Northern already backing down from their zero tolerance approach by not handing west Wallsend a six point fine after the two reds on the weekend.
Northern already backing down from their zero tolerance approach by not handing west Wallsend a six point fine after the two reds on the weekend.
From The Herald today
Apparently having 2 people sent off in one game for match official related offences isn?t worth a point suspension, but 2 across 20 or so games is.West Wallsend avoided a points deduction despite becoming the first top-grade premier competitions side to rack up two match official abuse suspensions this year.
Kaleb and Bailey Cox were given six-game bans for incidents at the Northern League One team's round seven draw with Toronto. Kaleb lost an appeal against his ban for "using offensive language", while Bailey copped his for "entering the field to confront a match official".
Under new rules, offences against match officials bring a suspended three-point deduction for the given team. A second breach brings another penalty and activates the first, creating a six-point loss.
However, NNSW Football said since only three points can be won in any game, the penalty is also no more than three points in a match. Only a suspended three-point deduction was incurred for the same-game breaches.
I’m assuming this comes from NNSWF and not the referees branch clarifying the fine print.
Deadset, the people running the game do themselves no favours sometimes.
This is the type of argument clubs would use to get out of things, not the governing body.
Not sure why they can’t dock 3 points? Makes more sense to me than, 2 offences in the same game only count for 1 instance.
Referees should be disappointed in the handling of this.
Using offensive language is interesting. If it is used in a manner directed at the ref then off you go, and fair enough eg you're a f### idiot. However, if used in exasperation is it ref abuse or dissent?
A player was sent last weekend for abuse for using "for f## sake" after a decision. Abuse or dissent? I think refs neef to consider carefully if it is abuse or dissent. Abuse has far a more dire punishment and cost $$ to appeal. Seems the abuse red is is being to readily used.
Any foul language is supposed to be punished with a card,exasperation or not.Any question of the officials integrity or any foul language directed at officials is supposed to be a straight red as per the new directive.Problem is the more experienced refs are using their judgement and have a bit more of a feel for the game and can calm situations or issue warnings on the run.Younger refs are following the directives and if they have an assessor present it puts them in a tough spot as they have to follow the rules but it causes more drama than it solves especially as you said,if players are frustrated with themselves or teamamates,or even overcelebrating Id rather them not copping cards.I can understand the point of cracking right down on abuse but would love refs to have a bit more freedom to make judgement calls.
Northerns dropped the ball here, simple
By NNSWF's own logic, an immediate 3 point deduction would have made a lot more sense.
This could vary from no sanction to straight red card, all depending on how its delivered. Muttered semi-audibly under your breath - no sanction. Screamed aggressively in close proximity to the referee would constitute abuse.
No matter how much stakeholders in all sports want things to be black and white, referee's discretion is always going to come into it.
This is crazy. Stags now have five games to catchup
Weekend game, Tuesday recovery, Thursday catch up game, then back to weekend game.
No time to work on any football related problems at training.
Perhaps that's a great idea. I never thought about this method. It will most likely work. I guess I wasted all these years getting coaching badges haha
Nah mate. I only have A unfortunately.
Interesting times at Blacksmiths?..