The following question was posed on Ask a Soccer Referee: The 2007 Laws of the Game say: 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. The Laws do not say: this applies to any and all infringements of Law 12 and to some infringements of Law 14. The 2007 Advice to Referees says this about persistent infringement: However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. .... In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied. .... 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. Examples of persistent infringement include a player who: • Violates Law 14 again, having previously been warned • If playing as a goalkeeper, wastes time, having previously been warned or penalized for this behavior .... 14.10 CAUTIONING FOR SUBSEQUENT INFRINGEMENTS OF LAW 14 If any requirement of Law 14 is infringed after the referee signals for the kick, the referee should warn the player committing the violation and, upon a repetition (then or subsequently), caution the player for persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game. .... 16.4 OPPONENTS MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE THE PENALTY AREA An opponent who infringes on the requirement to remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play should be warned and, upon a repetition, cautioned for persistent infringement. ..... 16.5 TIME WASTING BY THE KICKING TEAM Upon being awarded a goal kick, the defending team wastes time if the ball is clearly placed within the goal area in preparation for the restart and then is moved unnecessarily to another location. The referee may caution and show the yellow card for either persistent infringement or delaying the restart of play in situations where the offense is committed a second time by the same team after a warning is given. So, according to the ATR, some infringements of Law 16 as well as Laws 12 and 14 can in result in a caution for persistent infringement. What about Law 13, Free Kicks? Certainly repeatedly not withdrawing 10 yards from an opponent’s free kick, despite not getting a card for any single infringement, should be cardable for PI. So should repeatedly delaying the putting of the ball into play. The 2006 Advice to Referees even included: • Fails to start or restart play properly or promptly, having previously been warned as an example persistent infringement. Of course, even a single offense of delaying a restart is cautionable, but what about multiple offenses, some of which may have been deemed trifling, or at least not quite worthy of a caution for FRD? Why did the USSF remove this bullet item from the ATR? What about Law 15, The Throw-In? Despite the fact that every improperly taken throw-in can be awarded to the opponent, shouldn’t a player who repeatedly fails to take a proper throw-in be cautioned for PI? At some point a referee should be able to say enough is enough, especially if the thrower is trying to gain some type of unfair advantage by the method of the throw (e.g. a baseball style throw, stepping over the line, or taking the throw-in from an advanced location). The 2007 Laws of the Game say: If an opponent unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower: • he is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and shown the yellow card. What if an opponent does this but the caution is not given because the throw is successful and thus the infraction trifling? Should not the offense still be factored into a possible PI caution? Law 16, The Goal Kick, already has a mention for an opponent entering the penalty area before the ball is in play, but what if a team consistently attempts but fails to put the ball into play on a goal kick? Shouldn’t this be cautionable as well? As foolish as it would be, why shouldn’t a player who repeatedly violates Law 17, The Corner Kick, be punished for persistent infringement? For example, what if a corner kick taker repeatedly places the ball outside of the corner when he takes his kick, seeking to gain an advantage? Should not repeated infringements be cautionable for PI? Yes, one could go DR as well, but should that matter? What if a free kick taker repeatedly kicks the ball a second time, despite the prohibition to do so? He puts himself at a disadvantage, as an IFK is awarded to his opponent, but isn’t he persistently infringing the laws? In short, why does the USSF bother to distinguish which Laws Persistent Infringement should apply to? Persistent Infringement should apply to all the Laws. Yes, even Law 11, Offside. If a player finds himself repeatedly in an offside position when the ball is touched or played by his team and repeatedly interferes with play or an opponent, shouldn’t this be considered persistent infringement? Especially if the offside position is obvious and deliberate? After all, what would happen the one time when the AR misses the kick of the ball, and thus doesn’t flag for offside, or for whatever reason didn’t see that the player was in an offside position? Yes, I know the Advice to Referees is attempting to rule out the Laws which already have reasons for issuing cautions (delaying a restart, failing to respect the required distance), but why bother? It isn’t like there would be a dramatic change in the frequency of PI calls just because all of the Laws were to be considered, and not just Law 12 and some of Law 14.
