Columbus Soccer Ref

I’ve been a referee for a while now, and recently came across a situation where for the first I sent a player off after the match had ended.  It was a U14B match at the Best Of The Midwest tournament.  The match was pretty typical of a higher-level U14 boys match in terms of aggressiveness and physical play.  In the match, I worked hard to determine what things the players were able to play through and adjust my definition of “trifling” accordingly.  Indeed, USSF has been promoting this mindset all year, and in their Week 8 Lessons Learned said -

“As referees work to manage game flow and take risks, there is a subtle increase in player dissent both verbal and visual.  In the past, due to players becoming accustomed to trifling fouls being whistled they developed a reliance on the referee stopping the game.  To date, many players have yet to adapt to this season’s objective of referees taking risks relating to game flow.  Players often react to the lack of a call by showing their emotions both visually and verbally. [emphasis mine] Hence, dissent can be an issue as the players adjust to the new game flow objective.  Players that are involved in regular, ongoing contact with opponents also tend to get frustrated and will take their frustration out on the referee, in the form of dissent, if they feel they are not being managed correctly.  Referees must be aware of dissent by word or action – be cognizant of its causes and work to prevent it from taking away from the beauty of the game.”

While the Lessons Learned focuses on MLS, this philosophy has been promoted down to youth levels.  Of course youths aren’t going to play through as much as professionals, but the philosophy still applies.  If you’ve read my blog in the past, it’s part of my “What does this game need from me today?” analysis.  In this match, it came down to one team adjusted to the way the match was being called and the other team did not.  Guess which team I had the problem with.

After I blew the whistle to end the match, I looked at my AR on the far side and waited in the middle for him to meet me.  When he got to me, he informed that the Blue team’s central defender had flipped me off with both hands after the whistle.  I confirmed he was sure of what he saw and asked for the player’s number.  When we got to the bench area, the players were lined up and shaking hands.  At that point, I called the player out and his body language totally indicated that he knew what was coming.  At that point, I showed him the red card and told him it was for abusive language.  Of course, his coach goes bananas.  I told him that it was for an obscene gesture, but it wasn’t enough for this guy who wanted a full and detailed explanation.  When I told him that was enough and that he needed to go back to the bench area, he had none of it.  He persisted in remaining in my personal space as I tried to write the details into the match report.  I must have told him four or five times to act responsibly and return to his players.  The AR told him the same multiple times, as did the field marshall.  Only when he knew were were serious about calling security did he back away.  At one point in the ‘conversation’ he said that he would be filing a protest.  I was a good boy and didn’t say anything about his choice to waste his money.   Instead, I told him if that’s what he felt he needed to do then that’s what he should do and we’d let the process run its course.  Of course, there was no misapplication of the LoTG during the match for any reasonable basis for a protest.  Especially considering a scoreline of 3-1.  After a bit, some of the parents had made their way over to the referees and had asked for my name.  To say the least, I did not oblige them.  While they didn’t make the semis or the finals, they no doubt had enough to talk about on the ride home - thanks to their central defender.