TJ doesn't get number

[Donal1988]

How did I handle this situation. Blue v White, Cup Final. I pinged a late tackle on kicker by Blue in opening 5 minutes. A penalty for obstruction followed quickly and there was a late tackle on the stroke at half time. I issued a severe warning to Blue that foul play ends now and if it happened again player will leave field. I spoke to White captain that I have seen the incidents and I will deal with it not his team etc.

Official appointed TJ flags early in the second half. A late tackle with no arms by a Blue player. He has no number. I have no choice but to give PK only. White captain is extremely angry that Blue are taking out his players without leaving park and continues to tell me it is number 12. I advise him he has a penalty kick and I can't act on his advice.

As it turns out Blue got a yellow card for another late tackle with 15 minutes or so remaining. White captain ended up getting himself yellow carded for a VERY late tackle and flirted close to a red for dissent claiming it was just PKs for them a yellow for him.

Any advice how this could have been better managed?

 

[Davet]

You have warned Blue, but when the next incident occurs you have no number...

You have spoken to White captain and explained, and he must surely be aware that you cannot take his word that it was 12 - what age group was this - they don't sound mature?

If it was Colts or lower could you speak to coach perhaps get him to rein in his captain...?

You probably felt that by not getting a number the TO3 had let them down and that you may have been a little defensive/guily, which may have been apparent in body language/voice - that slight defensive attitude by you can invite a more agressive response in others - May be you could try being more assertive in attitude when explaining the reason why no card, and make it clear, by attitude not words that you will not tolerate any questioning or dispute or advice.

 

[barker14610]

Blue Captain come here please. And bring the player who tackled the kicker. A bit of a bluff but it usually works.

 

[Agustin]

I issued a severe warning to Blue that foul play ends now and if it happened again player will leave field. I spoke to White captain that I have seen the incidents and I will deal with it not his team etc.

It sounds like you may have painted yourself into a bit of a corner. It made sense that the next instance of foul play would lead to a YC or RC, but there are cases (like what happened) where you may not be able to, or you may choose not to.

 

[Phil E]

I issued a severe warning to Blue that foul play ends now and if it happened again player will leave field.

This is what you did.................

View attachment 1480

Perhaps the phrase......."I am running out of options" would have been better?

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

Davet's take is spot on. Your warning beforehand was not the problem - the running out of options spiel doesn't sound right if it comes after late tackles and other forms of foul play. I remember watching Nigel Owens a few years back talking to a captain in a similar situation to yours: "You need to accept that I will not see everything that happens on this pitch but what I see will be dealt with and dealt with correctly". The captain walked away without saying a word and I am not ashamed to say I have 'borrowed' it and used it a number of times and it has always worked fine for me. 'We didn't get the guy's number' - no apology needed - it happens and he needs to accept it. Say it confidently and maintain eye contact throughout and 9/10 you'll be fine.

 

[Account Deleted]

This is what you did.................

View attachment 1480

Perhaps the phrase......."I am running out of options" would have been better?

Agreed. You did not follow through on your "promise". Agreed you could not do so. So next time the "options" comment is a better choice. Agreed it might be a possibility to ask the captain to bring the offender over.

 

[Agustin]

Blue Captain come here please. And bring the player who tackled the kicker. A bit of a bluff but it usually works.

I haven't tried it yet, but I'm told that "and bring him over, too, please" works as well.

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

Agreed. You did not follow through on your "promise". Agreed you could not do so. So next time the "options" comment is a better choice. Agreed it might be a possibility to ask the captain to bring the offender over.

Let's say a player has just thumped another player and the ref decides it is worth a bollocking but not a card. If the ref then uses the 'running out of options' line he is effectively saying to that player if you thump him again you might get to stay on the pitch (knowing that if he does do it again he will 100% be sitting out for ten minutes). Unless the player is clued in as to why the ref is being evasive, that message could be very confusing for the player!

The running out of options type warning is more effective for aspects of the game which are a lot less clear - eg the breakdown, offsides etc - areas that are a lot more open to interpretation and the referee needs to give himself some room to maneouvre further down the line because it is so open to interpretation. Depending on the circumstances it is entirely possible that the next penalty will not result in a card. That's where using non-committal language is good.

But if you have observed two late tackles and have decided that the next one will go in the bin then there is nothing wrong in being clear on that. The fact that the team of three missed the player's number was unfortunate but that fairly remote possibility should not in itself be a reason to tone down the language used in warnings given to players.

