Thumbs Up or Down?

If you did anything other than give the white player a yellow and the blue player a red (for striking), then IMHO you did not do your job.

 

Striking is in itself a foul, if during play, and unless with excessive force or violence (to cause harm), it is USB if not during play, or even if during pl;ay reckless, so it would appear that he probably did do his job, but maybe you would have done it differently. Maybe, knowing what he does now, even though his actions were, in my opinion correct under the circumstances, he would have done some earlier stuff diffently and possibly avoided the situtiation entirely.

This is something that catches all of us at one time or another, we miss the signals that a fuse has been lit, and are caught flat footed with the game goes to pieces. In jacathcart's example he said:

Maybe a better question (and one that would yeld a more productive answer) is what could he have done earlier in the match to prevent the blue player from retaliating in the first place. Remember, when a player retaliates he has decided to take justice into his own hands. Usually this means that he does not feel the referee is aware of what is happening.

Usually it is not that we miss the signals so much as we ingnore them and let things build until it is too late. I had this is a B-19 District Select game last summer, which turned into a brawl at the end of the game, in added time. I ended up sending off four players. A fellow referee of greater experinece was watching, and was able to point out exactly when and why I had lost control.

The problem was that ten minutes earlier I had allowed APO for a tackle from behind and did not caution or chew out the player who had commiteed the offense. In his opinion, I should not have signalled APO, but should have stopped play to let the players know that this type of foul would not be tolerated. He said that if I had done that I would probalby not have need to caution the player either.

I realize that he was right. Even though I had done everything correctly, I still could have done much better. This is how we learn.

Sherman

 

In my opinion, this is some serious second-guessing, and advice (if followed) that is going to result in becoming a worse rather than better referee. Of course, I didn't see any of these plays, but I would ask what kind of advantage you allowed to play on. If it was a good one and especially if it was in the attacking third of the field, this is flat out wrong to blow one's whistle solely for purposes of game management. Allow the play to continue, the way the advantage rule is intended to be applied. If, as discussed on other threads, the offensive team blows the advantage, those are the breaks, but at all levels (and especially at the u12 level where this may be a newer concept) players need to understand that the advantage call is for their benefit (or at least perceived to be) and they have to keep playing.

As an alternative suggestion, before adopting a practice of not calling APO in this kind of situation, can the desired game management be accomplished by calling APO, verbally telling the player that you will be back to him (let others involved hear the warning as well), and then once play has stopped coming back to him. If you don't believe it warrants a yellow card, fine, but you can still verbally caution him for the foul, make clear to him (and everybody else) that the only reason it wasn't called was because of APO, and manage the game that way. The point being that APO can occur without the players thinking that the defender just "got away" with something.

On the other hand, if it was a questionable APO call in the first place (i.e., keeping possession but not really having an immediate opportunity to attack), you might have been better off just calling the foul. But, that would be my reaction to this situation all the time, not simply as a question of game management.

My guess is that if you listen to this advice, you'll have a coach upset with you next week for not playing advantage, and that coach very well will be right.

Lastly, I'm inclined to agree with Feva. It's not an absolute rule, and you're both technically right in your analysis of the rules, but if the player is swinging a punch (I know, the original facts didn't say that), he probably ought to be shown to the bench. I wasn't there. I didn't see it. It could have happened in a variety of different ways. But, in my book, if you swing, you're probably done for the day, whether you connect or not.

Also, let me ask this question: If the defender who committed the original foul, had responded to being whacked by decking the retaliator, are you now giving both of them red cards? (Does the retaliator's yellow become a red if it provokes more?)

 

Refereeing a U12 game is almost as much coaching or teaching the game as it is officiating.....You taught the attacker that if you strike an opponant in retaliation for a bad foul while not in the run of play that he can expect to get a caution not a send off......Maybe he will learn at U13 that this is absolutely unacceptablt.....Maybe U14..........Maybe he will keep doing it until he reaches the U16 or U18 level and then he will be sent off by someone because he never was forced to learn self control when he was younger.

