Question Number: 35714

League Specific 9/21/2024

RE: Under 12

DH of Sunderland, United Kingdom asks...

U12s match. 2 players tussling for the ball.

Player A kicks out.
Player B grabs shirt and pushes Player A.

Player A strike Player B in the face.

Player B strikes player A in the face.

Both players get a red card.

Player A gets red card first

Player B red card second

Does the ref prioritise the order of red cards so Player A gets red as the aggressor and player B for retaliations?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi there coach,
referees generally deal with the biggest problem, in this case two players are engaged with each other, not a third party who flares in to create mayhem in defence of the non aggressor. We generally have to ID the culprit who instigated the actual 1st foul for which we are stopping play for & that will be the restart!

A referee should be VERY quick to the spot the moment they realize things are going badly, especially violent situations to separate the combatants ASAP. The match report will have the details of the events. The GREATEST amount of excessive violence MIGHT garner a longer suspension, that, however, is not up to the referee, but the disciplinary committee upon review of the match report! While a DOGSO stopping a goal via a foul or SAP (stopping attacking play) situation requiring to be shown a red card might be less punishable than SFP (serious foul play which is definitely a big deal but VC (violent conduct) is generally the worse in terms of intentions.


If the action that precipitated violence was not of itself of that same level, a reasonable attempt to play the ball, albeit careless or even reckless kick or trip that was not a serious intent to injure! That might mitigate suspension time or fines but if VC follows, red is red, and 1 game sit outs for a silly reaction can turn into 2 or 3 or 5 to drive home the message (Fighting is NOT permitted On the Pitch), ever!

It sounds as if PLAYER A -KICKS- PLAYER B, so if true, that is a restart foul of a DFK.
If he simply waved a foot and no contact but Player B did not appreciate that action and decided to hold, then push perhaps that is the FOUL you wish to stop play for?

We can apply advantage under certain cases but youth often lack the skill or understanding to take advantage of deteriorating situations without the match going to -bleep- in a hand basket! Plus a referee should clearly communicate they SAW the foul (yelling ADVANTAGE! and arm signalling to continue play) ) thus not stopping just yet, but waiting to see what good might come from continuing play?

This makes all aware there was a FOUL, it was NOT missed, and thus no need to retaliate!
If it was a cardable foul one might even call out "NUMBER so and so on TEAM A, you are in the book!" to alleviate the anger a player might have at being unfairly challenged. Plus it highlights to your ARS as well as the spectators, coaches, players & parents what is eventually going to occur!

Certainly the actual striking that then takes place is most definitely inexcusable and an IMMEDIATE Stoppage is likely warranted!

We will card the subsequent actions and retaliation by both as violent misconduct. We would likely talk to both, identifying as to who is getting the restart and who is not. In this case it is likely the two players to be shown the red cards are right there close to one another not separated by distance. Even if we are showing the red card asap to both, likely pointing at nearest one then the other in quick succession. If one was only being cautioned, shown a yellow, we likely show the red card first to try and ensure the send off removal then causally show the yellow card. Often a player could be on the ground injured so standing over them ferociously brandishing a card is not the best image to present. Each situation has its own aura to contend with. We want to head off trouble as much as correct it!

At the Youth level our simple presence and body language is usually sufficient to quell disturbed 10,11 or 12 year old's! A big question is what are coaches & parents doing? Creating more mayhem or lessening tensions?

Unfortunately retaliation to a perceived or real attack is more often an emotional reaction than formulated plan of attack . Instinctive is still violent, I run an elbow into the head of the player who stepped on the back of my ankle? Chances are our punishments will mirror the consequences of those actions but ONLY if the referee is aware that it occurred. Often we only catch the retaliatory reaction, especially as a single official.. If it occurs out of our direct view, we might think we know what is going on but if you did not see the reason (Frank slapped Johnny from behind on the ear) which is why Johnny punched Frank in the mouth then Frank punches Johnny. Frank gets the free kick even if both are sent off! As the reason to stop play was what the referee SAW, Johnny punched Frank 1st! Grassroots Football does not often have neutral ARS or the professional VAR tech to show the behind the play garbage players do to one another!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
Thanks for the question.

It is only relevant in respect of the restart. Both players will get a red card and then it is a question of the restart.
In the past reports described what happened whereas on the electronic system referees may not give a detailed report of what happened just the reason for the red card which in these cases is violent conduct. A referee may put in a short narrative as a reminder yet most referees believe that it is not important and they are not read.

In your example the first foul is by Player A so that will dictate the restart assuming of course that the referee saw that. Player Bs team should get the restart.

Generally referees are told to deal with the aggressor first that is the player that caused the incident and then deal with the retaliator.
It does not always work out like that and a referee if say the retaliator is closer will show the red card and then move to the aggressor.
It could also be that the retaliator is the more aggressive player at that stage and a referee may want to signal that the player is being sent off to prevent further escalation.

In the recent Man Utd v Crystal Palace there was a challenge by a United player that Palace players took exception to. The referee cautioned two Palace players for dissent immediately before he cautioned the United player for the reckless challenge which caused the incident.
It probably should have been the other way around yet the referee decided he wanted to put an early end to the dissent escalation by Palace players.
It made no difference from a sanction point of view as all three players were cautioned anyway which is the sane as the two red cards.