Yellow Card?

[JerBear]

I was at a HS varsity game last night. My son's team was playing and there was a good amount of contact between the forward from our team and the defender for the other team. Not anything out of the ordinary but there was a good deal of contact. The forward got a pushing call against him largely due to his over the top reaction to what every defender does when the ball is in their goal area. I thought it was a proper call from an (in position) AR that made a decision that the whistle agreed with. After the call (during the time preceding the free kick and the time the forward actually shut his mouth which was after the free kick) the forward started jawing with the AR about the call. I know this kid well so maybe I wouldn't give him as much grace as they did but he was being mouthy and as he walked away from the AR (that was clearly angry with what was said to him) he took his hand and made a opening and closing gesture to the AR that seemed to non-verbally mimic a mouth opening and closing as if to say your talking but I’m not listening. After this happened the center official got involved and spoke with the AR for a moment or so then went back to the job at hand and never even spoke to the kid.

What do all of you think? I'm almost certain based upon what I had seen, would have cautioned him for dissent.

[phatneff]

Absolutely! The AR's are also officials. Any dissent to them is very much like dissent to the CR. Why the CR did not caution the player after talking to the AR, I have no idea, but it sounds like it certainly warranted a caution.

[ref2coach]

Caution if I had been the CR and a player was showing that level of "verbal" and "action" to dissent with a member of the referee crew I am part of.

[kusskke]

It would appear that we are missing an important element necessary to arm-chair quarterback the referee's decision: what was discussed in the CR/AR meeting.

Obviously the CR was concerned, hence the discussion with the AR. For all we know the AR suggested to the CR to let this one slide for whatever reason.

[refnrev]

I've started to reply to this about 4 times and stopped, but I'm going to give it a shot. From the OP some things are not clear:

1. What is it that every defender does when the ball is in his area?

2. What was the context of the conversation between the forward and the AR? Was it dissent or was he questioning what happened.

3.Was the gesture one of disrespect to the AR or was it something else? If it was a gesture of disrespect it's a card. If it's not, then how can you judge?

4. And the most important question was raised by kusskke - What was said in the disscussion between the AR and CR? There could have been something going on that no one in the stands knows about. For whatever reason, it was deemed not a cardable offense.

I 've tried to picture this play, but for me it's going to have to go down as one of those I'd have to have been there to be able to answer whether or not he deserved a card. I just have some unaswered questions from the OP.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by phatneff

The AR's are also officials. Any dissent to them is very much like dissent to the CR.

Why does that even need saying? If it does, then it further reinforces my dislike for the diagonal (one ref) system.

[phatneff]

To further back up my response, I would definitely give a caution regardless of what my AR said about letting it go. The reason is because it will negate the action from happening again. I understand the AR may not want to "ruffle feathers," but from a game management standpoint, I would feel that the caution was necessary, and I would explain that to the AR.

[kusskke]

Originally Posted by phatneff

To further back up my response, I would definitely give a caution regardless of what my AR said about letting it go. The reason is because it will negate the action from happening again. I understand the AR may not want to "ruffle feathers," but from a game management standpoint, I would feel that the caution was necessary, and I would explain that to the AR.

It would seem that phatnett forgets that he believes "AR's are also officials".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by kusskke

It would seem that phatnett forgets that he believes "AR's are also officials".

But dissent is only "very much like dissent".

[phatneff]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

But dissent is only "very much like dissent".

I don't get it. Either post.

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

But dissent is only "very much like dissent".

____________

Say what?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by refnrev

____________

Say what?

Facetiously (note ) quoting "Thu Sep 13, 2007, 08:15am ".