Argumentative Coach on Substitution

[Nevadaref]

My situation had nothing to do with the coach behaving poorly. I was NOT threatening to book the kid INSTEAD of the coach. The coach did not do anything to deserve a card. This was merely an example of a coach attempting to gain an advantage by applying a rule in such a way that it benefited only his team. He did not wish to substitute on his corner kick, so that the opponent could not get their substitute into the game at that time. Sorry, but that's not the way the rule works. What I did let the coach know that he was not going to be able to get away with this, and if he was going to push the issue and continue to try to exploit the rules to the detriment of the opposing team, then all he was going to end up doing was hurting his OWN team.
THAT was my point, not that I am taking out any anger or frustration with a coach on his kids.

As for my statement about coaches, it is nothing compared to this:
"Lesson the First: Coaches are in the game solely to promote only one thing, the interests of themselves and their team. Put little credence in their complaints."

Care to guess who wrote that?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by huh?

c'mon, you know better than that cecil - otherwise the original poster would not have mentioned the coach "clearly dissenting" in his initial post, and nvref would not have given this bit of insight into himself:

... snip ...
We have one official here who admits to being willing to play little games with a coach, rather than taking the high road. We also have another who admits to allowing a coach to clearly dissent, then get upset with the coach (who clearly did not understand this part of the book) over a substitution technicality.

I say again, sorry, just not the approach for me.

Again, the OP, even in his irritation with the coach, did not suggest "go after the kid". That was brought up as "instructional" to the coach to get him to abide by the sub rule; in a discussion separate from the possible dissent. The possible dissent did not belong to the essence of this topic, it is about sub rules; which our Nevada friend detailed and explained quite well. The OP included "Suggestions on how to handle this?"; which means we all make suggestions and the suggestion you dislike was clearly part of influencing the coach; not a statement that anyone would actually issue a caution to a player for being there.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... snip ... This was merely an example of a coach attempting to gain an advantage by applying a rule in such a way that it benefited only his team. He did not wish to substitute on his corner kick, so that the opponent could not get their substitute into the game at that time. ... snip ... [/B]

Or, maybe that is unsporting by the coach.

But either way, it all comes down to enforce the rules and if the sub is in the official area when the ball goes out of play, the sub must enter or else.

And the real problem is:

"At halftime, the coach asked my partner about it. I don't know exactly what was said. When I asked him about it, he said "if he didn't want to sub the kid, he doesn't have to". I said that he clearly sent him to mid field, and had he not been subbing, the white player would not have been called on since it wasn't their throw. His response was that the player had to report to the official scorekeeper, which in this game, was the officials, and had not, so he didn't have to sub. "

[BCer]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

"At halftime, the coach asked my partner about it. I don't know exactly what was said. When I asked him about it, he said "if he didn't want to sub the kid, he doesn't have to". I said that he clearly sent him to mid field, and had he not been subbing, the white player would not have been called on since it wasn't their throw. His response was that the player had to report to the official scorekeeper, which in this game, was the officials, and had not, so he didn't have to sub. "

This sounds like logic chopping by the coach. The logical extension of this line of thought is to simply not allow any substitutions in the game at all without receiving a caution (except at half). After all, you cannot become a sub except by reporting to the (on field) officials, and stepping on the field without already being a player is a cautionable offense (I'm stretching the caution a bit, but I can logic chop with the best of them) . Absolute inane from a spirit point of view, but a technically defensible position. (Although I wouldn't want to write-up these cautions for what are basically sins of the coach)

My own view is that you establish with your partner what you consider to be a proper substitution request given the field markings and lack of scorer and make it clear to both coaches that if you put players in this position, you are asking for a sub. I've had the rare youth (club) coach who tries to muck around with the sub rules (as we have unlimited subs at any stoppage. We've been told that ref "discretion" shouldn't be applied. I shouldn't need to tell you the potential gamesmanship issues that exist here) - I've ended up having a quick chat explaining what I think they are trying to do if I notice them trying to sub (more than once) to disrupt a quick throw-in/corner, and ask them to please stop it or I will write them up for what I perceive as gamesmanship.

[huh?]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Again, the OP, even in his irritation with the coach, did not suggest "go after the kid". That was brought up as "instructional" to the coach to get him to abide by the sub rule; in a discussion separate from the possible dissent. The possible dissent did not belong to the essence of this topic, it is about sub rules; which our Nevada friend detailed and explained quite well. The OP included "Suggestions on how to handle this?"; which means we all make suggestions and the suggestion you dislike was clearly part of influencing the coach; not a statement that anyone would actually issue a caution to a player for being there.

yes, by all means share your opinions and ideas, I am all for that - even when those opinions are different from what I would consider correct. i enjoy reading and debating opinions and ideas.

It seems that a few of you have little room in your minds for a differing view point, which is sad. i disagree greatly with the approach suggested, because of what it appears to be. Appearances matter, and even if i completely believe that the referee who admittedly chooses to escalate little pi$$ing contests never intends to use this as a payback to a coach who has gotten on a nerve, the appearance is much different. it jumps right out at me and i would guess it would to others also

btw, if the referee tells a coach that he would have to book the kid if the coach did not send him on as a sub (nv did state this, right?), but had not intention of actually doing so, that is even worse imo. i have refereed games with guys like that, who are happy to operate by threat and smart aleck comments fired back at the coach, and still believe it is wrong. different strokes for different folks, huh?

[huh?]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My situation had nothing to do with the coach behaving poorly. I was NOT threatening to book the kid INSTEAD of the coach. The coach did not do anything to deserve a card. This was merely an example of a coach attempting to gain an advantage by applying a rule in such a way that it benefited only his team. He did not wish to substitute on his corner kick, so that the opponent could not get their substitute into the game at that time. Sorry, but that's not the way the rule works. What I did let the coach know that he was not going to be able to get away with this, and if he was going to push the issue and continue to try to exploit the rules to the detriment of the opposing team, then all he was going to end up doing was hurting his OWN team.
THAT was my point, not that I am taking out any anger or frustration with a coach on his kids.

