Interesting discussion around the ref tent today, curious what this group thinks. Blue #4 is on a yellow for a reckless challenge in the 1st half. We're in the 85th minute, U16B, high competitive league. Blue up 2-1. Match temperature is under control but rising (Center did an excellent job managing). Blue #4 on the ball. White #2 comes in for a tackle and gets him late. Clear reckless foul. Center is right there and is clearly going to card White #2. Blue #4 hops up and says something to the Center - I didn't hear exactly what was said, for discussion assume it meets a reasonable threshold for dissent but not abuse. Center gives YC to White #2 and Blue #4. 2nd yellow for Blue #4 so off he goes. Post match AR2 suggests that wasn't the correct way to handle things. The logic goes: - not much time left in the match - the foul / dissent were part of the same incident - sending off Blue puts them at too big of a disadvantage relative to what happened AR2 said at Nationals he had a similar incident in a semi ... late in the match two kids started shoving each other. He went yellow for both, one of the kids already was on one and got the RC. Post match the referee coaches said he should have managed with a warning. He got downgraded big time for his decision. To be clear, the point wasn't to avoid 2nd yellows ... the idea was specific to the situation - not much time left, an incident where both teams were involved and one participant is on a yellow, try to manage without the red. Never thought about it this way before. On the one hand, if you're on a yellow it's on you to manage it ... no dumb stuff like kicking the ball away, bad tackles, complaining, etc. Not crazy about giving you a free pass. I can see the other side of the argument, however. Again, this only applies to a specific set of circumstances. Thoughts?
YHTBT. Did the foul bait the behavior? Would the yellow have resolved the emotions #4 was feeling? More to the point though.... What did he say? To whom was it addressing? Who else could hear it? And maybe the most important question, did the player know they had a yellow card? Comparing a shoving match between two players to an issue of verbal misconduct is kind of a red herring... or a red snapper (Very tasty!) When you have two teens or adults get into shoving each other and one has a yellow and one doesn't it is often a strategy to "needle" the opponent into a 2nd yc, so it is going to be important to understand the outcome of choosing the 2xYC approach because what amounts to a wash out of bad conduct will punish one team significantly more than the other. However, in the case of coming at the official verbally, we're in a different world now, this isn't two players evenly engaged in behavior that can be offset. Although they may have been provead. It wasn't the referee who did it. But, there is something a little fishy about the whole premise. If the ref was giving a yellow, then why would there even be dissent, and if there was, wouldn't it go away if you said, "I agree, I'm already going to give them a card right now!" Lots of missing detail
I hate stuff like that, personally. Yellow cards have consequences. If you commit a reckless challenge in the first half, the consequence should be that an incident in the second half that would normally be a caution results instead in a sending-off. And this sort of “pushing each other” sounds like a classic “Lack of Respect - altercation” YC to both parties. It annoys me how there is this desire to spare the guy because of the unequal outcome. The outcome should be unequal. One player committed a reckless challenge in the first half, and the other didn’t. I’m unsurprised to hear that some national ref coaches hated it - I’ve heard similar instruction frequently - but one of these days I wish one of them explain to me why we should go out of our way to spare such players, and how that is fair. The only caveat I will add is to be very cognizant of opponents who will try to bait a cautioned player into a second caution. Make sure his actions are actually worthy of a yellow card on their own merit. If the opponent is clearly more of the aggressor, maybe the cautioned player doesn’t deserve another one. But as with any incident, I can’t truly speak to the specifics of this call without seeing a video.
If a player does something to deserve a yellow, then it’s not the referee’s fault for giving it even if it’s his second caution. I’m tired of this crap where the referee gets blamed for a player’s actions. Why am I not surprised to hear some national referee coach laying into a center for appropriately punishing a YOUTH incident. I had a similar incident happen where I tried to manage a push instead of going 2CT. A few seconds later, a teammate ran over to defend his pushed teammate and shoved him violently to the ground. Getting a VC RC for that, I could not let him off like I wanted to and had to give him the 2CT for instigating that reaction. And of course the coach went apoplectic on me after the game like it was my fault. People wonder why refs are quitting. Not only the dissent you get in daily practice, but then you get overly criticized for things you do by official people. Doing something worthy of a yellow card when you’re already on an yellow?
Never take the box. The issue with two guys pushing has a lot more nuance than drawing any one conclusion, but it also can't be as simple as they were pushing so just give the cards because those are the laws. It might be, but it might not. There is a whole scale here....
The near the end of match argument is similar to the argument that you shouldn't give a card early, which is absolutely wrong. If a situation warrants a yellow card, give the card. That being said, if a player was just fouled and is upset, you may be able to talk through that one without the card. The missing piece for this one is not knowing what was said. Some things I can dismiss as a heat of the moment outburst, some things your hands are fairly tied.
What's #4's 'dissent?' The foul was called against the opponent. "Hey, you gotta give him a caution!" That's not dissent. And what was "shoving' in AR2's game? There's poking each other in the chest and there's two handed shoves that knock the other guy off his feet or something in between. If it's chest poking, maybe you should have read their body language and be in there already, verbally telling them loudly something like "Leave him! He's mine!" If it's more like two handed shoving, your whistle should be taking their attention away from the opponent. The temperature of the game prior to the incident should be a big indicator for you about how to handle this kind of situation. You've got to get the first call right when that contact happens. And you have to call fouls all of the way to the end of the game. Letting it go because you are going to blow for the end of the game leaves a bad feeling with the players. Call the foul, wait a second or two and then blow for the end of the game.
This is about game management so you absolutely had to be there. How was this level of reaction (dissent) being called throughout the game? Could you walk off the field and not feel like you should have given the caution based on how you called the rest of the game? Keep your consistency. If it was on the line, then you can be a little soft if you want to, but if it's certainly deserved, then it certainly should be given. The shoving example is a bit tough. Can you get away with cautioning just one player? No players? Late in the game is when tempers can really blow up. Unless you're in the last seconds of the game, you may be setting yourself up for something a lot worse.
I mean the players do always have the option to, checks notes, walk away when someone pushes them. Just a thought.