just had a USSF clinic...
 

...and the National USSF instructor said something interesting that I never thought of or heard before. Wanted to see what others would do in this situation:

Say a player is obviously dissenting while walking towards you to argue with a call, questioning you in an unsporting manner, whatever... you put your hands up and start walking backwards as if to say "I've heard enough, back off!". If the player continues to walk towards you, the instructor said "I would just walk off the field since players aren't allowed to leave the field without permission". I missed what he said after that, but I could have sworn I heard him say something like "twice" or "double", as if he was hinting to caution the player twice. Once for dissent or unsporting behavior (Unsportsmanlike Conduct in NFHS) and then the second for leaving the field without permission. You wouldn't be wrong to do that technically to the FIFA Laws of the Game or NFHS Rules Book. But trying to explain that to the player or coach could be a losing battle.

Just curious what other referees would say, either USSF or NFHS. Me personally, I wouldn't walk back more than a few steps once I get my hands up unless I need to for my own protection. If they come any closer, the yellow would be out of my pocket immediately.

Your thoughts?

Correct. Why escalate the situation? Give him the caution for dissent. If he wants to escalate it and continues to dissent well after the caution, give him another for dissent and the DQ.

There is no need to draw the player into getting DQ'd.

That's what I was thinking, why escalate and cause more problems? Walking off the field might it look like I was hoping he'd follow me off the field so I could DQ him. A double caution for continually dissenting after the first one is a lot easier to explain than a double for dissent and then leaving the field without permission. It would look like you were trapping him in for a second caution.

I'm assuming we're on the same page for the "trapping" part...

This "idea" comes from the South American and Mexican referees. It has been advocated following awarding a penalty kick. If you watch some of the pro games from those areas, you will see the referee make the call and then proceed off the field over the goal line about where the goal area intersects the goal line on the opposite side of the goal from where the AR will be positioned for the PK.

The rationale was the same as you have stated, that if the players follow the referee to continue to argue, they could be sanctioned for leaving the field without the permission of the referee.

I've thought for several years that this is just silly and looks cowardly. If the referee doesn't have enough strength and respect to control the players on the pitch, then running away and trying to hide behind a technicality isn't going to help.

A very poor technique in my opinion.

I think this is a fair point. My thought would be, is this something Howard Webb would do? Despite what some think of his call selection, I think he is a master at man management.

I agree. I have never felt the need to draw someone into a second caution. Depending on the area, there are times when recert instructors make personal statements that are mistaken as USSF directives.