Question Number: 34502

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/13/2022

RE: Under 19

Jeremy of Sacramento, California USA asks...

I feel like reckless/SPA cautions are not given enough in the below-professional level game. The biggest takeaway that watching professional referees has given me is to give these out a lot more often. I now rarely leave a match cardless, and usually give out at least two. However, I sometimes wonder if I am too strict with them given all our training is from viewing professional matches, and if applying these tactics to the youth game (i.e. if they players really "know" they're stopping a promising attack, if they're "intentionally" doing something recklessly) is as transferrable from where the pro players usually know what they are doing at all times. It's usually the SPA ones I give out that are more questioned than the reckless ones.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jeremy
Thanks for the question.
As we know disciplinary sanctions are a tool used by referees to control a game so they are used by a referee to ensure the game is played as intended and for the safety of the participants.

I watch a lot of games now and I fully expect referees to caution for reckless challenges. The referee needs to send out a strong signal that those type of challenges are not acceptable and that they will be sanctioned.

Now the trickier ones for me are the cautions issued for stopping a promising attack. Fouls at times can just be a careless foul where the player mistimes his contact on the ball and trips an opponent. The player may have no intention of stopping an attack nor is it in a promising position. At the lower levels of the game players are less likely to make use of advantage plus what would constitute a promising attack in the Pro game would not even come close in lower levels.

In a recent game I watched a referee issue a card for SPA on a handling on the touchline just outside the opponents penalty area. When I asked him why he had issued the card he said it was for SPA. The player had moved his upper body to chest the ball yet he made it slightly bigger with his arm. Was it a promising attack position some 70/80 yards from goal?

Now as a referee I do not like *soft* red cards and by that I mean the two caution red card variety where both cards can be questionable. Technical yes but are they truly deserving of a red card and a suspension. We know that players on a caution need to be careful yet at times a caution can be a misjudgement such as not retreating quickly at a free kick or being at the end of a wall that encroaches.
When I send players off I never have to justify that decision as the cards are always clearly merited. Ask yourself the question on a SPA caution if the action was truly intentional and cynical with the sole intention of stopping the opponents in a promising position. Would everyone looking at it say that the player fully deserved the card?
To me stopping a promising attack has to
# be an attack which has a possibility of becoming a goal-scoring opportunity, and not simply every forward movement.
# The defender blatantly or cynically fouls the attacker as they are starting, or during, an attack which the defender knows that he has to stop it at all costs.
# Where there is a goal scoring opportunity red card situation yet one or more of the four considerations are missing such as a long distance from goal,

I remember reading an article about a Pro referee and his talk to grassroots referees. One of the main takeaways he gave those referees was to not base their refereeing on the Pro game as it has a different approach. Case in point is not stopping the game for a minor foul in midfield when there is no apparent advantage. Pro teams may not want the free kicks as if it is given they simply pass the ball around again and many times are *annoyed* with the call. They look for them when they lose possession but rarely when they are moving the ball around tactically. Grassroots players will probably take the free kick most times and move players forward for a long kick into the penalty area.
Also when they get into good positions in the Pro game they do not take kindly to fouls. The same positions may not be good attacking situations at grassroots. Case in point was my handling example. It might have been a SPA in the Pros as the attackers may have had an opportunity to get forward before any regroup yet in my opinion it was nowhere near an SPA situations at grassroots.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jeremy,
The integrity & character of an official must convey two basic principles and a clear understanding!
Neutrality and Safety and knowledge of the LOTG
The bendability of the LOTG are somewhat different for the type of match being played.
The age and skill level play a part in how we manage a game and its players.
A referee tolerates what is acceptable for the LOTG blended with the player acceptance of what is fair.
For some refereeing is like exploring uncharted waters because they have yet to grasp how deep the ocean, how strong the tide, which direction is the current? While a referee is part of the playing conditions that the players must adapt to, no referee enjoys sending off players. We look for every imaginable way to keep a match moving and enjoyable for the 22 players and those watching. It is only when forced to intervene are we thinking about what tools are required to right the ship?

Was it a rouge wave or is this a steady wind of apathy? A mini squall or the start of a storm? Where are we headed to? Can we find the course to sail her straight and true? Are we headed for the distant shoals and rocks out there on the horizon? If players are ACTIVELY engaging in ways to scuttle the ship with reckless challenges or uncontrollable actions that endanger the ship as well as the safety of its crew & passengers? As captain are you going to sit idly by?

I concur with my esteemed colleague that soft red cards are problematic When dealing the double yellow neither card should be questionable. In a crowd where cardable conduct is present it certainly plausible to go with a 1st caution to the new rather than a 2nd, and send off for the one already in the radar but players bear responsibility for their actions and an early failure to respect distance for a silly caution does not allow prolonged dissent or unscrupulous behavior to go free. Just because we dislike sending off players as we recognize the impact on the match, it does not mean they do not go WHEN it's time to be gone!

While youth or grassroots often have the sinbin BRIG to settle the emotions, in active battle on the high seas, determined, emotional and results orientated players will often do what is required to achieve victory. The use of a caution to send the signal & set the bar or a red card to emphasize intolerable conduct are available and you can not shirk IF they are called for!

No matter what level of play you officiate at, the two teams are battling to win. If thwarted will at times use sneaky as well as obvious deterrents to stop a promising attack by their opponents. We must be cognizant that players are not always cynical or evil in intentions but could simply be aggressive or clumsy in their effort to win a ball battle. Here we must really try hard to think not only the result of the conduct itself but the reasoning and the execution of the tackle itself. We are to ignore SPA if it is not in that reckless/excessive category more of a hindrance type foul. Here the use of the advantage is a great tool but if applied it does not mean that a SPA action is gifted an automatic pass if it has significant reckless attributes to it just because the attack is successful even if it results in a goal.

I will reiterate my colleague's point, we are NOT professional even as we ACT professionally in we conduct the matches in the interest and benefit of the participants. RECKLESS is reckless, it is NOT SPA (stopping a promising attack) rather a deliberate, lets make this opponents' opportunity to attack disappear, it has NO obvious I am going to win this ball thinking involved!.
Cheers