persistent infringement by a team?

[dna77054]

I just glanced at the Laws of the game, and saw no reference to the following question.

Can and/or should anything be done by the ref to "punish" a team that relies on PI as a tactic of play.

EG. in the last France(i know)-Greece(i think) game in Euro 04, (And please do not argue my reference, just discuss the general situation) France used a tactic of constantly fouling the greeks in midfield as they were beginning a counter. Seldom did they go for the ball, just held, impeded, pushed, etc... This was obviously a concerted team effort to foul them early to stop counter attacks. Problem arises that with 11 French players on the field, none individually did that enough to get that PI yellow card, but what they did as a team was enough to draw maybe 3-6 yellows for PI as individuals (you know what I mean)

Is there any recourse for the ref or Greeks in a situation like this. Can the ref just give a yellow to the next offender when he sees a tactic like this being used?

Please discuss.

[Gary V]

From Advice to Referees
12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT
Persistent infringement occurs either when a player repeatedly commits fouls or infringements or
participates in a pattern of fouls directed against the same opponent. Persistent infringement also
occurs if a player repeatedly fouls multiple opponents. 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.
Where the referee sees a pattern of fouls directed against a single opponent, it is proper to warn the
team that the pattern has been seen and then to caution the next player who continues the pattern,
even if this specific player may not have previously committed a foul against this single opponent. 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 italicized part is that way in the original, indicating it is a lesser-known concept.

[ur_land]

Except the ATR doesn't really answer his question. It covers the same offender fouling multiple opponents and multiple offenders fouling a single opponent. This case sounds like multiple offenders fouling multiple opponents.


I think the the ref would be able to sell a card for PI in the described situation and would be within his rights for doing so under the SOTG, but a card could also be given for USB (professional fouls). Clint Dempsy got a USB card in the last WC qualifier for doing a grab to stop a counterattack in the dying minutes of the game.

[Spaceball]

A national referee I am friends with had is first A-League game last year (and it was still A-League then). When I was discussing the match and what he learned, he brought up this identical situation. The assessor (who was of course a national) brought up PI as a general team tactic...not by or against anyone in particular...but done consistently by team B when team A tried to bring the ball up the wings around midfield. He discussed that this team tactic is the 3rd type of PI and certainly could be dealt with using a caution.

A good recommendation is not to use this against someone who already has a yellow or who is known as a hard player that picks up a lot of yellows. You would hate to send a guy off for a second yellow if one is actually a "team" yellow.

Hope this helps.

[brhsoccer14]

I don't know about this. A team consistently fouls the other team, not just a single player is not covered. In your case, though, if you can tell that they are fouling right at mid field for tactical reasons, you can caution them for USB. Even not in your case, you could probably sell the USB anyway. There is usually a way for a referee to find something to do when he deems something is unfair.

Hope it's right!

[Statesman]

This would not be considered an instance of persistant infringement, but the referee might begin judging each foul based on the purpose and outcome it has on the potential for the attackers to score. Basically, the referee could judge such fouls as "professional fouls" designed solely to stop the game and allow for the defense to reorganize. If such is the case, this does fall under "unsporting behavior" and thus a caution is warranted. After handing out a few cautions for professional fouls the team would most likely stop, and the referee should make it a point to communicate that this is exactly what the cautions are for.

[BC_Ref]

I know locally they've mentioned the concept of "team" persistent infringement. Generally, it takes place where you have high level teams (since this tactic is coached) trying to neutralize one key opponent. On assessments, failing to either figure out the tactic is taking place or failing to nail it would be a significant failure.

The appropriate response is to hand out the yellow - basically point out foul one, foul two, foul three has bought the yellow so that the team is clear YOU know they are pulling this slimey tactic. And be prepared to hand out more yellows (or a red if necessary) it keeps happening.

[HoldenMan]

I generally think of team PI as against a single opponent.

multiple fouls against multiple opponents?

look at it one of 2 ways -

1)Call USB (tactical fouls) - but this could significantly affect what cards you give out elsewhere on the pitch

2)Keep a very close eye on who's doing the fouling - if they're constantly doing it to, say, break up the mids then you're going to see the same players fouling.

[Claymore]

The appropriate response is to hand out the yellow - basically point out foul one, foul two, foul three has bought the yellow so that the team is clear YOU know they are pulling this slimey tactic. And be prepared to hand out more yellows (or a red if necessary) it keeps happening.
Bingo. Don't get caught up in who gets the card.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

If I saw persistent fouling, I would talk to the captain of the team that is fouling. Tell him to calm his players down, because the next foul, no matter how violent or intention will be a card. Not to have a loose game book, but hand out cards until the fouling stops even if that means a red card.

[Garkbit]

This is a very good point. They will get exceptionally pissed off if you suddenly spring this on them without any warning. Let the captain know you're on to him and there might be a chance they'll do something without you needing the cards.

[ref47]

from jim allen - past column:

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT [LAW 12; LAW 18]
Your question:
If I notice that a team repeatedly fouls by tripping their opponents, can I consider this as persistent infringement and caution the person who tripped the opponent even though this was the first time he tripped the opponent and this was the first time this particular opponent was tripped. Sort of a Team persistent infringement. If so, can I consider a subsequent trip by another player of the same team as a second caution and send him off? This situation has occurred in several games I have centered where it seemed that the team was coached to trip if beaten and I want to know if this is a valid use of the PI and 2YC Send off.

USSF answer (November 9, 2003):
First a word of advice: The referee should not look to be sending off people right and left. The referee should manage play with all the tools in the toolbox, not just cards. if a player demonstrates that he or she does not want to play according to the rules and the referee's guidance, then and only then should cards be considered.

And now on to the question: Although this pattern of infringement is not among those types of action customarily associated with persistent infringement of the Laws, it would seem to deserve a place among them. Here is what the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game" has to say:
QUOTE
12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT
Persistent infringement occurs either when a player repeatedly commits fouls or infringements or participates in a pattern of fouls directed against the same opponent. Persistent infringement also occurs if a player repeatedly fouls multiple opponents. 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. Where the referee sees a pattern of fouls directed against a single opponent, it is proper to warn the team that the pattern has been seen and then to caution the next player who continues the pattern, even if this specific player may not have previously committed a foul against this single opponent. 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.
END OF QUOTE

We would suggest that the system of warning the players that a pattern has been observed be followed. Also, please remember that the concept of a "team caution" does not exist under the Laws of the Game, so you could not caution (yellow card) and then send off (red card) one player for doing the same thing for which you had just cautioned one of his teammates.

And a final word of advice: Referees should use common sense in applying any of the discretionary cautions. Do not make trouble for yourself by carding unnecessarily and just because you feel the player is acting incorrectly. Your decisions must be based in Law, not some gut feeling.