Quibble: PI requires the same player to persisently infringe. When there is persistent fouling of the same player by different players, the caution should technically be for USB.
The card should be for UB should another player commit the fall. Persistent infringement only applies when the same player is committing the fouls. See the ATR 12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT Persistent infringement occurs when a player repeatedly commits fouls or certain other infringements. It is not necessary for the multiple fouls to be of the same type or all to be direct free kick fouls, but infringements must be among those covered in Law 12 or involve repeated violations of Law 14. In most cases, the referee should warn the player that the pattern has been observed and, upon a subsequent violation, must then issue the caution. If the pattern is quickly and blatantly established, then the warning should be omitted and the referee should take immediate action. In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied. The referee must also recognize when a single opponent has become the target of fouls by multiple players. As above, upon recognizing the pattern, the referee should clearly indicate that the pattern has been observed and that further fouls against this opponent must cease. If another player commits a foul against the targeted opponent, that player must be cautioned but, in this case, the misconduct should be reported as unsporting behavior, as must any subsequent caution of any further foul against that same targeted opponent. Eventually, the team will get the message.
Which is fine, but one of those things that only matters to nerds. The instruction, if I recall correctly, wasn't always that it be considered UB. In fact there this was a point of emphasis at some point to get referees to recognize patterns against a player as well as those by a player as PI.
I think it matters to non-nerds, too, although since I am a nerd I cannot say for sure. You are correct that during the match, it really doesn't matter. But it's not hard to imagine a scenario where a player's one foul for the match is the one that gets the "team PI." It looks strange for them to commit one foul and have it show on the report as PI.
Nerd?!? OK, I confess, I am one. And just to prove it, there are a whole variety of ways a player could get cautioned with only one foul on the books -- even with none. Fouls for which advantage or trifiling apply both count toward PI, as can things that are not fouls (most notably PK infractions). (I wouldn't blink if someone wrote PI instead of USB, as it just doesn't matter. I only noted it as a quibble, as there are others who know the technically correct answer and would care.)
So again, and I find quoting text from the ATR to be condescending, the instruction on this may have changed. That's fine, but in reality it's an academic discussion since a yellow card is a yellow card. Greater weight is not assigned based on the reason. Now there was a time when MLS used a bizarre formula for applying points to a caution based on the actual reason, but that practice has long vanished, so I think the book distinction is more important with respect to send offs since those are often handled differently based on the reason and the supplemental report filed by the referee. I also think UB is a strange way to report what actually happened. The last foul in the pattern could be a simple foul that shouldn't result in more than a whistle. The communication when card is shown will clearly indicate the pattern of PI. So, while this might be the way the USSF would like it reported, it is a bit strange. I also find it a bit odd that a document clearly titled Advice, is oft quoted as if it's words hold divine weight. I think that's ok if you want to ace a written test and don't want to think so much about it beyond that, but does what you write in the book or your report really make a difference in how you perform on the pitch? Even with respect to an assessment, if you're asked about it and you point out the pattern, the assessor isn't going to ask what you wrote in the book before patting you on the back. You'll say I saw a pattern of PI against number 12, communicated as much after foul three and booked number 6 for the fourth foul three minutes later.
Sure, and I count myself as a nerd, but it also looks strange for a player who committed one foul to have it listed as UB when it was a simple foul that ordinarily wouldn't have drawn extra attention. Either way, the player is going to have to know he took one for the team and what's written next to his name doesn't make much difference. That written, we live in a society that values the written word above almost everything else so...
The fact that it is cautionable is far more important than the formal reason. The class may well not have discussed the technical distinction, or you may have just remembered the part that actually matters.
Tournaments and youth leagues get what they pay for. Who do you think is going to show up for $35 for a U16 boys game? I seriously doubt that it will be a well-trained individual with substantial experience, excellent fitness, and quality people skills. Now if the tournament offered $100 per match, then it would probably have a waiting list and could pick whichever referees it desired. So the question is up to the parents/coaches/teams. What are they willing to pay in an effort to secure quality officiating which will strive to look after the safety of their kids? Quality officiating is a skill which is hard-earned through time and effort. Events which desire this skill should adequately compensate those with it for coming and displaying it. Don't complain about the quality of the referees when you pay $25 for your share of a team entry fee. You won't get a Porsche at the price of a Mazda.
