The rules state that a player should be cautioned when they object by word of mouth or action to any decision given by an official.

There are a wide variety of reactions shown by players to an officials calls.

Where should we draw the line?

Must be disappointing to have had no response after such a length of time, but I'll give it a shot, although you may believe it a non-answer

It depends.

There is a definite characteristic or attitude in a behavior that takes it from personal frustration and emotional play into the arena of dissent. As Al Gore said in his concession speech, [paraphrased] I violently disagree with the decision, but I will accept it. Many players will abide a call they do not agree with, and I would not flag that as a dissent [expression of disagreement].

It is when through word or action that they demonstrate to me that they do not accept the legitimacy of the call and the right of the referee to make the determination and not the player that I will invoke dissent. As I look at significantly higher levels of play, I see exponential diminishing of dissent-like activities, yet we seem to be unable to enforce courtesy and respect at our club and high school level matches.

More dissent cards, and more seated time for players, will go a long way to controlling the matches we officiate, but we will need the unwavering support of the coaches in our efforts as well. When a coach instructs his team that "yelling at the ref is [his] job", he is NOT teaching the proper message about dissent. In fact, he is reinforcing the notion that a referee's calls DESERVE contradiction.

This is a thread I wish more folks would respond to, and I would relish hearing the opinions of others in this type of discussion.

Dissent "allowed"?
 

Caution for any dissent that in your opinion is made to show you, and your call, up. Some facial grimmacing, even gestures do not necessarily demand cards. As in everything use discretion and ask oneself "will this card help me in my control of the player and game?"

How much dissent?
 

Sound like its a big problem otherwise you would not had posted. I ref. up to the 16 year old group. I have found the group bettween 12 and 16 year old to have the loose tongue. What I do at the inspection time is that I tell the team and I quote,"only two people can talk to me during the game' the coach and the captain of the team. the rest of you should be talking Soccer to each other." (You can word it to meet your situation.) If a team member or coach argue with me then I have no problem showing them the card for dissent.
Since I being doing this, givening cards for Dissent is almost zero.

good technique-- I expand that technique in my own pre-game since there are often more than one player designated as captain-- "any of you may talk to me about any call, but you will do it from this distance [where we are standing in the "huddle"] otherwise it will be carded"-- rarely is there a problem with the captains after that-- it's the fine line between "self-berating" and "call criticism" from the other players that is tenuous in a game situation

don't think there will ever be a definitive answer, but I DO enjoy the discussion among current refs

Dissent??????
 

Dissent is a "personal" call. How much one person would take is not the same as what another will take. Perception is everything. If the player dissents to the point that it has become a distraction to the game then it must be dealt with. That does not mean that every time this happens it is an automatic card. Each incident must be handled individually. Soccer is a beautiful sport, this law starts with "In the opinion of the referee...." That says it all.

Not much really
 

A couple of houghts here. First of all soccer teams should have one captain. I am surprised by the army of players that come out to the center circle for the toss and all say "im a captain"
What purpose does a captain serve? The captain is the ONE player a referee MAY choose to direct answers to questions to. There should be almost NO questions anyway at the HS level. They should know the rules. If you allow constant qustioning of calls by players you are digging a hole and not preparing the players for play at a higher level where reffs dont put up with constant dialog.
As far as dissent: how well you want to quash this to maintain game control is up to you. Every statement is different based upon content and context. A player who makes a spontaneous utterance is less affronting to me than one who is obviously trying to show you up. gain an advantage, taunt the opponants, is out of control or brings the game into disrepute needs to be stepped on immediately.
Coaches get even less leeway.

Forgive my late response, I have only just joined.
In my experience, which goes all the way to pro level and college, dissent is different at every level. Your own tolerance must be the fine line between what is considered dissent or not. At national camp we always say "use the 3 P's", Public, Persistant, and Personal. When it hits all three of these Ps then it's probably time to show a card.
During play we hear many things, sometimes it is just frustration, sometimes it's the coaching, sometimes it's the spectators. If a player says something and leaves then it could work better for you to allow it. The player vents and then cools down. When the player chases you or stands in front of you and shouts or comments loudly, then that is clearly dissent. Sometimes carding a player can also make things worse for you. Use your "soccer sense" and game managment skills to handle these situations. Remember the 3 P's!

one of the three is enough
 

Havent been to any "National Camps" lately but the kind of tolerance you encourage only adds to our problems. Certain reffs let this stuff go on so it continues to go on. The only reason it would be a problem to clamp down on the needling or other outburts you let go is because of the countless people who have been unwilling to do it in the past. The easy route isnt always the best.

Go ahead and keep reffing the way you want. You have no idea how to manage players if you think that you go by the book and caution every time. If you recognize fouls properly and make the right calls at the right places and time you can avoid much of the dissent that we have.
My advise is given freely and with my experience. Do with it as you will.