As for my statement about coaches, it is nothing compared to this:
"Lesson the First: Coaches are in the game solely to promote only one thing, the interests of themselves and their team. Put little credence in their complaints."

Care to guess who wrote that?

too true, your example had nothing to do with a coach behaving poorly.

however, you chose to use it as an example of how to deal with the situation presented. it relates to the sub question, but also to the dissenting coach with your revelling in how you deal with coaches who get on your nerves.

don't worry, you don't have to admit to any of this, this is not an intervention! if you want to continue this less than professional approach with coaches, go for it, especially if it provides you with entertainment! after all, the money is nice, but we have to enjoy what we are doing.

please consider, though, that there may be a different way to prove your point than threatening to book kids who are in the middle of your little coach-ref game. they just want to go play a little soccer

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by huh?

too true, your example had nothing to do with a coach behaving poorly.

however, you chose to use it as an example of how to deal with the [SUBSTITUTION] situation presented.

You left out an important word.

Originally Posted by huh?

it relates to the sub question, but also to the dissenting coach with your revelling in how you deal with coaches who get on your nerves.

That is your incorrect assumption. It is wrong because the coach in my game wasn't getting on my nerves. He had behaved very well all game. He merely was attempting to misapply a rule so that his team gained an advantage. He really thought that his understanding of the rule was right and got upset when it wasn't being administered that way. He needed to be corrected and told what could happen if he didn't comply so that he didn't attempt this again with myself or any other local referee.

Originally Posted by huh?

don't worry, you don't have to admit to any of this, this is not an intervention! if you want to continue this less than professional approach with coaches, go for it, especially if it provides you with entertainment! after all, the money is nice, but we have to enjoy what we are doing.

please consider, though, that there may be a different way to prove your point than threatening to book kids who are in the middle of your little coach-ref game. they just want to go play a little soccer

That entire passage is ill-informed. You don't have any idea about the relationship that I have with the coaches in this area or even the particular coach from that game. You don't know what our game fees are, let alone if they are relatively high or low compared to those of other states and other sports. And you certainly cannot assume that because I handled one situation with a coach in a certain manner that I handle all instances in only ONE way.

There are many ways to handle both players and coaches. The best referees figure out what is appropriate to use in a given situation. Sometimes humor, sometimes a harsh public admonition, sometimes a quiet word, sometimes sarcasm, sometimes a card, sometimes shame, sometimes the "Collina" glare is needed. These are all tools in the referees arsenal that he can use to control a game. BTW all of these were advocated by USSF National Instructors at a Regional tournament this year.

However what is not in that tool bag is misapplying the rules during the game(As you advocated in an earlier post when stating that you would book the coach for his team members being out of the team area. One could construe that as you booking the coach because you are either unwilling to book the true offender, in this case the player, or because you cannot manage to get the players to be where they are supposed to be without resorting to plastic. ) or bashing on your fellow referees by calling them names (such as gutless, cowardly, closed-minded, and powerfreaks). Nothing positive is going to come from that.

I thought you advocated taking the high road? Did you miss the turn?

Now by seeing what is in much your posts on this forum so far, I happen to believe that you are intelligent and a competent referee. So how about knocking it off with the little insults to anyone who did or advocates something with which you disagree, and focusing on being a constructive member of this forum who helps others? You seem to have quite a bit to offer.

[CecilOne]

This topic seems to be a good example of why we need to read the posts carefully and literally (in most cases); avoiding responses based on preconceived views, or assumptions about others thoughts.
It's a little like reading the rule book, read and don't guess.

[huh?]

nv - glad you finally picked up on it. yes, I took a detour off the high road, as a demonstration this time of what I see your approach leading to. I have seen it come so poorly for officials who choose the path you suggest. i probably went too far in this one, but was trying to hammer home a point.

you are correct, I do not know the relationship you have with that coach - don't you think that is a pertinent bit of info when offering a suggestion like this one? No I cannot and do not assume anything about how you officiate, and truth be told, I have and do use similar methods in the right moment.

I suggest that in a JV game, with a coach that we do not know if david has a positive relationship with or even knows, but in an instance when the coach has already shown (and david let him by with this) his displeasure with his decision making, it may not be the right time for this type of response. It will likely be taken in a way that fans the flames rather than dousing the fire.

Much the way a new poster, who offers harsh criticism on a forum without having a relationship with current participants, would not make much immediate progress with his approach.

[Nevadaref]

Nice post, very well said.

Of course, I'm not sure that I buy the bit about you purposely acting poorly to make a point to me, but if you say so. You don't have to admit it, it's not an intervention, right?

BTW where are you located?

[phatneff]

Who said something about a "pi$$ing match" and not getting into one?? It sure seems like one with this thread!!!

[huh?]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nice post, very well said.

Of course, I'm not sure that I buy the bit about you purposely acting poorly to make a point to me, but if you say so. You don't have to admit it, it's not an intervention, right?

BTW where are you located?

I am somewhere in the midfield third of the country. I get around quite a bit, but not been to your state for soccer. maybe soon, to a feb or mar event. mostly travel for coaching

[ref47]

i guess huh? will not like my approach to this either. i like nv's explanation.

if a sub is standing at midfield and his/her team has a subopportunity - that sub is coming on. i might, might let it go once; but, not every first time will get a pass. the coach needs to read and follow the rules. needs to keep track/control of the team members. the rules are there for a reason. stretch them as needed for proper game management, but follow them as needed too.