage player behavior it is important to see the reaction your actions get from the player. You can keep addressing the behavior in the same manner if it doesn't elicit a change. So, if your quiet word isn't working, start walking up the ladder. I personally use the quiet word when the dissent is low volume. First good, public example of dissent gets upgraded to the "BEEP BEEP BEEP -- knock it off!" Now you can only do that once or twice more before you need to look for the first poor chap to cross the line and out comes the plastic...
Albert Einstein is noted for saying "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
We have a certain team in Dallas with a former Columbus Crew player and his brother that will be the nicest guys before the game, but watch out once you blow the whistle to kickoff. Dallas referees that work the 1A division might know who I'm talking about. You can't really control these players, but you learn to deal with them.
Um, having a "minor" amount of expertise on this issue, I would say that in most dog packs there are lots of other, less overt warning signs given by the leader of the pack before it bites the dog that is out of line. And the rest of the pack is usually acutely aware of this, even if we humans aren't. (Sorry, I digress, had to throw that in there). Getting to the OP's main question, it's a great question and probably one that deserves its own hour-long presentation in a recert. Lots of good points have been made already. Don't tell-tell-tell-tell-etc., stomp it out early, etc. I think the most challenging thing about dissent is to understand there isn't an instruction manual. Every player is different. One guy may be chirping, but he still respects you, and you can engage in some banter (friendly or not friendly) and still get it under control. Somebody else, you try to banter and you end up in the hole NHRef was talking about. This is so much about reading personalities and figuring out what kind of player needs a quiet word, which one needs a public dressing-down, and which one needs a card. Seeing as so many of us work games where we are unfamiliar with the players, we have to be extra cautious with broadcast messages and early cards. On one hand, yes, they tend to squash things early. But they also can make you appear unapproachable and impersonal, which creates its own set of difficulties and problems. I think in those situations, you really need to limit broadcast messages and early cards to the classic 4 Ps (public, personal, provocative, persistent). But if one of those Ps are crossed, heck yeah, use that tool. You get a player like, I dunno, Pablo Mastroeni, on the other hand, where everybody knows he is a pain in the backside, at the first chirp, you can dress him down and set the tone. But you have to know you have a Mastroeni... don't assume. Those are my thoughts anyway. I'm sure somebody else can give good reasons to the contrary...
The card may be essential to bring the match into control. But, sometimes when talking to the player isn't working, talking with the team's leader (not always the same thing as the captain) will. Moreover, when the player ignores the captain, the card that follows can result in a "what did you expect" moment from the teammates. The problem with dissent is that it is infectious. There are several ways to kill a germ.
It's not only infectious to the team either. I've seen parents get riled up because of a loud, dissenting coach that would not stop. Players start it, coaches raise the temps, and before long you have a disgruntled sideline with pitchforks and torches chanting "death to the referee". Ok, maybe the chanting is a bit much...
It can spread in all directions, crossing team lines. Not player dissent, but coaches dissent: I had a game go into the dumpster because the other teams players were thinking "Oh, the Anglo coaches are working the referee. We need to have a say, too." Thanks, coaches. And, I was ready for those loudmouths, too; I knew them. I just didn't stamp it out soon enough.
My last match had dissent by the coach go on WAY too long and too loudly, but it was in the waning minutes of the match (very little dissent until I didn't call a PK at match's end he was SURE had been a major foul - score was 0-0 at the time) and I never did dismiss him - included in the report that I regretted this, and if I had to replay it I would've dismissed him. I had been doing a lot of games, working long hours at my day job, and making frequent 8-hour drives to Memphis to see Mom. I was tired, I'm opposite of most - when I'm tired I put up with more. The match was almost over and I wanted it to be over so I could go home. My solution? I've taken 2 weeks off from soccer and have been with my Mom most of that time. I really needed the rest, hopefully my next assignments will find me energized and alert enough to let those coaches that want to leave early from a match have the opportunity to do so, and those players that seek caution the ability to find it.
I don't even follow my own advice (See Einstein quote above). Last Sunday let the dissent get out of control. Was disappointed with myself, should have pulled the cards sooner. Anyway.... A situation arose, though, that presented a new problem. U15B. Toward the end of the first half one of the visitor players told me that a home forward was calling their keeper names - names which would fall under foul language. Now, most of the home attacks had fairly long shots from outside the 18. The forward rarely got close to the keeper, but did run in at times in case the keeper mishandled the ball. Any comments from him to the keeper had to have been said then - he certainly wasn't shouting them out. At half the visitor coach approached telling me the same thing - I had him go back to his team. After the game he was fairly adamant about it. Now, how to handle this. If the forward is doing such it is to rile up the keeper and his team - he succeeded at this. Or, the visiting team might be playing me, hoping somehow I would send off the home forward. The fact is that it will be very unlikely I'll ever be close enough to hear the forward say anything, and if I'm that close he'll most likely keep his mouth shut. While driving home I thought that maybe the best way to handle would be to run by the forward and tell him something like "You keep playing soccer. There is no need for you to talk to the other keeper." I might have been able to tell from any response (probably facial) if he had been guilty of the described offence - but might not have been. Or I could have talked to him directly - "I'm hearing from your opponents that you're calling their keeper names - stop it." But if he's not doing it this really doesn't seem appropriate - he'll think I'm favoring his opponents. What are your thoughts?
Change the last two words to : "If I hear anything, you are gone." When you warn, you are saying "If". Generally, you should react to this, when first reported, or as soon as practical. Its possible, but not likely you are being played. If/when he plays innocent, say: "Great, just be sure that I will be keeping my ears open." Just talking to him will solve both problems. He will stop; and the opposition will know you are protecting them.
Careful of boxing yoruself in a corner -- what if he says somthing that doesn't warrant a red? Are you going to give him a red anyway? Or are you going to look like you don't mean what you say when you make threats? IMHO, more amorphous is better, perhaps "I don't think you're going to like how I have to deal with it when I hear it," or "I'll bet you can figure out what I'm going to do when I hear it."
I think your thoughts about the visitors playing you are where you lost the plot. Why would they play you like that? Has that ever happened to you before? Gamesmanship is way over thought by most referees. Coaches and players truly aren't that devious. I would have taken what they said at face value, and I would have called the opposing Captain over and told him to tell his guy to not do it anymore. Period. That's why you have a captain, and that's how you prevent the crap from exploding. If in fact the other player is not doing it, the captain will report that back to you.
Hmmm, shot on keeper, attacker breaks in for rebound, where are you? Where you close enough to run in to "prevent" any keeper/attacker collision? Can't tell from your description, but if you see an attacker breaking in on the keeper, you could always follow him in, loop through and jog out with the attacker giving you a great chance to say something to him.