Persistent Infringement for non-penal fouls

[AspireNatlRef]

OK,

I have a question about PI when it is a non-penal foul.

The LOTG state that a caution can be issued for any Infringements of the LOTG.

How about Offside, Bad Throw in, PIADM, pass back to the 'keeper.

Where do you fall on PI in these situations.

For example,

I had a HS game with a kid who was offside 20 times. Would you card him?

I know where I stand on this issue, but would be interested to get your opinion.

Also, plese cite any non-opinions... USSF Memo, Q&A, ect.

ANR

[Caesar]

There's nothing to say that you can't issue a PI caution for these sorts of things. As you note, the law says "persistently infringes the laws of the game", not "persistently infringes Law 12" or any other variant.

What you have to consider is the purpose of the rule. Put simply, what is the logic behind giving someone a PI caution for persistent offside or foul throw-in offences, for example? They are not offences that give them any tactical advantage. Committing the offence is of no detriment to their opponents, and every detriment to themselves. Therefore, what need is the caution?

Obviously for other offences (for example, persistent PIADM), on the odd occasion a PI caution might be absolutely warranted, and necessary. There is certainly no restriction of the PI caution to penal fouls.

[Attacking Minded]

I think part of the spirit of PI is to control any player who is ruining the game for the other players or the fans. No one wants to play or watch a game with a stoppage every twenty seconds. A player who is offside 20 times seems to fall into that category. Context though is important. It really is a ITOOR issue.

[dadman]

On the other hand, any player who is offside that many times should really be the coach's headache. :)

Interesting question you've posed. I'll go back to lurking and let you grownups hash it out.

[lmorin]

I would be really annoyed, but make a decision based on whether or not the player was ideliberately nterfering (in some loose fashion) with the game conduct. If he was a dolt or poor player and really his coach's problem, I'd leave him alone. Otherwise, verbal warning followed by YC, if there is no change.

[njref]

It seems to me that PI is a tool in the referee's toolbox that can be used to "fix" the problem that sometimes arises because merely calling a foul or infraction is not enough of a penalty to prevent reoccurance. A common example is tactical fouls against a star player that prevent him or her from getting any room, and may result in that player eventually getting injured. A mere free kick may not be enough of a punishment to stop the deliberate or reckless fouls. So if you keep doing it the referee is going to add a YC to the punishment, even though each single foul does not rise to the level of SFP.

The punishment for offside infractions or bad throw-ins (loss of the ball) is serious enough to stop any rational team from doing this deliberately. I cannot envision any possible circumstances in which a team would deliberately create such infractions. Therefore, in my mind, PI should not be used for those infractions, no matter how persistent or annoying the team's bad play is. The only exception would be if the referee perceived that in fact the infractions were deliberate and tactical, although again I can't see why a team would do that. Quite simply, the team has already been punished eough.

[whyref]

A player who is offside 20 times seems to fall into that category. Context though is important. It really is a ITOOR issue.

Disagree here. It is not our job to manage the tactical elements of play and how those are used other than in the context of whether an unfair advantage was gained or in a need to uphold the spirit of fair play.

Carding a player for simply executing an element of play that also requires cooperation and timing from a team mate seems to be a bit outside of our authority; especially when no opponent if involved. Which one do you want to card; the obvious player making the run, or what about the player who failed to release the ball at the proper time?

We do not need to go looking for more opportunities to insert ourselves into the match. First we already have enough to do and second it's not about us; remember? Apply the laws pragmatically; not expansively!

[NHRef]

while you may be technically within your rights to caution for offside or throw in violation, why would you? Remember a card is given to get some semblance of payback in terms of control of the game, a player or a tactic. By cautioning this person exactly what are you hoping to gain from it?

His team is already loosing the ball and I would figure his teammates will be on his back with way more effect than you can have.

[oneref]

Per the 2007 Advice to referees, section 12.28.3, PI only applies to violations of Law 12 or 14

[CalNorth Pride]

nice job one ref. That should take care of this discussion.

[Caesar]

nice job one ref. That should take care of this discussion.
Only for USSF referees. ;)

[campton]

No way. Simply said. Offside, foul throw are not ways to caution for PI.