A clarification
 

You are completely right that bad foul recognition with add to your dissent problems. But sometimes you will make unpopular calls(roughly 50% of the people may dissagree. when you do make unpopular calls I dont propose accepting NO dissent, I just dont think it has to be as signifiagant as was previously implied.
The game would be more enjoyable for everyone if this problem could be kept to a minimum.

Next time Bob Wertz is in town giving a clinic, attend it. See what he has to say about player management and dissent and the whys and hows of these things happening. Then get back to me and tell me the same standard excuse for bad officiating.
Good bye here too!

Name Dropping
 

I dont know who Bob Wertz is. I wont get into a name dropping contest except to say that I am very grateful that I have had the chance to work with great referees of MANY different levels. I have seen great 15 year grade 8 referees. I would be glad to listen to ANYONE regardless of stature upon the USSF totem pole. But your mere position in the hierarchy doesnt mean your word is gospel to me. I have a bag of tricks that is open to additions at anytime. Open equaly to everyone who is thoughtful and reasonable.

Bob Wertz is a National Instrutor, National Assessor and is a former Chairman of the USSF Referee Committee. He gives excellent clinics on game management and player control. He is a personal trainer and has studied the behavior of people and players. If he comes to town, make time to see him. I'm glad that you have so much confidence in yourself, that's good. Please ref the way you want. I was doping what is expected of me to help improve our referee corp. I'm bored with the conversation now, let's call a truce. Thanks for the comments.

The line is fine,medium and bold
 

Absolutely nothing is more lethal to young referees' discouragement and abandonment from the game than the dissent and abuse originating from the TouchLine.

How about the 4 Rs a well as the 3 Ps
(I apologize for the length of my response I am long winded)

There should be no problems at the youth level of stopping play to deal with abuse or informing the coach you will hold him or her responsible for the behavour surrounding his bench. At a house level or even some select play, this approach is quite workable but as the level of play escalates into leaque championships, provincial playdowns, advancement or relegation of the adult premieres leaque. When crowds go from tens to hundreds to thousands, enormous pressure is exerted as the weight of competition takes its toll on the referee.
Big difference in managing a group of u-10 kids out for a kickabout as opposed to a select senior high school on its way to the nationals or the advancement of a country in the World Cup. It is a true measure of integrity and courage to officiate effectively under tension and inquisition by your peers, players, coaches, spectators and politically correct agendas be it world-wide, country-wide, state-wide, town-wide or pitch-wide.
(1) Dissent is Reactional. People will instinctively disagree with you 50% of the time.
Consider the referee from a political point of view, as a King or Queen with the field of play representing a country. Order or chaos will reign depending on the army's (players and coaches) and subjects (fans and parents) acceptance of his/her rule.
If those that play, coach, or watch the game would accept zero tolerance for abusive or spiteful behaviour (as a principle of Fairplay!) it would be easier albeit not without controversy to manage conduct on or off the field.
Referee ingredients are a collection of intangibles. A salty personality with spicy character traits, add a level of fitness and a helping of positioning, provide a liberal sprinkling of judgement, a dash of common sense, mix together thoroughly and an opinion is formed. In the opinion of a player, coach, fan or a spectator whether a referee has the right mixture will represent whether the fork of dissent is stuck in to see if he is done.
Referees are accorded a certain stature, but respect is an earned quality… not demanded! Game management is an art form in as much as it is the application of the rules. Conduct and adherence to your principles will eventually determine whether you are accorded respect in the opinion of others.
Those who criticise referees are not necessarily incorrect in their assessments whether a referee has done a good job only in understanding the application of respect and fairplay extends to all aspects of the game including officials
(2) Is the dissent Reasonable? As in most political arenas, dissenters will never be totally satisfied with the government or its representatives. Whether legitimate opinion or terrorist activities arise depends on the application or perhaps non-application of the referee's policies. Tolerance does not mean you ignore the dissent but evaluate the circumstances correctly.
Speaking as a coach my primary concern is always for the safety of players. Inexperienced or young referee who exhibits poor foul recognition or the non use of cautions and ejection's when warranted, yet in the same breath whistle the most extraneous violation for a poor throw, call every handball, and the offside is either never called or always called is torture for those who walk the Touch Lines. Recognising the referee needs to learn, does not make a parent, spectator or coach immune from calling out if their child or team is hurt or threatened in some way.
(3) Does all dissent require Response? For each individual to feel whole and be given dignity there must be policy and directives in place to properly handle the dissent and abuse when it arises on or off the pitch. Is everyone on the same side when you agree to disagree? For the good of the game and the benefit of our children, can you actually enforce what is agreed upon? Sometimes, the law is the law and enough is enough. To prevent chaos and retain an orderly society a referee is obligated by the principles of fairplay and integrity to discipline or remove those unwilling to accept the premise. "Let's agree to disagree." Many of these confrontational individuals have strong influence and forceful personalities and are difficult, even unpleasant to deal with. It takes a strong willed association with plenty of guts to effectively deal with serious abuse.
(4) Is your reaction to the dissent Rational? Are you a benevolent dictator or a royal despot? Are you the wise Solomon dispensing even handed justice with swift certainty? Do you find yourself declaring martial law when a simple orderly demonstration is taking place? While some civil disobedience is to be expected, the burden of following the law must be fairly shouldered by the conduct of players, parents, fans and coaches.
Our conduct as a referee is the focal point whether dissent is forever Repeatable.

