Premier League, EFL & FA introduce new player behaviour rules

[Secret Site Agent]

Plans designed to reduce "intolerable behaviour" by players and managers in English football have been announced.

 

It seems that more yellows and reds will be issued to combat unacceptable behaviours towards the Ref and assistants from this season.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36844570

 

I think this is a good idea and, if they are serious, look to implement it correctly and harshley for the first few games, and a follow up with a warning that post incidents will also be looked at. That will stop all of the floudering around the ref, holding up cards, and badgering that 'some' do.

 

Whats your thoughts, friends?

[The9]

"Starting this season, red cards will be issued to players who confront match officials and use offensive language or make gestures towards them."

 

Or alternatively, starting when red cards were introduced... in theory.

 

"Offences which could earn players a yellow card

 

Visibly disrespectful behaviour to any match official;

An aggressive response to decisions;

Confronting an official face to face;

Running towards an official to contest a decision;

Offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures towards match officials;

Physical contact with any match official in a non-aggressive manner;

A yellow card for at least one player when two or more from a team surround a match official.

New red card offences

 

If a player confronts match officials and uses offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures towards them;

Physical contact with match officials in an aggressive or confrontational manner."

 

It should be good for us, we don't generally get in the faces of officials - our high red card tally last year was pretty much down to Wanyama's efforts.

 

Not sure why they're using the word "could" there, they either are or aren't.

Edited 20 July, 2016 by The9

[St_Tel49]

I welcome it but both organisations don't have a great record on strict enforcement which is what will be needed

[Chris27687]

This is not going to end well for Chelsea.

[angelman]

Didn't they bring in the 10 yard rule for speaking back to the ref? Was it ever used and is it still in existence?

[Secret Site Agent]

Didn't they bring in the 10 yard rule for speaking back to the ref? Was it ever used and is it still in existence?

 

If it is still on the statute books I would like to see it used more often.

If not it should be introduced.

 

Lineker quoted that we'll have a few 9 vs 10 games for a while. certainly make it interesting.

[Whitey Grandad]

Good idea but it needs enforcing. A few early red cards until it settles down might be needed.

[The9]

Didn't they bring in the 10 yard rule for speaking back to the ref? Was it ever used and is it still in existence?

 

The 10 yard rule was for not retreating from free kicks only, nothing to do with spreaking to the ref (although I think it was technically a card for dissent) and they got rid of that about 10 years ago "because some nations couldn't understand it". They're sticking with the spray foam to deal with that now, which seems to be working pretty well tbh.

[The9]

If it is still on the statute books I would like to see it used more often.

If not it should be introduced.

 

Lineker quoted that we'll have a few 9 vs 10 games for a while. certainly make it interesting.

 

Guy Mowbray was the one talking about 10 v 9. It's listed on the BBC site underneath some text referring to a similar pic from Lineker above it.

 

[Winchester Red]

Personally I'd rather they did something about shirt pulling. Give a penalty for that consistently and it would soon stop (and by consistently I mean not only to Arsenal)

[Window Cleaner]

As long as the rules are uniformly applied and not open to interpretation differently from ref to ref it's OK.

[angelman]

Personally I'd rather they did something about shirt pulling. Give a penalty for that consistently and it would soon stop (and by consistently I mean not only to Arsenal)

 

Agree something should be done.

 

Penalties would be ridiculous as there would be 15 a game, but I guess that that would soon drop. The other thing that it possibly could be brought under is "impeding the progression of an opponent" which is an indirect free kick. But save for some GK misdemeanours, refs seem reluctant to ever give indirect free kicks in the box.

[OttawaSaint]

Physical contact with any match official in a non-aggressive manner;

 

I don't understand this one. So a friendly pat on the back or handshake at the end gets a yellow?

[Mr Biscuits]

It's one thing to introduce the ruling, another to enforce it. I think it can only be good for the sport.

 

 

However, the sight of Costa trying to hold his tongue is going to be very entertaining.

[Patrick Bateman]

Good! One good thing brought over from Rugby where backchat to officials is properly punished.

 

Can we now have beers in the stadium?

