No red, not a yellow, but take a blue!

[Bluevanman]

wazztie16 said:

In the early stages of sin bins coming into football, I sin binned a goalkeeper in the county church league for dissent by action (sarcastic clapping after I'd awarded a penalty against him).

Cue pandemonium with players claiming you can't sin bin a goalkeeper, the team not having a decent reserve keeper and the stand in goalkeeper having to start off with the penalty kick.

I love sin bins, on Sunday morning I had 2 in the bin in the second half for the same team.

Had warned both managers before the game regarding the FA's stance this season on dissent/delaying the restart of play/technical area (and general participant behaviour).

Mentioned the first 2 points to the captains at coin toss as well.

First half, 2 quiet words to players for the away team and bringing the captain in a little before half time, all using the stepped approach.

69 mins, first bin for the team.

Captain slamming the ball down at my decision (something minor like a throw in or free kick in halfway), because it was public/obvious I had to take action.

He comes back on, 30 seconds later, second player from the team stands up and screams at me after not getting a foul (again, around halfway), couldn't ignore.

I really don't get what goes through the head of some teams/players.

So I'm all for sin bins.

Because footballers are human beings with emotions and not robots.....and because referees are constantly making wrong decisions they get frustrated.
Thanks to tv replays we now get to see just how inept referees really are

[coldel]

Bluevanman said:

Because footballers are human beings with emotions and not robots.....and because referees are constantly making wrong decisions they get frustrated.
Thanks to tv replays we now get to see just how inept referees really are

So are golf players, rugby players, [insert any other sport here] players - but we do not see anywhere near the level of personal abuse directed at officials in those sports. Funny enough if they do on the rare occasion, bang, off they go.

Being 'emotional' is and never has been an excuse to abuse referees. Its vile and its got well out of hand, even seeing the staff joining in on the act on the touchlines.

Referees would have such an easier job of it if they were not having to try and second guess whether a player is fouled or if they are simulating/cheating/diving. Given all the awful behaviour that goes on during a game refereeing is not an easy thing, they get more decisions right than wrong, but again that is no excuse for vile abuse even if they get it wrong.

[Time4another]

Dissent - Book them. More Dissent - Book them again. They're trying to answer a problem that they already have the tools for.

Football refs could do a lot to go and learn from rugby refs. None of the dramatics are tolerated. Should only be speaking to the team captain and whoever has been fouled or commited the foul. No players running the full length of the pitch to give the ref an ear full.

[coldel]

Time4another said:

Dissent - Book them. More Dissent - Book them again. They're trying to answer a problem that they already have the tools for.

Football refs could do a lot to go and learn from rugby refs. None of the dramatics are tolerated. Should only be speaking to the team captain and whoever has been fouled or commited the foul. No players running the full length of the pitch to give the ref an ear full.

But that isnt a referee issue thats a player issue. The players know they can be binned or sent off for any dissent so dont do it.

Unfortunately football doesnt seem to have strict enough rules around this. And you know every time a player is sent off what do we hear from the manager ... 'I didnt see it' ... and then talks about how bad the ref was (even if they got it spot on) skirting around the border of what they can get away with saying.

[Bluevanman]

coldel said:

So are golf players, rugby players, [insert any other sport here] players - but we do not see anywhere near the level of personal abuse directed at officials in those sports. Funny enough if they do on the rare occasion, bang, off they go.

Being 'emotional' is and never has been an excuse to abuse referees. Its vile and its got well out of hand, even seeing the staff joining in on the act on the touchlines.

Referees would have such an easier job of it if they were not having to try and second guess whether a player is fouled or if they are simulating/cheating/diving. Given all the awful behaviour that goes on during a game refereeing is not an easy thing, they get more decisions right than wrong, but again that is no excuse for vile abuse even if they get it wrong.

I agree about players cheating, that's become indemic and I can't see how we can turn the clock back to the days when the only player diving was Francis Lee
The lack of consistency by referees is a problem.
Every week this is highlighted by tv pundits.
Then again the more rules they bring in the harder it must be to ref consistently, especially when a lot of the rules are open to interpretation.
We need fewer rules and to make them easier to understand and implement.
We don't need sin bins, yellow card for dissent,do it again and it's a red .Simple

[Frimley111R]

Bluevanman said:

We don't need sin bins, yellow card for dissent,do it again and it's a red .Simple

The problem is that a yellow for dissent is meaningless. A player can abuse the ref with effectively no consequences. A sin-bin cuts out any dissent.