This is in total agreement to what I have been saying all along, bit by bit. You have put the words in great order and communicated the ideas very nicely. The 3"Ps" and the 4"Rs" can only work with that very much forgotten "common sense". How does all the dissent fit into the game? Can you allow yourself to let the players "vent" and then be done with it? Can you do the same with the bench personel? Can you listen to the comments and grow from them?
We all need to think of these things while on the field.

Sorry I'm replying to this thing a couple of years after it was first posted, but something needs to be done about this...

In any sport, at any level, there seems to be four types of officials. One type lets players, coaches, and fans get away with any type of disagreement. Another cards someone everytime they so much as throw up there arms in the international symbol of "wasn't me". A third hears some disagreement (legitimate or not) in his/her first game and quits. And finally there are those who get it right.

I think that it's very much a personal decision, but there are some relative absolutes. As soon as it changes from a disagreement about a call to a personal attack, stop it right there. Calls are fleeting. You'll never get more that 50% of people involved in a match agreeing with a call. Stand by your call, but don't get personally attached, like you're handing down the Ten Commandments. But as soon as a coach/player/fan pulls out the "you suck, you're the worst ref in the league/country/world/time, you shouldn't be a ref, etc," you have to stop that immediately. As soon as someone drags out any sort of profanity, even very, very, minor profanity, such as G-- D---- or hell, I'ed shut that down pretty quickly. The idea is not to give out as many dissent cards as needed, it's to make sure as few are needed as possible. Try talking to a player. "Another outburst from you and it's a card" will go a long way to shutting up a coach or player.
I said don't get attached to calls/non-calls, and now that I think about it, that really personal. As a general rule, treat personal attack as much worse, but sometimes you really feel strongly about a call, which is ok. Cards are my big thing. Just as I reserve the right to card people for certain offenses based on my judgement, I reserve the right to not card people for certain offenses based on my judgement, and I don't tolerate much demanding of cards. Also, notice the difference between disagree with a call, and whining just to whine. You can normally tell if you blow the whistle in a situation where the call could have gone either way, and before any signal at all, a coach/player/fan is yelling at you. Don't take that, if you're gonna disagree with my call, I'ed appreciate it if you waited to find out what it was before you argue it.

I don't have a theory of dissent to offer, merely my experience. Perhaps it's because I'm in the rural South or perhaps because soccer remains relatively new here, but I don't find dissent in the U-ll - Varsity High School age group to be a serious problem. I work very hard to be in position, and the kids and fans can see that. I try to have a complete knowledge of the LOTG so that I can offer an immediate explanation to the coach/parent/player at half or after the game. Those two elements seem to quell most problems. Otherwise if the dissent is public-- that is, I heard it and at least one other player heard it-- then I pull a card immediately. That's the end of the problem for that game. And often I can't help but laugh a little as I do so-- most dissent is silly and uninformed. I don't take it personally, but I won't let them disrespect the game, so in high school off they go to think about it. The last time that happened, a couple of weeks ago, the player came to me at half and apologized.

I suppose in more soccer-savvy areas and in other regions refs may have to deal with this problem more often.

I don't believe officials in any sport should use ultimatums like "Another outburst from you and it's a card". A comment like "no more, coach" or "that's enough, #20" is the same message without getting you into an absolute you can't avoid. Also, anything that sounds like a threat will create resentment and we don't need any more of that.

judge dissent swiftly and carefully
 

Dissent should not be allowed. However, you must judge each situation carefully under the following three conditions.

1. Does this contribute to my (the referee's) miscontrol of the game.

2. Does this bring the game into disrepute.

3. Was what was said verbally unacceptable and directed at a game official.

If yes to 1 or 3, a caution should be shown for dissent.
If yes to 2, a caution should be shown for unsporting behavior.

Be lenient when possible. Don't let little, harmless comments like "i was going for the ball" or shaking of the head bother you and incline you to caution players for it. Remember, they are emotionally involved in play and will often react disagreeingly even when they know they are wrong.