 

This is not about crime and punishment

. it's about game management, and I have not problem with your reaction, but I do with your thought process. Cards are not "punishments" nor are they "instruments of education" like some referees will lead you to believe like you're "teaching" them the "right way" so next time or in the future they don't repeat it. We're not teachers by defintion or purpose. If we're teachers, it's by accident.

Cards are "behavior modifiers." If you felt the initial foul by white, removing the retaliation, was worthy of a caution, for USB for reckless, . . do it. Don't add in the retaliation, start balancing everything. We ARE game managers first, but we must react to the actions as they happen. The foul stopped play, therefore the retaliation by blue is not a foul. It's either VC, USB. . or nothing. Most will react by saying it's VC/red. But as you point out these are 11-12 year olds, albeit skilll 11-12 year olds. I think you decision not to send off the retaliatory blue player was probably a good decision considering the age, and lack of self control at this age. You were there, you know better, we weren't.

The referee has many "tools" in order to manage the game. The most extreme "tools" are the cards. Reach for them suggests all the other tools are useless or ineffective. Reach for cards as the last resort. Maybe this foul was like the "last straw" from what you had been experiencing, and even if no retaliation a caution was merited. Maybe the attitudes and emotions were getting tense, and the retalition wasn't surprising? It IS about game management, and for you it was learning lesson as well as the players. Play on!

 

Re: This is not about crime and punishment

How exactly is modifying behavior not teaching a lesson? How can you modify a behavior without punishing bad behavior and making it more painfull to commit an act then to omit it? We do not work in a vacuum. What we do in this game affects the next. Otherwise we would be starting from scratch EVERY SINGLE GAME! The players are TAUGHT what behavior is acceptable by what the referee has allowed in thier previous games. How many times have you heard "but the last reff didnt call it that way?" That is because the players are trying to figure out what YOU will do based upon what the LAST reff did.
With a little effort I could give you a few phrases from the ATR or the LOTG to give examples of how we manage individual games with the good of the game as a whole in mind. Just consider the universal standard that an ejected player misses not only the rest of the current game but ALSO THE NEXT! How is that consistant with your very small view of our job?

 

Re: Re: This is not about crime and punishment

Grey,

I know where you are coming from. I deal with it all time, with nearly every adult referee who has a few years under his or her belt in the town leagues and begins to move up to a more advanced level of competition and diverse range of matches. I don't have this problem with young officals who started in their teens, so I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that many of these adults started out as coaches adn soccer parents and continued with officiating as another way to contribute to the game.

Based upon the experience gained at the town level, they approach the game as though it is their responsiblity for the players to behave, know the rules, follow the proper procedures and if they don't it is their job to teach them how they are expected to behave, what the rules are and what procedures must be followed. They are the parent and the players are the children so it must be so. What else is a responsible adult to do?

The truth is that soccer is not a childrens game with the referee acting in loco parentis but a sport where players, regardless of age, have equal status in the game. Our role or mandate is clearly defined in Law 5 , and it does not include the role of either parent or teacher.

But the reality for many of us is that at the levels we work, it IS a childrens game. We are not officating our peers, which would require profound people management skills and judement, where must earn the players respect from the moment we enter the field, not because we are bigger or older, but because they know we will keep the game fair and preserve its integrity.

In order for a referee to grow beyond the town rec level and become accomplsihed at the more competitive youth, college, adult and amateur levels they must put this idea of being the parent aside and learn the true skill of refereeing which is why we must learn, as Bob Evans advises , how to the the very least possible

Evans has said "So, to the almost plaintive question recently by a referee who wasn't sure how to apply IBD 8 in the kids' games he does, I will say: "Do the least that is necessary to control the situation -- in your particular game." And what you do will not be the same as a referee in a tough Sunday afternoon men's league game."

This is the hurdle nearly every adult referee must get past. Some never make it, and assignors have difficulty finding appropriate assignments for them. They have reached glass ceiling of their own creation.

