Keeping 15 Players on the Pitch.

[Andy P]

Has there been any guidence to referees to make an effort to keep 15 players on the pitch and look to avoid red cards?

Friend was telling me that a society Ref contact of his wasn't issuing red cards because he was being encouraged not to and where he had carded players, the expected bans weren't being given - example given was ref abuse let off with the red card was enough.

My concern as a coach is that if we don't penalise foul play and apply appropriate sanction it will quickly escalate on the pitch..

 

[Phil E]

That's rubbish. No such guidance.

Maybe the ref in question was being over zealous with his red cards?

 

[Simon Thomas]

I have never heard of any Society giving that as general guidance. Perhaps this referee had management issues and was being encouraged to get his preventative and warnings more effective and hence minimise YC and RC awards ? The "sending off sufficient" decision seems to support that.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

andyscott always tries to send off 7 or 8 from each side.:biggrin:

No such advice received by me :serious face:

 

[upnunder]

The only advice I have ever been given regarding issuing red cards is.
Be absolutely certain you know what you have seen, and you are sending off the right player.
If you didnt see it, you can't red card it.

 

[SimonSmith]

I wonder if someone misread Andre Watson's wee missive from a while ago?

 

[Andy P]

Ok. I am told he is an excellent referee. May dig a bit more.
Thanks.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Totally Agree.
Personally I'm probably too lenient

 

[gwgs]

Can you be lenient with a RC? When you see something deserving you do just know a RC is the only option... otherwise it's a yellow.

 

[ckuxmann]

Last season, including summer, I gave out 8 Reds and 7 yellows. I was amazed considering the fall season was 18 YC and 1 RC.

 

[Adam]

I gave 9 RCs last season. So far this season I'm only up to one. If someone does something really stupid then they won't be on my pitch for long.

 

[Dixie]

Can you be lenient with a RC? When you see something deserving you do just know a RC is the only option... otherwise it's a yellow.

I suspect this is the reason refs are bottling tip-tackle decisions - even at the very highest levels. This is no sort of standard at all. To a ref from Tottenham, you'd probably need to pull aknife and do more than a simple stabbing to meet the criterion. To a ref from Upper Tweesdale, glaring aggressively at the opposite winger may be a bit beyond the pale.

The tip-tackle often fails the "you know one when you see one" test, which is why refs imagine that the stated requirement must have extra components, such as power-drive or (ideally) a broken neck. To me, the fact that the tip-tackle fails the test proves the inadequacy of the test.

A Phil Vickery trip is a classic example. Red or yellow? I also got grief from one of BFG's assessors for awarding a RC for a punch to the face - not done hard enough to justify red.

 

[Davet]

Dixie

I hope you told said assessor that it's a matter of opinion and judgement, and his is wrong.

 

[andyscott]

Has there been any guidence to referees to make an effort to keep 15 players on the pitch and look to avoid red cards?

Friend was telling me that a society Ref contact of his wasn't issuing red cards because he was being encouraged not to and where he had carded players, the expected bans weren't being given - example given was ref abuse let off with the red card was enough.

My concern as a coach is that if we don't penalise foul play and apply appropriate sanction it will quickly escalate on the pitch..

A red card for abuse cannot be sending off sufficient, it is lower than the low end. He has to be let off or serve a ban, the disciplinary committee have got it wrong.

As for i wanna keep 15 lads on the pitch, I couldn't care less if there was only 6 from each side on the pitch, not my responsibility.

Oh and if you take hips past shoulders and don't bring them down you get the golden prize from me, :norc: its red or play on I cannot see any justification of how to work down, you did it you are off.

 

[OB..]

A red card for abuse cannot be sending off sufficient, it is lower than the low end. He has to be let off or serve a ban, the disciplinary committee have got it wrong.

It is a valid verdict. The low end is a starting point that can be reduced for mitigating circumstances. It is not a minimum. SOS usually implies the referee was over zealous but not entirely wrong.

 

[andyscott]

How can you get 6 weeks for LE reduced to SOS, what would the mitigating factors be.

The referee was either correct or incorrect, it was verbal abuse or it wasn't.

 

[Blackberry]

It has just struck me (I don't know why I haven't noticed this before) is that I have ref'd for six years but have never given a red card. I genuinely don't say this as some measure of success; its just that I haven't given one. I have never thought about this. I'm qualified to ref at level 8 (doing one this week) so see a wide range of games. Weird.

 

[OB..]

The referee was either correct or incorrect, it was verbal abuse or it wasn't.

No. There is a whole spectrum of types and levels of abuse. You are being too absolutist.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

"Oh and if you take hips past shoulders and don't bring them down you get the golden prize from me, its red or play on I cannot see any justification of how to work down, you did it you are off."
Don't Agree Andy it is rarely that clear cut.
Body angls speed, different sizes of player, there are a multitude of factors that can cause hips to be above shoulders and it isn't aways intentional but a :yellow: can help difuse a situation and be a useful tool

 

[Taff]

.... Don't Agree Andy it is rarely that clear cut. Body angls speed, different sizes of player, there are a multitude of factors that can cause hips to be above shoulders and it isn't aways intentional but a :yellow: can help difuse a situation and be a useful tool

For what it's worth, I agree with CTrainor as I have doubts whether the offence is one of "strict liability" ie it was a matter of fact whether it happened or not ... and if it did, you get a RC - End of story no ifs and no buts.

If it was just a matter of fact (and strict liability) then robots and computers could do the job better than we could. I would have thought a good ref would use his judgement (computers don't have any) and make a decision based on what he saw and a bit of empathy. Ok the bar is set higher for certain offences ... but there's still a bar.