It's the same for tactical fouls, a player can take out an opponent on the break and stop a very good goal-scoring opportunity. All the player gets is a yellow card and so a tactical foul is a no-brainer.

[coldel]

Bluevanman said:

I agree about players cheating, that's become indemic and I can't see how we can turn the clock back to the days when the only player diving was Francis Lee
The lack of consistency by referees is a problem.
Every week this is highlighted by tv pundits.
Then again the more rules they bring in the harder it must be to ref consistently, especially when a lot of the rules are open to interpretation.
We need fewer rules and to make them easier to understand and implement.
We don't need sin bins, yellow card for dissent,do it again and it's a red .Simple

There is a myth around referees and their decision making. There have been studies showing that referees get the vast majority of decisions right. Of course they will get one or two wrong, but that is the law of averages playing out over the course of thousands of decisions made every weekend. The main problem is then MOTD finding one or two and making a huge deal out of it and framing it as referees struggle, when in fact they do quite well.

The issue again drops right back at players feet, stop behaving like tts. Its not tolerated in any other sport globally, football is not a special case.

Its also worth noting that all the football shows have ex players as pundits, so the views are heavily biased in favour of players.

[fiatpower]

Frimley111R said:

The problem is that a yellow for dissent is meaningless. A player can abuse the ref with effectively no consequences. A sin-bin cuts out any dissent.

It's the same for tactical fouls, a player can take out an opponent on the break and stop a very good goal-scoring opportunity. All the player gets is a yellow card and so a tactical foul is a no-brainer.

It’s not meaningless. It’s a warning and if they do anything else they’re off. The refs just need to have the balls to give a 2nd yellow and send them off as they seem reluctant to do that at the minute

[coldel]

fiatpower said:

Frimley111R said:

The problem is that a yellow for dissent is meaningless. A player can abuse the ref with effectively no consequences. A sin-bin cuts out any dissent.

It's the same for tactical fouls, a player can take out an opponent on the break and stop a very good goal-scoring opportunity. All the player gets is a yellow card and so a tactical foul is a no-brainer.

It’s not meaningless. It’s a warning and if they do anything else they’re off. The refs just need to have the balls to give a 2nd yellow and send them off as they seem reluctant to do that at the minute

Because they are then demonised by the footballing community with calls to get them kicked off refereeing the premier league etc. The media and people backlash against referees is pretty savage (and often unjustified).

If we really want to get rid of dissent, its a straight red. Im not sure why it should need two yellows, we shouldnt give players one opportunity each to abuse an official per match.

[Frimley111R]

fiatpower said:

Frimley111R said:

The problem is that a yellow for dissent is meaningless. A player can abuse the ref with effectively no consequences. A sin-bin cuts out any dissent.

It's the same for tactical fouls, a player can take out an opponent on the break and stop a very good goal-scoring opportunity. All the player gets is a yellow card and so a tactical foul is a no-brainer.

It’s not meaningless. It’s a warning and if they do anything else they’re off. The refs just need to have the balls to give a 2nd yellow and send them off as they seem reluctant to do that at the minute

True but it allows each player to swear at the ref etc once. No way should any sportsman be allowed to do that.

I think a lot of players get the yellow and then get told by team mates to calm it down or they are off, which mostly they do but the first round of abuse is 'free' essentially.

[Bluevanman]

coldel said:

Because they are then demonised by the footballing community with calls to get them kicked off refereeing the premier league etc. The media and people backlash against referees is pretty savage (and often unjustified).

If we really want to get rid of dissent, its a straight red. Im not sure why it should need two yellows, we shouldnt give players one opportunity each to abuse an official per match.

Because,like with a lot of decisions,it's down to interpretation. The laws are too vague.
In a recent game a player on a yellow was fouled and got the freekick.He said that should be a card ref.The ref hadn't heard him clearly and asked him to repeat what he said.He repeated it and got a 2nd yellow and was therefore sent off.That's ludicrous

[KingNothing]

Blue card = beer card.

Once a blue card has been shown you'll know the team down to 10 men are going to park the bus for 10 minutes, and time waste as much as possible in their own half until they have their player back, so it's time to go to the concourse for a beer.

