ADHD Player

[MiniRef]

U16 match. 13 a side due to low numbers. Yellow v Red. 15 minutes into a good game, penalty against Yellow for holding on. The penalised player and his opposite number square up, threaten to deck each other with stream of F words. I call the two players over and, whilst walking to me, they continue their F word abuses at each other. I told them they both need to calm down and can have 10 minutes to think about it. Yellow card to both.
A few minutes later, Yellow score. The Red coach (running touch) en route to the posts says “sorry ref, I forgot to tell you beforehand that the player you carded actually has ADHD and has difficulty in controlling his language. Frankly, he can be a nightmare”.

There were several other incidents during the match where this Red player nearly gets involved in skirmishes, but his team-mates deal with him very effectively (they were clearly used to it).

Three minutes before the end of the match, the ball goes from a Yellow player into touch, and is handled by a spectator. As I speak with the TJ re: position of LO, Red take a quick line out, and the ball is moved across the pitch with my back to the action. I blew as quick LO not allowed. The Red Hooker, as he prepares to take the throw, says in a clearly audible voice “Ref should have been paying attention; he should have allowed the throw in” etc. I was 95% sure that this was the chap with ADHD, so I warned him to be very careful. He replied something like “I am being very careful; you need to be careful and pay attention to the match”. I stopped the match, wanted time to gather my thoughts, so walked over to his coach and checked – it was the ADHD player. I restarted the match without further words being spoken and the match played out with no further incident. (Yellow won by 20 points).

Your advice please. Should I have taken further action? Was I right to make additional allowances? In trying to be reasonable to the boy, have I made a mistake and caused problems for next week’s ref? Did he need to see a red card? Allowing for his condition, he now thinks he can speak to a ref in such a way. In a more populated match, I could have asked the coach to sub the player but this wasn’t an option. Maybe I should have asked the coach to remove him, and play with a man short?

 

[Dixie]

Next week: Hi ref. All my players have ADHD, so aren't responsible for their actions. I don't think any will actually hit you, but if they do, can you please be gentle with them?

LoTG apply to all players. ADHD may be areason for the coach to spend more time with individual players, coaching them how to contain their anger/inappropriate reaction. It is absolutely NOT somehting a referee should take into account. He should ahve been red carded (double yellow). By not even penalising, you've given him carte blanche for the rest of his rugby life to abuse the referee.

From the fact that you've posted this, I suspect you are uncomfortable with your decison. If not, consider this. ADHD (if it exists at all) is a spectrum, ranging from mild difficulty concentrating to full-blown disruptive and seriously challenging behaviour. Are you adept at placing the player on that spectum? Whast do you do if he decks an opponent? Why not the same "no penalty" approach as you adopted for dissent? Where is the line you are prepared to draw - and why? Unanswerable questions, so stick to the law as your friend.

 

[Donal1988]

Not being harsh but thats tough.

If this players condition means that he is aggressive towards other players you need to manage that. Your job is to ensure first and foremost that the game is refereed safely.

It doesn't matter if he has torretts or ADD or ADHD or any other condition.

I'd have made it clear to the coach that you understand his position but you can't tolerate foul language, backchat or aggressive behaviour.

U16 is the toughest age level to manage and your responsibility is to the game, not for this one player.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Something you might try is working through the captain for things that you can manage, so instead of calling him out, call the captain (or both of them) and get the captain to sort it out for you; it'll be a lot more likely that he'll listen to his mate, and even if his reaction is difficult, it's now being directed at the skipper, not you.

 

[andyscott]

If I asked him to be careful and he gobbed off then it would be another YC for me.

ADHD or not.

(every kid nowadays have something like ADHD now!! he probably hasnt.)

 

[Taff]

... I stopped the match, wanted time to gather my thoughts, so walked over to his coach and checked – it was the ADHD player. I restarted the match without further words being spoken and the match played out with no further incident. Your advice please. Should I have taken further action? Was I right to make additional allowances?

For what it's worth, I'd like to think that's what I would have done too.

Just thinking aloud, but would it be worth mentioning it to the opposition?

After all, if they know he's got a problem they would probably react differently than if they think he's just kicking off.

If I asked him to be careful and he gobbed off then it would be another YC for me. ADHD or not. (every kid nowadays have something like ADHD now!! he probably hasnt.)

