Punishing the captain because of the misbehaviour of the team

[Barrel of Fun]

Crowding the referee and assistants is really easy to sort out. Put the rules out to all players before the season starts. Only the offenders and the captains will be allowed to speak to the officials. Yellow cards for those that disobey. As soon as players start getting booked, a manager is going to ensure that the rules are adhered to. Foul and abusive language shall be punished at all times.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'm not sure I agree with punishing innocent people for the mistakes of others ! What about extending that to every day life - if a PC does something wrong should the Sergent get punished ?

 

[Seagull27]

To be fair, the rules are pretty much in place - swearing at a referee is a form of dissent, and dissent is a bookable offence. Clearly this isn't working right now, but I think the punishment is about right. What needs to change is that the FA need to tell referees to be more harsh about it, and book a player every single time they swear at a referee or opposition player, and every time they complain to the ref in an incorrect manner.

I like the idea of the captain being the only player allowed to talk to the ref though. It's a rule in a fair few sports, and from the evidence I've seen/experienced, it works.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

To be fair, the rules are pretty much in place - swearing at a referee is a form of dissent, and dissent is a bookable offence. Clearly this isn't working right now, but I think the punishment is about right. What needs to change is that the FA need to tell referees to be more harsh about it, and book a player every single time they swear at a referee or opposition player, and every time they complain to the ref in an incorrect manner.

I like the idea of the captain being the only player allowed to talk to the ref though. It's a rule in a fair few sports, and from the evidence I've seen/experienced, it works.

This,
I think that teams such as United Chelsea etc will only stand up and change their ways if the players start getting booked. It would be strange to see a United squad without the likes of Rooney, ferdinand and others for a cup final/end of season game due to them all reaching the yellow card limit because of disputing a penalty the week before.

 

[Pantani]

The problem I would see is they don't take action against Wayne Rooney for him swearing at the ref, do you really think they'd take action against Rio for it?

I think if they started taking action against the perpetrators, it would reduce dissent.

I agree with you. Referees have the power to discipline players for this stuff now they just don't use them. There needs to be a concerted effort to book and send players off who abuse the referee. It would be a matter of weeks before it stopped if this happened.

 

[Danny-Boy]

True, but it's more the guilt thing that would have the impact, I was thinking.

If you, as a player, knew you were personally responsible for one of your mates having to miss two games, it might make you think twice before acting, surely? Because you're letting him down, not just because of any impact it might have on the team performances.

I think there's more of a "team" ethic in cricket, generally. And of course there's not the same physical contact (usually). Any damage is all done by the ball generally. I've seen a player laid out by intimidatory bowling.

Also the skipper in cricket can pretty well pick the team and isolate one player on it to effectively take no part. One time I turned up at a league game a bit drunk, and was made to field at long leg both ends, and bat no.11 (where I usually batted in any case). But long-leg is usually the "you're in disgrace" fielding position.

 

[El Presidente]

It would be worse if the whole team was punished for the actions of the captain though......................unless your name was Rebekah Wade or James Murdoch.

 

[Danny-Boy]

It would be worse if the whole team was punished for the actions of the captain though......................unless your name was Rebekah Wade or James Murdoch.

Yeah all 200 of them....

 

[Gully]

I also like the rugby idea where only the team captain can approach the referee. That game seems less plagued by dissent towards officials than football, there is a general acceptance that once an official has made a decision there is no amount of abuse or argument will persuade them to change it.

With respect to cricket, the role of the captain is far greater than in football or rugby, he effectively controls his team and makes tactical decisions that can have a major effect on the outcome of the game. Making decisions on field placings, which bowlers to use and when, plus many others of a more minor nature can impact greatly on the team and the result...which are some of the things that make cricket such a tactical game.

 

[Gully]

It would be worse if the whole team was punished for the actions of the captain though......................unless your name was Rebekah Wade or James Murdoch.

Well said El Pres.

The only thing that I can liken this to is that nuclear sub that ran aground on the river Clyde, it was the captain who was relieved of his post, despite the fact that he may not have had his hand on the tiller...so to speak!

 

[Danny-Boy]

Well said El Pres.

The only thing that I can liken this to is that nuclear sub that ran aground on the river Clyde, it was the captain who was relieved of his post, despite the fact that he may not have had his hand on the tiller...so to speak!

When I did politics at school for "A" Level we were constantly bombarded with what was then known as the "Crichel Down case" where a Tory minister, from memory one Sir Thomas Dugdale, resigned in the mid-1950's as Minister of Agriculture when it was discovered that one of his Labour predecessors had flogged off some land after the War that the Army had requisitioned, rather than handing it back to the previous landowner.

That was supposed to have established the concept of ministerial responsibility, but all I reckon it DID actually establish was what an honourable - and now totally forgotten - prat Sir Thomas Dugdale was.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I also like the rugby idea where only the team captain can approach the referee. That game seems less plagued by dissent towards officials than football, there is a general acceptance that once an official has made a decision there is no amount of abuse or argument will persuade them to change it.

With respect to cricket, the role of the captain is far greater than in football or rugby, he effectively controls his team and makes tactical decisions that can have a major effect on the outcome of the game. Making decisions on field placings, which bowlers to use and when, plus many others of a more minor nature can impact greatly on the team and the result...which are some of the things that make cricket such a tactical game.

And why when the Captain has off-field problems, the rest of the team can suffer disproportionately...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I would rather see the rule introduced, as in rugby, where only the Captain is allowed to talk to the ref.

Ferguson would just appoint Rooney as captain.

 

[Titanic]

The rules are there... the referees simply need to apply them.