Referees must be aware that in tough matches the teams' fight for the aspired outcome of the match is so important that anger or tension, that have piled up throughout the game, tend to easily erupt in one single situation that is actually of minor relevance. Mostly the referees’ calls provide players with the needed target to vent their spleen and to set a sign for team-mates or even opponents. So dissent as one form of conflict is inevitable and natural. Football probably would suffer if those emotive sallies did not exist. Thus dissent claims targeted and pro-active conflict management from the referee, who must act like a psychologist in such occasions. Typically, these psychological management skills are not only required in the case of dissent, but also as a tool that has, in my opinion, the same relevance like and maybe even a bigger relevance than disciplinary sanctions: Player management is specially needed as soon as it comes to verbal warnings. 
In the following days, some posts will highlight special match situations gathered by our match reporters during the past months which I am going to analyze from a rather psychological point of view. After this post, there will be a further one coming during the next days concentrating on free-kick management. Those analyses are not aimed at denouncing the referees concerned - their examples only serve as models how some things should not be like, expressing my humility keeping in mind that, in the heat of emotions, humans make human or emotive mistakes.
In those posts, video clips will be placed that deal with the situations. As uploading those videos would undermine UEFA's copyright (Terms and Conditions 3.3), they unfortunately cannot be uploaded in a direct way. Thus, I will create links to several external videos and give you the respective intervalls in the videos which interest us (match minutes are posted, not the video minutes!). I regret that this is the only opportunity and hope for your understanding. UEFA unfortunately makes no difference between commercial (= profit-) and educational (non-profit-) and therefore fair use though.
Incident 1: Reaction to Dissent
Match: Manchester Utd. vs Bayer Leverkusen (UCL) – Referee: Damir Skomina (SVN)
Match Minute Intervall: 37:45 - 38:10 (VIDEO)
Decisions and Observations:
The referee awarded a direct free-kick in favour of the defending team close to the goalline. The offender reacted in a furious way and criticized the decision. There was a face-to-face confrontation between the player and the referee, who, as a consequence, cautioned the attacker for dissent by word and action.
Considerations:
1) Could this confrontation have been avoided?
2) Did the referee react properly to the dissent?
3) Did the referee manage to bolster his authority and to stem the dissent?
Coaching Answer:
First of all, it should be mentioned that the free-kick given by the match official was correct. Even though the last foul was none, the red-dressed forward player held his opponent’s shirt for a while so that a delayed whistle was justified. Then, one must surely point out the dissent having begun with the player who sought confrontation with the referee by questioning his decision verbally and with sweeping gestures.
If the referee and a player confront each other face-to-face, if their foreheads almost touch, something went wrong for sure. Instead of finding the adequate means to calm down the player, e.g. by asking the player to come to him for a serious word, referee Skomina accepted the confrontation with an exaggerated body language and gestures that revealed the referee’s fretted and totally annoyed mood. Both yelled at each other – the forward did so, the referee did so. Both actors did not control their testosterone in this moment; this duel seemed to need a “winner”. Player management should not follow this pattern. The referee’s furious reaction provoked another reaction from the player. One overreaction caused the next overreaction leading to no sporting solution.
As a result, Skomina sorted out the yellow card and raised it in an overhasty manner. This style of showing the YC did not testify much self-confidence and determination. That became even clearer when he made a further annoyed gesture and – having the card still in his hand – waved the player away. At the end, it was the referee who fled from the centre of attention in place of staying firm. That’s not the kind of player management that should be apparent on the highest level. The entire occasion sent a bad message to the rest of the players – and also to the crowd.
Take Home Messages:
1) Don’t over-react. Keep calm.
2) Don’t heat up conflicts with players, solve them with your personality and soft skills.
3) Show yellow cards in a calmer and more determined way.
Incident 2: (Conflict) Management
Match: Borussia Dortmund vs SSC Napoli (UCL) – Referee: Carlos Velasco Carballo (ESP)
Match Minute Intervall: 35:45 - 37:10 (VIDEO)
Decisions and Observations:
The referee cautioned a blue-dressed defender for a reckless and late challenge from behind. Due to the intensity of the foul, some players reacted in a furious way, while one further blue-dressed player made some protests concerning a previous decision when the referee had allowed play to flow. Besides the yellow card for the offender, one yellow-dressed player and the already mentioned blue-dressed midfielder were both booked for unsporting behaviour.