May i ask, what if a pass back goes to the keeper, a player is running on, then the keep picks it up. Is he cautioned? Sent off ? What if it was an OGSO?

[falcon.7]

May i ask, what if a pass back goes to the keeper, a player is running on, then the keep picks it up. Is he cautioned? Sent off ? What if it was an OGSO?

Well, what's the offense? Law 12, "touches the ball with his hands...". Restart - free kick. Now, as for DOGSO, it can't fall into the first category of "deliberately handles the ball..." because that doesn't apply to a goalkeeper in their own penalty area (which I assume is where this scenario takes place). It COULD fall into the second category "..offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick" since technically the restart is a free kick, but that section is generally interpreted to mean DFK offenses, namely fouls.

You could send them off and be within the laws, but if you ever want to referee again, give 'em the caution and move on. If it's a passback with no one around, then I'd just give the free kick, but if an attacker's coming on, I'd go front pocket.

[Ref Flunkie]

Only for USSF referees. ;)

Damn you Aussies and your crazy ways ;).

[Rufusabc]

This is the single dumbest discussion I had ever come across here. Carding for offside? Please. C'mon guys. We can think of other more important stupid stuff to discuss that actually falls within our rules.

Rog

[macheath]

Being offside or performing a bad throw-in are not the same as fouls or misconduct under Law 12 or 14, and it would be is a misapplication of persistent infringement to use it on those types of violations. Just as you cannot apply advantage in the offside or throw-in cases, but only in cases of fouls or misconduct, you cannot apply persistent infringement to them. Let's think why--does taking a bad throw-in or being called offside harm your opponent? No. It harms your own team, so there's no PI. Don't confuse violations of the LOTG that do not harm opponents with those that do; only those latter fouls and misconduct are candidates for persistent infringement.

[GKbenji]

This is the single dumbest discussion I had ever come across here. Carding for offside? Please. C'mon guys. We can think of other more important stupid stuff to discuss that actually falls within our rules.

Rog

Rog, please tell that to the HS ref who decided to caution one of my players for persistently taking a kickoff incorrectly! JV team with very little experience, and the ball didn't go totally forward, just rolled along the line. After the second retake (with a different player, BTW), out came the card. Oy. :rolleyes: Talk about "book refereeing" at its worst.

So you never know. Maybe somebody.. somewhere... learned something from this thread. The only truly stupid question is the one you don't ask.

[blech]

***

May i ask, what if a pass back goes to the keeper, a player is running on, then the keep picks it up. Is he cautioned? Sent off ? What if it was an OGSO?


We're moving sideways from the original question, but hard to see how you can get to an OGSO when the attacker doesn't have possession and keeper gets there first, even though the keeper then plays ball with hands instead of feet. Not saying you couldn't craft a scenario where it's legitimate, but it seems highly unlikely and the mere fact that the keeper handles the ball to avoid the attacker blocking the ball if he were to kick it doesn't strike me as OGSO.

[macheath]

We're moving sideways from the original question, but hard to see how you can get to an OGSO when the attacker doesn't have possession and keeper gets there first, even though the keeper then plays ball with hands instead of feet. Not saying you couldn't craft a scenario where it's legitimate, but it seems highly unlikely and the mere fact that the keeper handles the ball to avoid the attacker blocking the ball if he were to kick it doesn't strike me as OGSO.

Let's do our homework :) The Advice, Part D: Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity, very first item, 12.36, says handling can be a DOGSO, but then says:

this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his or her own penalty area.

You can call a passback, but you cannot call this DOGSO. There is no scenario that can be "crafted" that allows a DOGSO call against a keeper using their hands on the ball in their own area.

[Rufusabc]

I understand there are some refereees out there who like to think up ways to change the laws to fit their ideas. But, if it happens when you are an AR or a coach in a game, please make sure that referee's assignor is told of the inability to get the simplest things correct.

I have also seens some strange things on the pitch too. But, a thorough knowledge of the LOTG and the ADvice will prevent such idiotic thinking.

Rog