Don't you think that's a bit harsh if he genuinely has got a problem? We used to have an U19 player (pretty handy he was too in fairness) but there was a behavioural issue - apparently he only managed to stay in mainstream school through his parents insistence. He could be physically aggressive, but far more often than not it was just verbal and the coaches and team mates took it in their stride. Sometimes there were incidents when the opposition took exception to his outbursts, but I couldn't help thinking it would have been easier if they knew that he had a "problem". Obviously you can't tolerate physical abuse, but verbal abuse?

 

[Donal1988]

Would it be worth mentioning it to the opposition?

After all, if they know he's got a problem they would probably react differently than if they think he's just kicking off.

No way, any team of 15 year olds are more likely to antagonise and provoke him that afford him any special treatment.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Would it be worth mentioning it to the opposition?

After all, if they know he's got a problem they would probably react differently than if they think he's just kicking off.

That could possibly give them a target to "rile up" in hopes of getting a few PKs against Red.

 

[Taff]

No way, any team of 15 year olds are more likely to antagonise and provoke him that afford him any special treatment.

That could possibly give them a target to "rile up" in hopes of getting a few PKs against Red.

Then it's our job to make sure that doesn't happen. If I heard someone taunting someone with a problem ... I'd have a word and if it happened again he'd soon find out he had a problem himself.

 

[Mike Selig]

I'm going to dissent and agree strongly with your actions.

First of all, comments from Dixie and Andy are highly insulting and show a complete lack of understanding of what a mental illness is, something unfortunately all too common in today's society, particularly from its older members ("in my time we just called it being thick and got on with it"). Mental illnesses can be as severe and disabling as physical ones. It can sometimes be harder for these guys than those with an obvious disability.

In my opinion, to show understanding for the different types of people we have to referee is a good thing: you don't referee everyone the same, you adapt your approach based on the situation and your "public" (the players). To use a comparison with coaching (I am a far better cricket coach than referee): if someone is mucking around, depending on who he is (and who you are) you may choose to shout at him, laugh at him, or simply (as I did once with a very good player who is generally quite sensible) make eye contact and shrug. Providing you get your point across, I see no problem.

On this occasion, you summed up the situation, made a decision to take no further action. The game played out without further incident which supports your action (or lack of it). The coach will have noted it and appreciated it (it sounds like he's a good guy), as will the players. Well done.

 

[OB..]

However ever much sympathy you may have for a player with ADHD, if he cannot control himself sufficiently, perhaps he should not be playing rugby.

Once presented with this situation, you would certainly be well advised to work through the captain, who is apparently used to handling him. However there have to be limits to the amount the player can get away compared to other players.

 

[crossref]

However ever much sympathy you may have for a player with ADHD, if he cannot control himself sufficiently, perhaps he should not be playing rugby.

at young levels though -- rugby can be the saviour of some kids. In our squad we have more than one boy with behavoural difficulties that have casued them severe problems at school -- right through to being thorwn out -- who have managed, eventually -- to control themselves at rugby and now are well disciplined members of the squad, training, turning up, playing and not giving away (more than their fair share of) penalties.

there were several times when the head coach almost gave up ... but to his eternal credit he didn't, which says a lot for him and the sport.

 

[SimonSmith]

What Mike is proposing is a form of positive discrimination, with which I disagree in these circumstances.


Rugby is the great equalizer, with all players being the same before the referee. If a player with Tourette's swears at me, he has to be penalized - otherwise I have no management control over any other player doing the same thing.

I got no special dispensations playing when I was growing up as a Type 1 diabetic. Referees wouldn't hold the game up for blood tests or glucose onboarding - ande nor should they have.

The harsh truth is that there are a set of laws and behavioral guidelines that everyone signs up for when they play, coach or referee. No-one gets special dispensation.

On a more pragmatic basis - canny Coach sees his mouthy kid is about to get into the pooh with referee. "Sorry sir, ADHD". Because it would - and probably does happen. I'd have walked him - or as I did in my second game on Saturday told the coach that his player was one penalty away from a card and what he did with that information was down to him.

 

[crossref]

The harsh truth is that there are a set of laws and behavioral guidelines that everyone signs up for when they play, coach or referee. No-one gets special dispensation.
.

but this was age group rugby, and one of the aims of age group rugby must be to equip boys who aren't currently up to it, with the skills, knowledge, fitrness and behaviour required to play.

Is rugby the right game for a plump unfit 13 year old who can't catch and doesn't like tackling? On the face of it no, but in practice anyone who has been involved in age group rugby will have stories of players like that who seemed complete no-hopers eventually turning into capable and committed players, enjoying rugby.