Considerations:
1) Were the personal disciplinary sanctions adequate?
2) Did the referee solve the heated conflict in a good manner?
3) Did he adequately sell his decisions?
Coaching Answer:
Yes, No and No. Given his line visible in the entire match, the yellow card for the original offender was acceptable. A red card would have been absolutely justifiable as well. The other two cautions were very likely a so-called type-3 decision (E.E. Snyder, 1987) – decisions, where it is irrelevant whether two players (one of each team) are guilty of an infringement during a confrontation, as cautioning both is tactically the sensible decision. What should already be mentioned at this point is the too large temporal contiguity between the riot (including the offenses) and the yellow cards shown against both players. It took the referee exactly one minute to caution both players (and in the meantime, some players believed that play could already continue). This automatically led to astonishment and disapproval and should have been avoided.
In general, the referee did not choose a clever way to deal with these confrontations. He hysterically pointed his finger and arm into the air – first to the right top, then to the left top and then again to the right top and later on to the middle top. Why? What was up there? The stadium’s roof maybe, but nothing else. Gestures must have a goal and should not be an end unto themselves. These gestures rather heated the conflicts and protests up instead of calming them down. The referee should become aware that he must deploy other tools to control such situations (Velasco had similar problems in the opener match of EURO 2012). Verbal communication and a more sensible non-verbal communication would have been helpful here, specially to ensure that the referee’s outward appearance stands for control and not for incertainty or hysteria. The circumscribed incertainty is underlined by the referee desperately looking for the blue-dressed player he was about to caution and who was positioned directly in front of him. This example again shows how important the “How” (and not only the “What”) is when you do something as a referee – and this counts for every kind of manager.Take Home Messages:
1) Deploy target-oriented gestures instead of hysterical ones.
2) Pay attention to the time passing between offenses and your disciplinary sanction. In the concrete case, the astonishment among players and audience would have been reduced if the referee had immediately picked the players and cautioned them at the same time (one immediately after the other).
Normal
0
21
false
false
false
DE
X-NONE
X-NONE
Incident 3: Reaction to Dissent
Match: FC Basel vs Chelsea (UCL) – Referee: Stéphane Lannoy (FRA)
Match Minute Intervall: 61:55 - 62:35 (VIDEO)
Decisions and Observations:
The referee awarded a direct free-kick in favour of the white-dressed team. It remains unclear whether there was a contact though. Anyway, the referee decided to caution the offender. Having recognized this, the offender turned his back towards the referee and walked away into the direction of the penalty area. He made five disparaging movements of his hand to show dissent by action.
Considerations:
1) Was the decision to caution the offender correct?
2) Did the referee deal with the shown dissent in an adequate manner?
3) What could be negative consequences of the referee’s reaction to the dissent?
Coaching Answer:
The defender was guilty of stopping a promising attack, as the white-dressed attacker would have been able to dangerously enter the penalty area or make a pass into it. Therefore, the referee took the decision to caution the defender with a yellow card.
The referee’s gestures showed determination, well done. However, there was no need to wave his forefinger close to the offender’s face. The referee well separated the offender from the defender and asked him to come to him while reaching for the yellow card in his pocket. The defender reacted in an exaggerated fashion and showed dissent – not only once, but several times.
Stéphane Lannoy requested the player to come to him three times (with a whistle and the common gesture “come to me!”) – but it was always the referee, who became soft instead of standing firm over the player walking away: You can see him standing firm, asking the player to come, but then always making a step towards the player having recognized that the player had not been interested in his order.
Referees may not tolerate this disrespect in any way. It is definitely regrettable that the match official completely ignored this dissent and did not even warn him on top of the yellow card. But a warning would not have been enough.
The official should have cautioned the player for s.p.a. and should have sent him off with a 2nd yellow card for dissent by word or action. By failing to do so, he hazarded the risk of immensely suffering in his authority and control. Players may not recognize that you are bearing attacks on your power of decision.
Allowing such a kind of dissent is no good message to the millions of people watching it, let alone the other players on the field of play – at this level, it is unacceptable.
Take Home Message:
1) Don’t tolerate dissent by word or action. Defend your authority and draw the adequate consequences – in the concrete case, a 2nd yellow card on top of the original yellow card would have been the appropiate decision.
Incident 4: Player Management / Reaction to Dissent
Normal
0
21
false
false
false
DE
X-NONE
X-NONE
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false"