Yc Accumulation And Player Suspensions

All of our competitive youth league games have card accumulation provisions.
No, it does not change my attitude about giving cards. You do the crime, you do the time.
Referees would be well advised to not pay any attention to post game penalties that may be imposed by league/tournament action. "Is that a one game suspension, ref?" "I don't make those decisions."

 

Doesn't change my approach necessarily and very rarely do I learn that players are getting close to the amount of YCs for suspensions.

Just speaking for myself (and I am unanimous in this), if I knew beforehand I'd be concerned it would affect my game management, delivering an AC where a card is proper and called for. So, I don't ask and noone tells.

I hear what you're saying about cards and I wish (only a wish since I'm not in a position of influence with any league) more leagues would take card totals as but one input in the "big picture". It's admittedly the easiest datapoint to capture.

 

The only place I can think of that I would want it to affect me would be in the which-player-gets-the-card scenarion --- when 7 players ran in off the wall, I'd prefer not to be selecting the player to get the card as the guy sitting on the accumulation (just as I would not pick the guy who already has a caution in the same game).

 

This.

Every single league I officiate in has YC accumulation, and for my main leagues I can (and often do) check online beforehand to know the discipline history of the teams involved. I will never not give a card to avoid a suspension....he collects the cards so it's his problem. Only in the situation noted by social lurker would it come into consideration: when you could book anybody from a group of players, don't pick on the guy who would be suspended. (Assuming their infringement of the Laws is equal)

 

I think it's important to have that information ahead of time. I do the research but try to not let it cloud my decision for that game on that day.

I think the YC accumulation is important knowledge because sometimes that player will want to get the third, fourth, or whatever card so they can sit out before an important game. This creates an interesting situation which I think is easier to manage with additional information. It also gives me a handy tool if the player is riding the line "Relax, guy, I want to keep you in this game and the NEXT game..."

 

Our local adult league has penalties for YC accumulation. I refuse to know anything else about it. Not my job and ignorance is bliss.
OTOH, when players check in, they hand me their passes. It shows all the cards they have received so far that season. Whenever I see an interesting "resume" I am always careful to note the players face/number. On occassion, I will even talk to him about it. Might as well have a hint as to where the sparks are likely to come from. That is my job, and knowledge is power.

As a fan/coach/player I HATE this. It has never made sense to me. But I think the whole misconduct policy in LOTG is sorely lacking. (I know, I know, TRADITION!).
A player for the blue team delays a restart and dissents...His team is a man down.
A player for the red team puts his cleats through an opponent's thigh...His team is a man down.
Talk about everything is a nail when the only tool is a hammer. YUK!
So, given that I'm that far from "normal", maybe my opinion on YC accumulation is irrelevant?

 

It's simple. Don't delay the restart and you don't get the card. Don't dissent, especially when you already have a card, and you won't get sent off. I mean, is 'two cautions = one send off' something new? I don't think so. So, if you are so far out of control that you do further misconduct, you shouldn't be playing anymore that day, for the good of the game.

If it's any consolation, yellow card accumulation policies are not up to referees. The leagues determine what their policy is and they don't ask referees what the policy should be. We may give traffic tickets, but we don't write the law on speeding.

 

This is something I've been thinking about a lot this weekend. We're a small club that has recently joined the provincial organization, as part of that we're changing or updating many of our bylaws and procedures. Our old discipline policy was 1 paragraphs and worked for us (largely because in the 8 years I've been involved as coach/ref/board member I've seen zero VC, zero SFP, zero 2nd caution, and 1 Dissent - but we had the catchall "may be required to attend a disciplinary hearing" just in case). The provincial discipline policy is a quarter inch thick manual and I took a 7 hour course with exam yesterday to be qualified.

One of my issues is that I don't agree with some of the "mandatory" minimum penalties imposed. Its a cookie cutter approach that probably works well with big city or more competitive teams, but not with our small town rec league. There are usually only a handful of cards given out over the course of a full season in all refereed games in our league.

The particular example that gets me is the mandatory 1 game suspension for DOGSO-H. I call it at least once per season, I can tell by reaction from the player that it is always more of a brain-fart than deliberately trying to cheat, and I think (both as a referee and as a member of the club's board of directors) that the PK and team playing down is sufficient punishment for the action.

I'm wondering how my judgment will be affected the next time I see this as a referee knowing that I now have to write a report, a discipline panel will have to be convened, and the player must be suspended for 1 game. Will I make the right call under the law or will I just call the PK or PK and USB because I don't think the kid should be punished with an extra game? Its very low level rec soccer, not France vs Ireland.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with reports or discipline/suspensions in general (in fact I would love to see the local HS league implement the provincial penalties - and there I don't know in advance about card accumulation and thus no effect on my calls) but I hate the fact that the next DOGSO-H that I encounter I will be forced to compromise my principles no matter the choice I make. Either I compromise my belief in calling the game by the laws or I compromise my belief that a kid shouldn't be punished so severely for a no-harm mistake.

 

I grant that it is a bit of a dilemma for some. Me, too .

But don't go there. It's just a game. Games have rules.

 

Yes, I regularly referee a couple of leagues that don't tolerate players that persistently are unsporting.
The first simply fines the team for each send off, and a lesser fine for a caution.
The second doesn't fine players, but after a certain number of card points, then team is punished with lost standing points, and after two of those is banded from playoffs. I can and do see player card count for this league, and only use this information for identifying patterns and what I'm about to get myself into. I DO NOT change my style or tolerance for when I do or don't give a card.

Feelings on players missing games due to card accumulation: perfectly fine with it. Message is, the game simply doesn't need or want them. Get with the program and behave. Don't like it? Adjust or leave. Issue is really not about the woe of the player punished, it is about the other 21 players who deserve their game.

 

Brain-fart or not stopping a certain goal or an OGSO really shouldn't ever be considered a "no-harm mistake" IMO. Sure the punishment for DOGSO offences is quite severe but that isn't much of a surprise considering that DOGSO offences are probably the most severe non-violence offence one can commit.