I agree with this, and I too find quotes from the ATR a bit irritating. Let's discuss things and provide each other with even better advice, because, as they say, the best way to really learn something is to teach it. I shall endeavor to do that, as you have done above. So lets see... there is a pattern of one team fouling a single player on the other team. You let them know that you see this pattern, and yet there is another foul against this player, at which point you are going to go to the next level. Your tool for doing this is to issue a caution. OK, who gets it? Well, the player who committed the last foul is the only one who didn't follow your last direction toward his team, so it must be him. You would want to let that player, and everyone else on his team, know that the reason for the caution is for continuing the pattern of fouls that you warned them about. Can we all agree that "continuing the pattern" is another way of saying "persistent infringement"? (After all, some sources do equate the two..but I'm asking, not quoting.) I always let the player know exactly which of the cautionable offenses he is being punished for, and if it is for unsporting behavior associated with a foul I am going to let him know which aspect of the foul (i.e., tactical, reckless, etc.) So what exactly am I going to say to this player as I show him the card? I am certainly not going to say "unsporting behavior for contining the pattern of fouls against (persistently fouling)number XX. What on earth is the point of mashing two cautionable offenses together? That would only water down the actual reason for the caution. I am going to use the same words I used in my warning, appending the description of the caution to the beginning: "Persistent Infringement for continuing the pattern of fouls against number XX." What I say to the player is what I am writing in my book.
When I come to the last foul on a particular player who is being targeted, the players doing the fouling absolutely will know that the next foul will result in a card. And it's in a pretty loud voice too. "Boys, that's it on #12. The next guy who touches him is going in the book, okay? Am I clear?" R
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! So now you have a smart ass player who goes over and gently strokes #12's shirt. Are you going to caution the smart ass for touching #12? The players on both teams will instantly lose all respect for you.
I avoid painting myself into a corner as much as possible. For PI, its simply a matter of verbalizing that you've seen the pattern and aren't going to tolerate it any further. No need to say anything more or less. For me, its more about setting up the PI card on the next foul as it is about modifying behavior via verbal warning. If I the referee tell you the player that I will not tolerate any more fouls on a certain player or any more fouls by you, then its up to you decide what my disciplinary action will be in a subsequent case of noncompliance and/or assess whether or not you're willing to risk finding out. Once I blow the whistle for that next foul, I'm pointing out where the previous two fouls occurred(physically), then where THIS foul occurred....and then showing the caution. EVERYBODY on the pitch, the sidelines, and in the stands will thus understand what just happened. I've just shifted the focus from me to the player. Case closed.
Methinks, pragmatically, it is not always necessary to announce your potential action, just act. They, the fouler(s), most likely will get the message, whichever way works for you the best. I submit this as an example: In one of the matches [high school age boys, competitive league], I recognised a pattern, three different players carelessly fouled the same ball-handler near the half-way line, all 3 within 6 minutes into the 2nd half, both sides of the centre circle, and on one foul that I had signalled 'advantage.' The third careless-fouler was that team's captain, to whom I casually mentioned, Be careful, Fellows. Not even a full minute later, surely the ball is intercepted by the fouled-team, and bing - a fourth foul by that team. It was that player's first foul, in front of the team benches, exactly on the halfway line, and I had pulled out the yellow card immediately after the whistle. His coach publically says "You are not carding him for that. That was his first foul." I smiled in his direction, nodded my head, turned my back on the technical areas, in order that the first time fouler had his face toward his coach, after which I told him and his captain, who had joined in, "Okay Fellows, I have seen enough. You [fouler], what is your name? Ah yes, [fouler-name], you are now in my book for unsporting conduct. This is the fourth time you guys have fouled him [the foulee]. I know what is going on here. This card is actually for your coach, alright?" I then showed the yellow card high up and then turned the raised hand toward their coach. The conversation with first time fouler and his captain took ~12-14 seconds, and thereafter, no significant fouls or pattern from that team for the remainder of regulation time. The fouled team captain thanks for "protecting." Ooo-err, we said to ourselves at the brief post-match review, the postman had delivered the message.
I like the verbal warning to the field regarding team PI because the goal of the card is to change behavior. Team PI is an easy one to nip in the bud without resorting to the plastic. Not to pick on the issue of saying "next person who touches the player gets a card" but what if that next player is already sitting on a card? I know there are some hardliners out there but I am not going to send-off a player for something like that. What that causes is a team that feels slighted twice, a management nightmare and some work to be done for the rest of the match. Say something public, but leave yourself an out.
I have seen and like the gesture of either counting with your fingers, or pointing to the other multiple recent fouls commited either by a player of against a specific player. Instead of waiting until you have decided to caution to do a display like that, why not at the AC of the player committing the foul before the one that brings out the caution. Don't mention the likelihood of a caution to the player, but make the motions so that everyone knows you've seen the pattern without having to make a verbal announcement. Making blanket statements, as has been pointed out, often gets us in trouble.