 

[Donal1988]

Crossref,

That player is entitled to play. He is not entitled to backchat, use foul language or act aggressively during the match.

This player may turn out to love rugby and be committed etc but he'll do it through adhereing to a certain standard of conduct not by being allowed to use his condition to act as described above.

 

[Blackberry]

Sorry Andy ahd Dixie but on this rare occasion I think you are off target a bit. These conditions do exist (whether absolutely everybody who claims to have it is accurate is perhaps the question you are addressing) and in the same way we allow for players with conditions such as hearing issues, we should allow for ADHD where possible. The differnece between being a Wendy Ball Ref and a Rugby Ref is the degree of interpretation and management we are expected to display. In this cast the OP made a decision and is simply reflecting on it now for everyone's benefit.

 

[crossref]

Crossref,

That player is entitled to play. He is not entitled to backchat, use foul language or act aggressively during the match.

This player may turn out to love rugby and be committed etc but he'll do it through adhereing to a certain standard of conduct not by being allowed to use his condition to act as described above.

yes, that may well be the case for that player on that occasion, Donal, -- I wasn't there to judge, and neither were you.

I was more responding to the general lessons that people were drawing

he harsh truth is that there are a set of laws and behavioral guidelines that everyone signs up for when they play, coach or referee. No-one gets special dispensation.

However ever much sympathy you may have for a player with ADHD, if he cannot control himself sufficiently, perhaps he should not be playing rugby.

I don't agree with those sweeping statements, at age group level, where kids can be coached and taught.
(yes, that coaching/teaching may well include YC and RC)

 

[spikeno10]

I have had and still have players in my squad who have presented with this condition.
However, as a coach I set standards I expect from my squad and some find those easier to meet than other but they all work towards them and hold them dear (they have an input in setting them at the start of the season).
They have agreed that they will not swear on the pitch (for whatever reason), it was agreed if they were they could not be thinking clearly. They also agreed that no-one talks to the referee apart from the captain. This one is a bit harder (guess who's son).

All of that said as a coach I need to work hard with my team as a team but also with my players as individuals but that is 'my job'.
A referee's job is to manage and faciliate the game and not have to worry about such issues IMO.
This is where the beauty of our team game should and has come to the fore for my lads. They manage each other on the pitch. They know the signs and signals from their team mates (ok this is U17 but still) and on the pitch they take care of things. Only once have I had to sub a player as the team approach wasn't working. We don't have a league where we are and normally coaches are happy to allow rolling subs (as are referees) so we brought the lad down over the cause of the game and he returned for the last few minutes.

 

[Mike Selig]

However there have to be limits to the amount the player can get away compared to other players.

I agree. I don't think in the example given that limit has been breached.

 

[Mike Selig]

What Mike is proposing is a form of positive discrimination, with which I disagree in these circumstances.

I am suggesting adapting your refereeing depending on who you are refereeing. It could be seen as positive discrimination (on the whole I rather firmly support positive discrimination but that is for a different debate), but I believe we all do this anyway (see below).

Rugby is the great equalizer, with all players being the same before the referee. If a player with Tourette's swears at me, he has to be penalized - otherwise I have no management control over any other player doing the same thing.

I got no special dispensations playing when I was growing up as a Type 1 diabetic. Referees wouldn't hold the game up for blood tests or glucose onboarding - ande nor should they have.

The harsh truth is that there are a set of laws and behavioral guidelines that everyone signs up for when they play, coach or referee. No-one gets special dispensation.

As you know from previous debates Simon, I am absolutely against the idea that anyone worth his salt referees the game in a one-size-fits-all manner. We don't. No one is suggesting you should referee a premiership match the same way as a decent level 10. Similarly I don't think you should referee age-group rugby as you would adult rugby. There is a variety of ways of managing people, penalties and cards are only two such tools.

The point is, as a referee my prime concern is safety. My next concern is to help those on the pitch get as much as they can out of the game. Personally in the situation as described, I don't see the problem with shrugging it off and making a point of explaining my concerns to the coach afterwards.

On a more pragmatic basis - canny Coach sees his mouthy kid is about to get into the pooh with referee. "Sorry sir, ADHD". Because it would - and probably does happen. I'd have walked him - or as I did in my second game on Saturday told the coach that his player was one penalty away from a card and what he did with that information was down to him.

Honestly, if a coach decides to stoop so low? Good luck to him, I hope he can live with himself.