My point is that Keith is not wrong, but neither are you. But you are not right either. Yes you must learn to start from scratch for every game. Assume nothing. Do the game they give you. While it is important to be aware of what happend before and what the consequences will be, don't let it affect your judgement. Just do the game. And don't worry, you'll never get it perfect, but that OK, none of us do.

 

By your own description, it sounds as though you didn't want to caution anyone. Yet, you describe how you recognised the fouls and that they were becoming increasingly worse or the play was getting more "chippy".
Now, you have a pretty serious foul by a defender who sounds like he very much conceived the foul from about 4 yards back and then acted on it by running into the attacker had enough, "belts" is the word you use, to have him turn and retaliate. If the game has gotten to this type of play you have already missed the opportunity to caution and send a message.
Yellow cards and red cards are one of the forms of communication we have. When you use thm you are sending a message not just punishing a player for unsporting play. When you caution and show the yellow card, you are saying "this is where I draw the line". You didn't draw the line and now instaed of one cautioned player you have two and maybe even a send off.
You recognised what was happening, but, you couldn't tell that the players were ot hearing your vocal warning. A caution should have come out earlier, maybe even two. The late cautions will make things worse because now the palyers are pissed because you did nothing all game and now theu are even more pissed because what you excepted as play before is now a caution.
Live and earn and move on.

 

I know what you are saying, but, U-12 players even those who don't have control of thier own bodies too well , should be cautioned when it is deserved. It really has nothing to do with your feeling that they lack the control expected. Someone can still be injured and someone, like in your example, will retaliate.
If you caution when needed, it will get better and not escalate. Don't use the age to judge fouls.

 

Re: Re: Re: This is not about crime and punishment

I can tell by your tone that you mean no offense, but you are so far off the mark about a few very important things here:
Even though my game count recently went over 1000 I am not an adult referee who never played the game. I played semi pro ball until the injuries started threatening my job. That is when I started refereeing.
In my first four years as a reff I didnt do a single youth game. The reality in the DC area is that if you are any good at all you can work virtually every night in some form of adult league.
I hardly have the perspective that you imply.

I have to say I think that you are either just playing with words here or very naive. We most certainly teach the players with every action we make what the acceptable behavior on the soccer field is. If you think you arent a teacher then where have you been during the first 15 minutes of every match you have done when the players are feeling you out. They will do exactly what you let them do OR what they think you will. THIS IS ONLY MORE PREVELENT AT OLDER AND HIGHER LEVELS.

I weigh a whopping 150 lbs and trust me, I dont try to intimidate anyone! Anyone who controls a game by what you descibe above is so lost I dont know what to tell them.

I can tell you that I spend the first 2 or three weeks every year hammering the U16s who have come up in our youth system getting this kind of treatment. This is simply taking the easy way out and serves NOONE well. You owe it to the kids to teach them the game. You owe it to the GAME to ensure that fairness is served. Who else is going to do it? The coaches that are encouraging them to stretch the rules? The parents who often have never seen a game let alone the laws?

Great sentence but I am not sure what it means!

Dont change what I said. You most certainly should not call a game based upon what has happend in the past........HOWEVER you MUST call a game with the idea of what may happen in the FUTURE in mind.....ie "what am I saying with this call"

If you refuse to look at what happens and consider your actions as they apply to the good of the game I suspect you are doing eveyone a disservice. Never being tough or contriversial is not an excuse for making a difficult call. A referee sometimes has no choice....FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.

 

Grey,

It would appear that my characterization may not apply to you, but you do echo many of the sentiments of those to whom it does apply: Well meaning people who need to learn how to focus on the game at hand and not allow their preconceptions cause them to interfere in the outcome. This is a natural temptation for all of us, incluidng myself, and one that we must get past in order to take our officiating to the next level.

Players do learn, but it is for the game to teach them, and our job to serve the game.

Sherman