 

[dave_clark]

what if the next one is 45 minutes later in the game, by which time everything has calmed down?

 

[OB..]

But if you have observed two late tackles and have decided that the next one will go in the bin then there is nothing wrong in being clear on that.

If it were true that such things are clear cut, you might be right, but it isn't.

I don't agree that a more cautious phraseology leads to confusion.

 

[Account Deleted]

Let's say a player has just thumped another player and the ref decides it is worth a bollocking but not a card. If the ref then uses the 'running out of options' line he is effectively saying to that player if you thump him again you might get to stay on the pitch (knowing that if he does do it again he will 100% be sitting out for ten minutes). Unless the player is clued in as to why the ref is being evasive, that message could be very confusing for the player!

The running out of options type warning is more effective for aspects of the game which are a lot less clear - eg the breakdown, offsides etc - areas that are a lot more open to interpretation and the referee needs to give himself some room to maneouvre further down the line because it is so open to interpretation. Depending on the circumstances it is entirely possible that the next penalty will not result in a card. That's where using non-committal language is good.

But if you have observed two late tackles and have decided that the next one will go in the bin then there is nothing wrong in being clear on that. The fact that the team of three missed the player's number was unfortunate but that fairly remote possibility should not in itself be a reason to tone down the language used in warnings given to players.

If you think it is wise to paint yourself into a corner and wish not to heed the warning in this tale; be my guest!

Here we have a captain getting arsey because we have "not delivered". Clearly confusing and a call that let to more problems later in the game. Yep that worked!???????????????

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

ATTR - the captain was being arsey because he knew who the guilty player was but the referee (rightly) did not act on his information. It would not have made any difference had the referee used a more cautious warning - the white captain would not have been present when the blue captain was warned so how would he have known what terminology was used? It doesn't say anywhere in the OP that the white captain was told the next blue player would be off. The type of warning that had been given to blue would have had no bearing on what happened later with white. It was how the referee handled the white captain that was, imho, much more significant.

OB - you are correct, nothing is ever absolute; poorly worded post on my part. My point was that certain types of infringements are closer to being absolute than others and as such can be handled differently. (Stating the obvious, I know, but it's late and a long way past my bedtime!)

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

Just re-read the 1st post again: "I spoke to White captain that I have seen the incidents and I will deal with it not his team etc"

ATTR - that really isn't painting anyone into a corner. He's told the white captain that he'll deal with it and not given him anything specific that could be used against him later. The specific threats were all issued to blue and there did not seem to be any problems with them.

 

[Agustin]

ZB: There are effective ways to get the message across that an action is unacceptable without promising a specific sanction. "Do NOT do that again" is one.

 

[Deeps]

Donal1988 - Much good advice above but before I read through my initial reactions were a) not to threaten action that I might not be able to carry out and b) I find an early YC usually works wonders in 'setting out your stall'.

What I try and do is to be as unobtrusive and detached as possible to start with while I assess what kind of a game it is going to be. As soon as there are any misgivings as to behaviour I try and nip it in the bud early by showing that I will not tolerate bad behaviour and here is where an early YC is a wonderful tool. Used early enough it should not adversely affect the game and should improve matters. As players respond and behave themselves then you can let the leash off a bit.

 

[PaulDG]

ATTR - the captain was being arsey because he knew who the guilty player was but the referee (rightly) did not act on his information.

Or, the captain was just being arsey and by demanding the card thought he was putting pressure on the ref in the hope/expectation that this would make the ref feel he'd let that side down and would feel he "owed" them the benefit of the doubt in future 50/50 decisions.

Captains do that, you know...

 

[Account Deleted]

Agreed BUT the ref gave him the bullets in the promise / threat that he could not deliver upon.

That is poor management.

We've all been there. I know I have!

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR - the captain was being arsey because he knew who the guilty player was but the referee (rightly) did not act on his information.

The ref did not deliver on the promise. We should not hamstring our judgment in that way.

EVERY senior ref I've spoken to has said "DON'T SAY THE NEXT ONE IS A CARD".

Asking for trouble.

 

[Account Deleted]

Just re-read the 1st post again: "I spoke to White captain that I have seen the incidents and I will deal with it not his team etc"

ATTR - that really isn't painting anyone into a corner. He's told the white captain that he'll deal with it and not given him anything specific that could be used against him later. The specific threats were all issued to blue and there did not seem to be any problems with them.

Did you not read this bit?

I issued a severe warning to Blue that foul play ends now and if it happened again player will leave field.

The tone is set.