Some Questions

[peperami]

Ok, I have a few questions based on my game yesterday, and I am interested in peoples opinions.

Bit of background, yesterday I did bottom vs 2nd bottom at lvl 10. Two old boy sides. I gave a red card and 2 yellows.

The red card was from a scrum, when I saw the no 8 of the side putting the ball in flick his foot out and catch the opposing scrum half who was down going for the ball somewhere round the shoulder / side of head.

After that during the first half I had a couple of late hits after the ball had gone. Some desent from players on both sides and lots of sillyness going on after the ball had gone. I spoke to both players about the late hits and also had issued two warnings to the captains one for the dissent, and one for the off ball incidents.

First half, due to injuries and the card was 50mins.

Second half, 40 seconds in two players have a shoving match off ball at breakdown and carry on after the whistle. I choose to card the pair in line with warning issued prior to the half time. Great suprise shown by the players on both sides and the captains.

Post match chat with Captains in the bar, and I ask the question do I referee differently to the other referees at this level, as I have had both sides previously and see the same desent and offences. They say that I do seem to be far more communicative though stricter, and produce the cards where others dont.

Then had a chat with a fellow referee who'd been there who made a couple of points about the game which interest me. He felt that by talking to the players after foul play I had caused the game to slow down too much. That I smiled through out the game and that he felt i shouldnt have been after the cards.

One thing he did spot I didnt realise, is that if I call a player and captain for a chat I put my hand in my short pocket. Got to stop that.

The questions I have is that, would you only stop game to speak to players and captain if your going to card the player, which is what he suggests. Otherwise do it at the break down.

Also why shouldnt I be smiling? I enjoy 99.9% of the games I do and I find it hard not to smile.

The game was stop start in the first half, but if you see the foul play type offences surely you cant allow it to go unspoken.

I do play a lot of advantage, and get consistently good marks for it. I just feel that I am attracting a lot of dissent. I do seem to be giving a lot of cards.

Ben

 

[OB..]

He felt that by talking to the players after foul play I had caused the game to slow down too much. [...] The questions I have is that, would you only stop game to speak to players and captain if your going to card the player, which is what he suggests. Otherwise do it at the break down.

If it is part of the Ask-Tell-Penalise escalation, it is perfectly correct. It may be necessary to slow the game down at that point to calm things down. It also makes a firmer point, since everybody knows what is happening. I really do not see that slowing the game down comes into it.

If you are awarding a penalty. then that is a breakdown. If he means you should not prevent a team taking a quick penalty, then it is a judgement call. Sometimes it is more important to stop the game and deal with the problem immediately.

If you only speak to players/captains when you are going to issue a card, you are skipping a step in the escalation process. Sometimes that is right, but, for example, if you are likely to give a card for repeated team offences, the law actually requires you to issue a warning first.

Of course, if you keep doing it, then you are sending the wrong signals. Your management is not working.

That I smiled through out the game and that he felt i shouldnt have been after the cards.

Obviously you don't want to look like a grinning idiot, nor do you want to give the impression that the whole thing is a joke, but merely showing that you are enjoying the game surely does no harm at all. Just don't do it when issuing a stern warning!

 

[SimonSmith]

Ah. I wonder if you're being too nice and then getting forced into cards.

To answer one of your questions - no, I talk to captains formally when I think I need to in order to avoid getting to cards.

I don't think your assessor is telling you to stop enjoying yourself; what I think he may be trying to say is that if you've sent people off, either red or yellow, then you should be thinking about the sort of body language messages that you're sending the players. By continuing to smile broadly so you run the risk of giving the signal that the cards are of minor importance.

Referees don't "attract" dissent - they allow it to happen. There's a bundle of threads that talk about the management of dissent; what do you think your exact problem is?

 

[Simon Griffiths]

There's a difference between smiling/appearing content with your afternoon run around in the sun (as I had this weekend) and grinning like a Cheshire cat all game.

I like to smile. It seems to lighten the players in my vicinity (at set-pieces any way). I see no reason why having to card someone should mean I can't smile - of course if it creates problems with other players, or there becomes some undercurrent to the game then that's different and you shouldn't be in your cheeriest mood.

I'll stop to speak to the player if there is something specific to tell him or more usually a warning to give. Having said that, I do like to make use of down-time to talk to the players, hopefully avoiding any un-necessary stoppages.

 

[peperami]

A
Referees don't "attract" dissent - they allow it to happen. There's a bundle of threads that talk about the management of dissent; what do you think your exact problem is?

In my prematch, I say to captains, that I want the questions to come from them and that i dont want to hear continous appealing.

