Argumentative Coach on Substitution

[huh?]

oh yeah, it is easy to understand. just not sure why anyone would look for a way to book a kid, after having let the coach go with "clearly dissenting" for the match. this smacks of cowardice, not having the guts to deal with the coach correctly, and being willing to go after the kid to get back at the coach. jmo

[Nevadaref]

Forget the coach's dissent. That is an entirely separate issue from the substitution question.

Let's say that the coach has behaved perfectly all match. Now he challenges the substitution situation. Please state how you would handle it, since you stated that you would do so differently, but did not disclose exactly what you would do.

[huh?]

This is pretty easy, nv.

If the player is there and the coach did not intend to sub him (especially a JV game where there is not likely to be truly designated areas for the teams, the sub area, etc...) I would remind the coach of the rule the first time, and ask him to have his players not move to the center line area unless they are ready to substitute.

From there, I would play it by ear. In a JV game, it is not likely that I would book players about this, but I may book the coach for not keeping his players in a designated area. I might even help him mark the area with bags or cones if he needs the help. Varsity games, if it happens again, I might hold the coach responsible for this one, and force the players to sub. However, I am also smart enough to recognize that the player may also mysteriously come up with an injury that needs attention before he even gets onto the field, and would be hard pressed to force the player to enter under those conditions - and the team would have the right to replace the injured "player" who has not even yet made it onto the field.

I recognize that many officials (and coaches) love to get into these little pi$$ing contests, but it seems to me to make very little sense. I know it makes sense to many to do just that, but are we supposed to hold ourselves to the highest standard possible as officials in the match? Relying on the juvenile "well, he started it" philosophy is, well, just that.

btw, clearly above there is heartburn with the coach who was being a pain, and that led to david getting a little ticked at the coach, and wanted to make a point. I understand that, but the suggestions above to take it out by booking a player when the official did not have the guts to book the coach are gutless.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by huh?

This is pretty easy, nv.

If the player is there and the coach did not intend to sub him (especially a JV game where there is not likely to be truly designated areas for the teams, the sub area, etc...) I would remind the coach of the rule the first time, and ask him to have his players not move to the center line area unless they are ready to substitute.

That's fine. I don't mind a warning, especially in a jv game. However, would you allow an opponent who was standing next to these "substitutes" to enter at this time now that you've stopped the restart?

Originally Posted by huh?

From there, I would play it by ear. In a JV game, it is not likely that I would book players about this, but I may book the coach for not keeping his players in a designated area. I might even help him mark the area with bags or cones if he needs the help.

Now you're putting yourself into a position that could cause you trouble. I would not recommend this to another referee. If the coach is inside the designated area and he is not otherwise being unsporting, then there is no rule which allows you to book the coach for his team members leaving the team area. According to 12-8-4a a coach can only be booked for team or bench misconduct when that misconduct CANNOT be attributed to specific individuals. In this case, you clearly have specific individuals who are out of the team area.
If you attempt to caution the coach for this and he knows the rules, he will probably complain about it and cause you a bigger problem. Now if you remove him, you are going to have no rules basis for justifying what you did when you write your report to your governing body. Not a good situation to be in.

Originally Posted by huh?

btw, clearly above there is heartburn with the coach who was being a pain, and that led to david getting a little ticked at the coach, and wanted to make a point.

While that seems true in this specific instance, I refrain from commenting on what my fellow officials consider to be dissent or not. It is a judgment decision that is up to the individual who was there. I was not. Therefore, I did not comment on the coach's behavior at all in my post.
I also do not believe that it is constructive to belittle or call someone names who is attempting to improve as a referee. David obviously is doing just that since he is on this forum inquiring about the situation that took place. He knows that the coach got to him and he shouldn't have let that happen. He wrote it. He admitted it. He doesn't need me or you to beat him up about it. I'm sure that he learned from it and will do better next time.

Originally Posted by huh?

I understand that, but the suggestions above to take it out by booking a player when the official did not have the guts to book the coach are gutless.

Who suggested that? I've reread all of the posts in this thread and not a single person advocated such. And once again this forum can do without the negative personal attacks.

There is certainly some gamesmanship used by coaches in an attempt to gain an edge for their teams during a contest. Afterall, it is their job to help their team win and if they can get away with something more power to them. Good officials clearly recognize this and each deals with it in their own manner. I happen to give a little of it back to them. When they try to twist the rules in their favor, I crack down on them. It has been quite effective for me. The better coaches grasp the concept quite quickly. In eight years of HS reffing, I have yet to disqualify a coach. I have removed coaches in USSF matches.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by huh?

oh yeah, it is easy to understand. just not sure why anyone would look for a way to book a kid, ... snip ..., and being willing to go after the kid to get back at the coach. jmo

No one said they were "willing to go after the kid"; just that they might point out that possibility to the coach to encourage him to resolve the problem. No one would caution a player for that. And it's not "getting back at the coach", again just helping the coach see there are rules; which if correctly followed avoid problems.

[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:

"The coach generally wants to selectively apply certain details of the rules when it suits him.
While I truly feel that this is a petty, little game which some coaches play, it does warrant some discussion because it is purely rules based.

Well, I'm pretty good with the rules book, so if the coach wants to play that game, I have no problem with it. He just better be prepared for me to hit him with every detail of it in return! In the long run this is a battle that the coach is going to lose."

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.

[huh?]

Quote:
Originally Posted by huh?
I understand that, but the suggestions above to take it out by booking a player when the official did not have the guts to book the coach are gutless.

NV replied: Who suggested that? I've reread all of the posts in this thread and not a single person advocated such. And once again this forum can do without the negative personal attacks."



Here is where you have told us you were willing to book a kid to win a battle over a coach:

In my recent match, white got a corner kick. When I looked over to the area between the benches, white had two players there and green had one. Thus I prevented the corner kick from being taken and gave the signal to my AR1 to adminster the substitution process (two quick blasts of the whistle). White's coach now made a fuss claiming that he didn't want to sub on the corner and that green shouldn't be allowed to get their player into the game. I told him that if his players were over there, then they had to sub. He disputed that. So I stopped the clock, trotted over to him, and quietly explained that unless they were over there to sub, they couldn't be out of the team area, and in that case I would have to give each of them a caution. Obviously this didn't please him at all. So as I backed away I asked the coach, loudly enough for the opposing bench to hear, "So, your guys really do want to sub, right?" He now said, "Yeah." I told him that was an excellent answer and we got on with the match.

This is not a personal attack, so please don't play that whiney card. You have given it to us in black and white, and make no qualms about this approach. That is your right, but it is my right to be able to tell you I think you have it all wrong with the approach.

Did you diffuse the situation with your threat/promise to book his subs? How about with your end comment to him? I prefer to not fan the flames with a coach, and that is the point I have been making in every post here. You choose to do so, and that is your prerogative, but it just doesn't work for me.

It is instances like this that lead coaches to speak poorly of a referees attitude. I am sure you would not want the smart aleck response from a coach to you, if he caught you in something right?

I know, I know, we here coaches give those types of responses all the time. Again, do we take the high road, or to we try for payback? I have slipped to the payback mode myself, too, but I know it is not the right road.

[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 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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?