[FloridaMarlin]

Nothing new here.

 

It's always been in the laws of the game that the referee has the authority to dismiss a player who shows foul or abusive language or dissent towards him.

 

Refs have just lacked the bottle to implement it.

 

If - and it's a big if- they do this rigourously and consistently in the PL and FL, it might improve things at grass roots level.

 

Referees lower down the scale have always tried to apply these rules but have been undermined by the behaviour of pros, who can clearly be seen to be getting to away with effing and jeffing at refs on TV.

[stpedro]

about time. They should have been doing this for years. Hopefully there will be a lot of sendings off applying it, I've got no problem with that. It will soon stop when players are costing their teams by getting sent off. The same should happen with grappling at free kicks and corners - if there are loads of penalties then that would be great. Penalties happen a lot in rugby for foul play. As soon as refs show they are serious and blow all the time then teams will stop doing it

[Whitey Grandad]

Nothing new here.

 

It's always been in the laws of the game that the referee has the authority to dismiss a player who shows foul or abusive language or dissent towards him.

 

Refs have just lacked the bottle to implement it.

 

If - and it's a big if- they do this rigourously and consistently in the PL and FL, it might improve things at grass roots level.

 

Referees lower down the scale have always tried to apply these rules but have been undermined by the behaviour of pros, who can clearly be seen to be getting to away with effing and jeffing at refs on TV.

 

Dissent would be just a yellow and the wording for a red has now been changed to 'offensve, abusive or insulting language and/or gestures'. On a Sunday morning it can be seen as a bit harsh to send someone off just for the actual industrial wording that was used so some referees will change their report of the words and issue a yellow for serious dissent.

[The9]

I don't understand this one. So a friendly pat on the back or handshake at the end gets a yellow?

 

There have been numerous incidents of "steering" refs, or patronising hand-on should type things like that which can undermine the ref's authority and previously the only official sanction would be a red card which VERY rarely happens and in situations like that are rather excessive punishment, so this gives a separate level of punishment to cover that.

 

Worth noting that Prutton might have got a yellow with no further action under these rules?

 

As others have said, consistency and strict implementation are the keys to this actually working.

[FloridaMarlin]

Dissent would be just a yellow and the wording for a red has now been changed to 'offensve, abusive or insulting language and/or gestures'. On a Sunday morning it can be seen as a bit harsh to send someone off just for the actual industrial wording that was used so some referees will change their report of the words and issue a yellow for serious dissent.

 

Law 12: Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the

following seven offences:

• serious foul play

• violent conduct

• spitting at an opponent or any other person

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity

by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within

his own penalty area)

• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving

towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a

penalty kick

• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

• receiving a second caution in the same match

 

It's still down there as a straight red card offence.

 

The point I was trying to make is that this has always been there, but for whatever reason, officials at the top level have always fought shy of using it, probably for fear of reducing a game to a very short-sided one.

 

Because of the fear of implementing this law at the top level of the game it makes it harder for officials at the lower end to do so.

 

Players who are sent off on a Sunday morning for calling a referee a "f***ing cheating c**t" cannot understand why they are sent packing when they see professionals calling the referee exactly the same thing on TV, stay on the pitch.

 

What is required is consistency. But rather than consistency from the top, the FA have tried to implement consistency from the bottom upwards.

 

When the Respect campaign began, I had to attend a seminar with local league clubs on cleaning up the game. This stems from the FA's concern at the poor retention of referees. There is little problem recruiting refs, but after a season of being abused, sworn at and generally mistreated by unthinking numpties who would not have a game of football if it wasn't for the referees they berate, a lot of refs throw in the towel.

 

(Incidentally, I once heard an opposition club secretary say "I hate referees, they are a waste of time." When I asked him how he thought matches would take place without them, he was completely flummoxed.)

 

The suit from the FA told us that we had a responsibility to clean the game up from the grass roots level, but when I asked him if it would be better to clean the game up from the top downwards (for the reasons above) he said; "If we started applying the rules properly for professional football, we would end up with games of eight v eight, or being abandoned and nobody wants that."