The usual format would be the players questioning decisions, which I start with the asking them not to do it, this usually is ineffectual despite the captains help, so it gets to the penalise, followed by the warning to captain, and then cards.

Its often appealing for decisions and if i dont give what they want, comments like f*** sake etc.

I have 1 red card for use of the cu word to me this season, and 3 or 4 yellows for the f word about my decisions.

My problem would seem to be players not listening and not complying. I dont change what i want but they seem to not react to it. As it is relatively common problem for the not listening I must have a management issue. But I havent been picked by advisors on it, and the feeling is that I have good management from people who've seen me ref.

I am a big vocal communicator who makes it clear, what I want and when. The classic example of this is multiple penalties for hands in at the ruck when I have called 'hands off' 2 or 3 times to try and get the ball. These may be in the first few minutes of the game.

Today I did a national schools tournament and had people comming up to me and saying what a nice change it was for a ref to be communicating and explaining.

Ben

 

[ex-lucy]

a senior assessor told me i should slow the game down sometimes (esp in Colts/ Junior rugby and esp near the end) by stopping the game and talking to perps and skippers to explain decisions for semi serious incidents .. e.g. 3rd not rolling away by tackler .. 3rd hands in rucks .. etc .. this allows players to get their breath back bec when players are tired they get lazy and make more illegal mistakes.
i spoke with a few other level 9 refs and they reckon that the team who have been awarded the penalty should not be penalised by having a quick pen slowed down.
I agree with both pov. I guess you have to choose the moment to stop the game and talk to the player/ skipper.
not listening ... i am getting that more and more .. maul. Right in front of me, Yellow 7 is fringing .. I bellow "yellow 7 get back onside", i repeat... he doesnt move .. i blow my whistle and award a pen to Green. As he is jogging backwards i say "7, i warned you twice" ... he replies .. "Sorry, sir, i didnt hear you" ...

 

[Emmet Murphy]

I have had a few problems with dissent too. I think it stems from the fact that when I played I was very mouthy so I tend to empathise a bit too much and tolerate more than I should! Can I ask about the RC for the trip - should we be RCing players for that? I'm thinking of trips similar to Vickery's at the RWC - that sort of thing I'd show a YC for ... what stance do others take on trips?

 

[peperami]

I have had a few problems with dissent too. I think it stems from the fact that when I played I was very mouthy so I tend to empathise a bit too much and tolerate more than I should! Can I ask about the RC for the trip - should we be RCing players for that? I'm thinking of trips similar to Vickery's at the RWC - that sort of thing I'd show a YC for ... what stance do others take on trips?

The red card yesterday wasnt a trip it was a kick. I wouldnt tend to red card a trip that was not definietly extremely dangerous and premediated

Ben

 

[Dixie]

Can I ask about the RC for the trip - should we be RCing players for that? I'm thinking of trips similar to Vickery's at the RWC - that sort of thing I'd show a YC for ... what stance do others take on trips?

You've asked this question a week after Arsenal's Eduardo left the football field with a bone sticking out of his socks following a trip. There are trips and trips, of course, but in rugby, unlike soccer, each and every attempt to put a boot near someone's ankle is an offence.

The player who sticks a leg out in a reflex when wrong-footed is perhaps worthy of a YC. The player who misses with the first one and does it again is, in my view, deserving of a red. And the player who kicks out deliberately when done for skill or pace gets straight red in my games - as I posted two weeks ago. It's something they should have eradicated from their game in U.10 matches.

 

[Deeps]

...players questioning decisions, which I start with the asking them not to do it, this usually is ineffectual despite the captains help, so it gets to the penalise, followed by the warning to captain, and then cards.

Ben,

You risk the thin end of the wedge right here. At the very first instance of any player whining or 'questioning a decision' you penalise. Half a second later if he is still muttering you walk him 10 metres; no hesitancy at all. The second time it happens, you call the skipper in and tell him that is the second time it has happened and that you are running out of options; he is to control his players' discipline.

Escalate if necessary but start the routine as early in the game as the opportunity presents itself. You can always relax later and chat away but be quick to bring someone up if the whining starts again.

 

[Jacko]

You've asked this question a week after Arsenal's Eduardo left the football field with a bone sticking out of his socks following a trip. There are trips and trips, of course, but in rugby, unlike soccer, each and every attempt to put a boot near someone's ankle is an offence.

The player who sticks a leg out in a reflex when wrong-footed is perhaps worthy of a YC. The player who misses with the first one and does it again is, in my view, deserving of a red. And the player who kicks out deliberately when done for skill or pace gets straight red in my games - as I posted two weeks ago. It's something they should have eradicated from their game in U.10 matches.

