Automatic Yellow Card after certain number of fouls(repeated fouls).

[DCU1996]

say 2 or 3 or 4...

Not sure average number of fouls per players or teams per game, so can't tell good number, but what do you think about giving Yellow Card for repeated fouls.

This will make players think twice before committing fouls, less break in the flow of the game... penalizing professional fouls, etc...

Only drawback I can think of is that the refree has to keep the number of fouls of each 22 players...

We can have foul status for each players below the score board, too.

What do you think?

[king_saladin]

That may lead to a less flowing game, with opposition trying to draw as many fouls as possible.

[DCU1996]

That may lead to a less flowing game, with opposition trying to draw as many fouls as possible.

Trying to draw foul can be a minor effect..., but with players tyring not to commint unnecessary fouls will vastly hlep the continuos flow of the game.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

I think it is a good idea, but it will never work due to the incompetence of the officials. In the last few weeks two games that I have watched stick in my mind. In both, two central defenders were guilty of persistant fouling and both made it into double figures. Under the current framework of the game, the referee could and should have booked both, at least once. Neither were booked and the referee instead started booking opposition players for their first foul of the match. The problem isn't with the current rules. It is with the idiots who are supposed to referee our games. It's fair enough being poor, but when you clearly ignore the rules and also lack consistancy across the board, you know things are bad. What we need is a vast improvement in the quality of our officals.

[billf]

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

3. persistently infringes the Laws of the Game

This already exists in the laws. There is no set number of fouls. It can be two, three, four, etc. Its whatever fits the context of a particular game. The key here is picking up patterns. Perseistent Infringement isn't limited to one player repeatedly commiting fouls, it can be a pattern of a team fouling one player repeatedly as well. For instance, one player is fouled by number 10, then by number 6, and then by number 5 in a short time period. The referee can then put the team on notice so that when number 3 fouls the same player a fouth time a few minutes later he can be show a card for persistent infringement against that player, even if the foul itself is relatively minor.

An excellent example of PI is from the 1998 World Cup. Hagi committed a foul early in the first minute and then another less than 15 seconds later. Both were minor. The referee cautioned Hagi holding up two fingers. Hagi didn't commit another foul for the remainder of the match.

[billf]

I think it is a good idea, but it will never work due to the incompetence of the officials. In the last few weeks two games that I have watched stick in my mind. In both, two central defenders were guilty of persistant fouling and both made it into double figures. Under the current framework of the game, the referee could and should have booked both, at least once. Neither were booked and the referee instead started booking opposition players for their first foul of the match. The problem isn't with the current rules. It is with the idiots who are supposed to referee our games. It's fair enough being poor, but when you clearly ignore the rules and also lack consistancy across the board, you know things are bad. What we need is a vast improvement in the quality of our officals.

Perhaps a start would be you taking up the whistle? Just a thought...

[DCU1996]

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

3. persistently infringes the Laws of the Game

This already exists in the laws. There is no set number of fouls. It can be two, three, four, etc. Its whatever fits the context of a particular game. The key here is picking up patterns. Perseistent Infringement isn't limited to one player repeatedly commiting fouls, it can be a pattern of a team fouling one player repeatedly as well. For instance, one player is fouled by number 10, then by number 6, and then by number 5 in a short time period. The referee can then put the team on notice so that when number 3 fouls the same player a fouth time a few minutes later he can be show a card for persistent infringement against that player, even if the foul itself is relatively minor.

An excellent example of PI is from the 1998 World Cup. Hagi committed a foul early in the first minute and then another less than 15 seconds later. Both were minor. The referee cautioned Hagi holding up two fingers. Hagi didn't commit another foul for the remainder of the match.

The problem is that the law is vague and subjective... and not well enforced.

You had to go back to 1998 to get a good example.

Let's say Hagi commiteed the same foul, not within 15 seconds but after 15 minutes... Would he have been given the yellow card? probably not.. how about another foul after another 15 minutes, and another foul after anouther 15 munutes => total 3-4 fouls without caution.

So if we let 3-4 fouls from each player without a caution = 66-88 fouls = Stoppage due to fouls in amost every 1-2 munites. We are basically letting this happen.

So, why not make it clear and enforce it. Take some load off of refrees making subjective judgements that often lead to controversy and criticism.

What's the downside besides "we already have simlilar yet vague and subjective law in the book"

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Perhaps a start would be you taking up the whistle? Just a thought...

Done it before and it's an option.

[billf]

The problem is that the law is vague and subjective... and not well enforced.

You had to go back to 1998 to get a good example.

Let's say Hagi commiteed the same foul, not within 15 seconds but after 15 minutes... Would he have been given the yellow card? probably not.. how about another foul after another 15 minutes, and another foul after anouther 15 munutes => total 3-4 fouls without caution.

So if we let 3-4 fouls from each player without a caution = 66-88 fouls = Stoppage due to fouls in amost every 1-2 munites. We are basically letting this happen.

So, why not make it clear and enforce it. Take some load off of refrees making subjective judgements that often lead to controversy and criticism.

What's the downside besides "we already have simlilar yet vague and subjective law in the book"

Have you read the laws of the game? Just about the entire book is vague and subjective. At the end of the day just about everything is in the opinion of the referee. Your point about the number of fouls has been made several times by instructors in the USSF. The 1998 example is just one example. MLS has made PI a point of emphasis at time with real results. Its also been noted in conference call notes over the years when a referee is negligent.

You are correct in saying this is a problem but setting an arbitrary number is not needed IMO.

[NHRef]

The rules are there, all that has to happen is the folks who run the league have to request the refs to concentrate on it and it will happen. PI is the hardest thing around to see, especially as in your example a foul every 15 minutes. Stopping to write numbers down will slow the game requiring the removal of quick restarts so the ref team can write down the number of the fouler.

[PirateJohn]

The problem is that the law is vague and subjective... and not well enforced.

You had to go back to 1998 to get a good example.Actually, Hugh Dallas provided a good example in 2002. In the USA/GER match, one of the American players was booked, and you could read Dallas' lips as he pointed to different spots on the field and said, "one... two... three..." which meant the yellow was for PI.