 

Again, it's a question of consistency.

 

It is right that a referee in a Sunday League match sends a player off for calling him a cheating F-ing C***. Law 12 was instigated to preserve the referee's authority. Swearing at a referee displays the ultimate lack of respect and undermines that authority, and I don't think it is harsh to dismiss a player for using industrial language.

 

What is not right, is that a professional player is not - up until now - sent off for the same offence, and hopefully this is what the FA are trying to address. But I have my doubts.

 

Some referees will take Law 12 to the letter and send players off for swearing if the pitch is in a public park.

 

The most complaints the FA and county FAs receive is from little old ladies walking their dogs or mums with their young kids strolling through parks whose ears subjected to swearing and foul language, and the FA is very conscious of the game's image.

 

Those referees mindful of this will warn both teams before hand that it is a public place, and that action will be taken. Other referees couldn't care less about the swearing in a public place and do nothing about it.

[Secret Site Agent]

Guy Mowbray was the one talking about 10 v 9. It's listed on the BBC site underneath some text referring to a similar pic from Lineker above it.

 

 

Yep, sorry. Casts a whole new light on the subject.

Appreciate the correction.

[ericofarabia]

If applied properly teams like Moan U and Chelsea are going to be in deep doo doos.

 

Noble and the pony tailed ponce at WHU are going to clock up so many Reds that it will make Wanyama's total last season seem trivial.

Mind you Tadic is going tocurb the way he reacts everytime anybody so much as breathes on him.

[sadoldgit]

It's one thing to introduce the ruling, another to enforce it. I think it can only be good for the sport.

 

 

However, the sight of Costa trying to hold his tongue is going to be very entertaining.

 

The referees have always had the ability for sending off players for foul and abusive language and being harassed by players but have rarely bothered.

[Secret Site Agent]

I agree that consistancy is what is required. They are professionals and should act in a likewise manner, and the PL/FA should make sure that those that don't get the ultimate sanction.

After all, they can call the ref an F-ing C, and get nothing, yet take off your shirt twice and you are off the pitch.

It'll clean up the game at grass roots as the kids will continue to emulate their heroes and hopefully it'll be another good thing.

 

When I played rugby i remember arguing with the ref in a county cup game and not stopping and him moving the play back by 10 yards until we were on the verge of conceding a penalty try. My team mates made sure I didn't argue like that again, and it 'leanrt me'.

[Mattio]

I'd prefer if they bought in a Sin Bin like they have in Rugby, would still have a similar effect overall and a lot easier to inforce as refs won't feel under pressure issuing it.

[Graffito]

Fair enough but a missed opportunity to have made a similar statement about all the blocking, shirt pulling and downright wrestling that goes on in the box prior to free kicks and corners. We want less foul play and more goals. Why not state that the laws will be enforced consistently on this stuff from this season onwards, a penalty and minimum yellow.

[Saint_clark]

Trouble is they've brought in these big rule changes a fair few times - remember when penalties had to be retaken if you stuttered in the run up? - they enforce it for a while then just let it slip. Hopefully they keep it going, a rugby-like respect for the referee might see more people wanting to become one and up the talent pool.

[Professor]

Personally I'd rather they did something about shirt pulling. Give a penalty for that consistently and it would soon stop (and by consistently I mean not only to Arsenal)

Doesn't have to be one or the other. All the laws of the game should be enforced so that matches are won fairly and not by cheating. People who have doubted the enforcement are right to question whether this will be enforced any better than the infringements that going on all the time with grappling and diving only being penalised now and then. Referees seem worried that they will have to send too many players off but if that's what it takes, so be it and the authorities would have to decide how to deal with the new situation.

 

As for Chelsea, I suspect it may be Man U who will have more problems because I doubt if the Chelsea team did the ref confrontations without their manager encouraging it.

[Kingsland Codger]

Those very same pundits and commentators who are praising the idea will next be saying ... 'Fans pay a lot of money to see a match and they want to see 11 players for each team. So a footballer swore at a referee - it's ridiculous'.

 

I give it three weekends before one of them says something similar to the above.