Eduardo didn't have his leg broken by a trip - he had it broken by a lunge. It wasn't out of place on a soccer field where going for the ball with your feet is expected. It just went horribly wrong and was a touch high. If any action similar to that occured on a rugby field, regardles of whether the player was injured I wouldn't hesitate to red card. It is an action with no place in our sport.

 

[Greg Collins]

what Deeps says. Nail the b*gg*rs the first time you hear or see dissent, then go up from there. might be old school but it works. I got thanked, without a trace of sarcasm, by the coaches of both sides today for snuffing it out early in the game.

 

[FlipFlop]

Regarding the dissent - had an assessor recently who asked me to consider that there was a posibility that by being more chatty and friendly than necessary, I might be encouraging the players to chat back, and therefore to start questioning decisions.

Obviously this is something to think about - does our being chatty invite the players to chat back?

 

[Dickie E]

FF, I think that would be likely

 

[OB..]

FF - no. You are giving instructions, not inviting conversation.

Of course it may well depend on how you do it, and perhaps that was the point.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Regarding the dissent - had an assessor recently who asked me to consider that there was a posibility that by being more chatty and friendly than necessary, I might be encouraging the players to chat back, and therefore to start questioning decisions.

Obviously this is something to think about - does our being chatty invite the players to chat back?

The time for chatting is in the clubhouse after the game.

During the game your objective is effective preventive communication in a concise focused manner and clear decisions with standard pronouncements.

Any additional comments e.g. in response to polite enquiry from captain should be dealt with by concise statements of fact as you see matters and not solicit any response.

Step outside that framework and you are tempting providence and on your own head be it. Some can get away with it, others not. I see nothing wrong with what your assessor said, how you take it is up to you, after all it is only his view on the day

 

[FlipFlop]

FF - no. You are giving instructions, not inviting conversation.

Of course it may well depend on how you do it, and perhaps that was the point.

That was exactly the point. Do you give instructions in a chatty way (using too many words, etc.) or do you just say RUCK?

Is being chatty a bad thing? Is using one word the right way to go? I think it all depends on teh exact circumstances, the game, the players etc. But I was just raising this here, as on reflection after that assessment, I thought that it is likely that if you come across as being chatty, you might be inviting the players to enter into a conersation with you, and hence to possible backchat.

As a result I now try to say even less on the field, but make it precise. Clearly instructional, not conversational.

Having watched some refs (not as an assessor) I think that lots (but not all) of the backchat comes from refs who like to try and engage the players, and invite conversation. Also heard instructions phrased as questions, which invites response. Not saying it is the ref's fault the players can't control themselves, but why leave the door ajar?

 

[SimonSmith]

There's a difference between chatty and being verbose with instructions. The latter is a bad idea - the less you say with that the better:
One, if you call "ruck" then they should know what their obligations and rights are.
Two, the more you say, the more "white noise" you create. Sometimes less is more.

Being "chatty" is different, I think, and is a reflection of your refereeing "personality" for want of a better phrase, and your management. I think it's also clear that there is a level - and I don't know where it is - where chat just isn't really part of the game.

I find that the higher the level, the less conversation and asides there are - everyone is 100% focused on the game. Desire to win trumping social and enjoyment aspects; as you head down the levels, the desire to win is obviously still important, but the social and enjoyment angle is more important and I'm happier to talk then.

In short - flex your style to suit the game!

 

[Davet]

It seems to work for Spreaders and his management of games is superb.

I see nothing wrong with smiling, speaking to the players as human being, and yet still being able to be firm about decisions, and iff necessary tell the players not to be silly.

But as Simon says - some games it is OK - others it may be more difficult. Some teams just want to try to dominate the ref, thes need to be brought up short.

Its like training a dog, praise and affection (OK maybe not quite... but certainly easygoing respect) when due, and a sharp tug on the allegorical check chain togethger with obvious verbal displeasure when necessary.

Perhaps all refs should be given a stroppy alsation pup to train for a year before they are allowed on the pitch...:biggrin:.

The refs that is, not the pups.

 

[OB..]

Perhaps all refs should be given a stroppy alsation pup to train for a year before they are allowed on the pitch...:biggrin:.

And, of course, the traditional white stick

Backchat involves arguing with the ref, and perhaps gratuitous "advice". I don't see that a chatty style à la Spreaders is incompatible.

The other day a ref said, "Stop arguing lads. The soccer pitch is over there." Was that bad?