[coldel]

Bluevanman said:

Because,like with a lot of decisions,it's down to interpretation. The laws are too vague.
In a recent game a player on a yellow was fouled and got the freekick. He said that should be a card ref.The ref hadn't heard him clearly and asked him to repeat what he said.He repeated it and got a 2nd yellow and was therefore sent off.That's ludicrous

I agree the laws are in some cases the problem, but its also worth reading online about referring guidelines and how to issue cards, its quite an eye opener. For your example for instance no one can give a view on here because each incident is judged on that incident itself, context is very important within which the incident occurred as to what happens. This get misinterpreted as inconsistency, but, its a guideline which refs have which is available to all players and managers as well.

If players stopped thinking that football is some sort of special case, that unsporting behaviour like the one described above is not OK, most of the problems go away. Instead changes like this have to come in to sort them out.

I dont particularly like rugby, but I cannot point at the participants in that sport and say they are 'spoiled loud mouthed cheating diving' and various other words. But ask someone who doesn't like football what they think of players and they would use all those words. All too often in football its far too easily brushed away that the players are at fault and blame laid elsewhere.

[Frimley111R]

KingNothing said:

Blue card = beer card.

Once a blue card has been shown you'll know the team down to 10 men are going to park the bus for 10 minutes, and time waste as much as possible in their own half until they have their player back, so it's time to go to the concourse for a beer.

Or....blue card = hammer time (F1 reference there) and the other team step up their attacks for 10 mins and it all gets exciting.

[coldel]

Frimley111R said:

Or....blue card = hammer time (F1 reference there) and the other team step up their attacks for 10 mins and it all gets exciting.

Yes thats the point isn't it, that the offending player gives the advantage to the other team to go on a power play and create a load of pressure on the other team. Actually it is pretty exciting watching a team hanging on whilst getting a hammering!

[Murph7355]

Time4another said:

Dissent - Book them. More Dissent - Book them again. They're trying to answer a problem that they already have the tools for.

Football refs could do a lot to go and learn from rugby refs. None of the dramatics are tolerated. Should only be speaking to the team captain and whoever has been fouled or commited the foul. No players running the full length of the pitch to give the ref an ear full.

This this this.

Ref's to grow a pair. First dissent, yellow. Warning. Second dissent, yellow/red (including if they start mouthing off at getting a yellow).

Do this consistently, dissent will stop within a couple of weeks.

Cynical fouls? Either same as above or straight red.

Use the tools that are there already.

[Starfighter]

The refs should be microphones up. I am sure it would be an eye opener for some to hear what is being said.

[Frimley111R]

The big challenge is the huge number of football bods in the media who are all stuck in the past bleating on about how this changes/ruins the game. There's very little common sense or fair reporting. None will admit (apart from Gordon Strachan one time) that they all cheat and it is what they all do.

[Jefferson Steelflex]

Sin bins work quite well, although The FA stats on the reduction in dissent are misleading as a lot of referees just stopped using C2 caution code (Dissent) and just put it down as Aggressive Attitude which comes under Unsporting Behaviour and doesn't attract a sin bin. So the player still gets a yellow card but stays on the pitch.

The FA were clear this season that dissent had to be acted on more robustly, and I know from my own experience and that of peers that C2 cautions are far far higher than they were previously. Clubs also receive larger fines for dissent cautions, so it's hitting them in the pocket. The general view is that behaviour has improved.

This blue card idea is clearly nonsense, but I'd imagine it won't be coming to the professional game any time soon.

[coldel]

Frimley111R said:

The big challenge is the huge number of football bods in the media who are all stuck in the past bleating on about how this changes/ruins the game. There's very little common sense or fair reporting. None will admit (apart from Gordon Strachan one time) that they all cheat and it is what they all do.

Yes exactly this. Its loaded with ex-players who wont say a bad word against most players but will literally want a referee strung up by his balls should he miss a decision. I find it funny when in the moment commentators on live TV shout out that the ref got it wrong but on the third angle shows the ref got it right they just very quickly move on and try to skip past their own bad judgement.

Problem is now that players are so used to just complaining at every single decision given against them that going hard with yellows would no doubt end up at the feet of the refs again, media complaining that they are being heavy handed etc.