[Secret Site Agent]

The thing is are they brave enough to put up with the flack caused as refs get enough second guessing in the press as it is. .....including us and our MOTD aided views.

[Charlie Wayman]

It's one thing to introduce the ruling, another to enforce it. I think it can only be good for the sport.

 

Totally agree with you, indeed that are plenty of rules in the book already protecting referees so do we really need another? Inconsistency of enforcement through poor judgement or cowardice will no doubt see this rule flouted and ignored as much as all the others. Players always excuse their own bad behaviour by saying that they "lost their heads in the heat of the moment" but let's face it there are some really bad lads out there on the pitch who are adept at doing nasty things when the ref isn't looking or is too far away to be heard clearly.

 

On the one hand it would be nice to see a string of red cards with a concomitant reduction of refs being hassled at every whistle blowing incident, on the other we don't want to end up 6-a-side either. We wait with interest, my bet is we won't notice any difference for all of the above reasons.

[westofshannonsaint]

I'd prefer if they bought in a Sin Bin like they have in Rugby, would still have a similar effect overall and a lot easier to inforce as refs won't feel under pressure issuing it.

 

Not a fan of rugby, but love the rules surrounding the ref. They might not all work in the beautiful game but how about allowing only 1 player per team approach the ref at the same time and micing up the refs?

[redkeith]

The problem with this at the top level is that the worst culprit for effing and beeing at the officials is Rooney, and it would be too embarrassing for the FA if he was only playing one match a month, and then suspened for the rest.

[saint si]

The first ref that actually sends a couple of players off for this in a single match will get savaged in the media (by all the ex-players working as pundits) for being a petty jobsworth who just wants the limelight, doesn't understand what it's like to actually play the game at the highest level and won't let the game flow.

[Secret Site Agent]

The problem with this at the top level is that the worst culprit for effing and beeing at the officials is Rooney, and it would be too embarrassing for the FA if he was only playing one match a month, and then suspened for the rest.

That wouldn't matter as he would still get picked for England.

[Ultimatt]

They brought in an instant red card for swearing in my local league a few years back. I think it quickly became too much paperwork and was abolished by week 4 lol

 

Would love ref's to be tough on players crowding them though. Can't stand it. Up there with players rolling around overplaying bad tackles.

[Window Cleaner]

They brought in an instant red card for swearing in my local league a few years back. I think it quickly became too much paperwork and was abolished by week 4 lol

 

Would love ref's to be tough on players crowding them though. Can't stand it. Up there with players rolling around overplaying bad tackles.

 

 

Pfff Local leagues, I got a yellow card in a game I wasn't even on the pitch, our star striker was on a suspension and when about to be cautioned yet again he gave my name and not his. Ref was about 12 and just noted it down anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

Pfff Local leagues, I got a yellow card in a game I wasn't even on the pitch, our star striker was on a suspension and when about to be cautioned yet again he gave my name and not his. Ref was about 12 and just noted it down anyway.

 

Yeah, we were advised never to question the name that we were given even if it was Elvis Presley. Just write it down and notify the FA and let them sort it out. You certainly couldn't ask for 'Christian name' because they might not have been Christians.

 

I was playing as captain in a game on the shoreside at Netley and the referee had advised us before the game that he wouldn't take any swearing. It wasn't that he was worried about dissent, he just didn't like bad words. With the sorts of lads that played on a Sunday morning it didn't take long before there were a few cases of 'oh f*cking hell' and the same number of red cards and when it got to 8 vs 9 I called the game off. The ref looked a bit shocked. After he had left we would have carried on with the game but too many had buggered off by that stage. There was an inquiry by the league of course. That was a bit surreal since both secretaries and the ref involved were all sitting down together having a friendly chat before being summoned before the hearing. They were a bit nonplussed because they thought it must have been a violent affair but when they found out what had happened they juts hit us with the statutory fines and we all went our friendly ways. The problem is that this sort of language was commonplace during the working week and the vocal outbursts on the field were automatic and didn't constitute dissent or abuse. Years later when I was referring I took the view that if it couldn't be heard off the pitch and was not aimed at any particular individual I would let it go.