PVan, you are my hero for bringing up "philosophical" discussing on the LOTG. However, as with most things, I'm with IA and require an executive summary .
Persistent Infringement should apply to all the Laws of the Game, and not just some artificial subset. Short enough?
Because there's a rash of offside offences that are plaguing the game and we should crackdown on it by cautioning and, when it results in a second yellow, sending off attackers for it? What, on earth, is your reasoning for wanting to caution players that are offside multiple times? And please explain to me the last time you saw a player put himself in a "deliberate" offside position? To be honest (because I know this is part of your counter-point), I don't think the "repeated violation of Law 14" or the "wast[ing] time" as a goalkeeper after previous warnings should be included as PI in the ATR. Both, on their own, can be cautionable offences. USSF is just saying that referees should give players a break on their first offence, which is fine. To me that doesn't mean you then classify it as PI when it's finally carded. The Law 14 violation is really a DR or FRD caution and the goalkeeper time wasting can definitely be classified as UB. I wish USSF didn't classify them as PI, but in order to get the point across (to over-officious book referees, that you shouldn't be flashing yellows at every such instance) they do.
I saw it just a couple of days ago (although it actually happened two year ago) when reviewing the first goal in NY Red Bull history. Two Red Bull players deliberately placed themselves in an offside position before Djorkaeff's free kick. I am not hell-bent on cautioning players for being offside or in offside positions. My point is that it is unnecessary to prevent referees from doing so, and there is nothing in the Laws to indicate that any such an artificial restriction should be in place. I can certainly consider a scenario, which actually would be quite useful in low level youth games, where a player intentionally runs offside to interfere with a goalkeeper while the ball is at the opposite end of the field. The restart would take place where the offside player is. This would give a significant advantage to the team that was offside if called. I haven't seen it done, but I see nothing to prevent it. Of course, I never see players cautioned in such low level games, either. If you don't think you would call offside as the offense was indeed trifling, a deeply offside positioned player could still force IFK's deep in the opponents end by chasing down long balls from teammates. That offside would have to be called. Any team with one strong kicker but no speedy players could take advantage of this rule. Referees have enough to think about without having to worry about which laws apply to PI and which don't.
Not if you think about in terms of player management. If you have a player that persistently fouls, you know something has to be done. Start talking to him and consider PI. If you have a team strategy where every time the opponent's star gets the ball, he's fouled, you know something has to be done. Start talking to the players and consider PI. I had a girls varsity game where one of the forwards was taken out on a bad tackle. It seemed like every other time her team received the ball in a dangerous position, they were taken down with a bad slide tackle. After some warnings to the players, the next bad tackle was from a girl who had just come into the game. I still issued a YELLOW, and explained the concept to the coach. That team didn't make another bad slide tackle for the rest of the game.
But call it USB. Is USSF absolutely 100% literally in step with FIFA/IFAB at all times? No. Consider advantage. USSF says it applies only to Law 12; IFAB used it a few times in the old Q&A regarding illegal entry onto the field, and I believe it appears at least once in the AIG. Still, there are times when advantage simply does not apply - for instance a bad throw-in that beneficially falls to an opponent's foot. You make the opponent take a throw. It's the same with PI. There are some infractions for which it simply does not apply - offside being one of them.
UB, actually. PI is to be called against a player who persistently infringes the laws, not for a team which unsportingly targets a player to be infringed.
It came up in one of the MLS weekly updates. Jim Allen has confirmed that a pattern of fouls directed at one opponent is to be considered persistent. But the "last straw" player that committed the last foul hasn't necessarily individually committed multiple fouls. Thus although he is cautioned, it is for USB. See http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/ June 10 answer.
For someone who is so pedantic about the way things are written and where they are found, I'm surprised you say this. The MLS review made this point, but the ATR still says otherwise. Until something is changed/edited, the ATR still has the force of Law.
ussf treats the atr as a "living" document, subject to immediate amendment when the lotg or interps change. so, when they issue a policy memo that reads differently than the atr, we should expect the atr to be changed at the next printing. the policy memo should be followed even though the atr differs. given that the atr is really electronic, chi could change it immediately, and probably should. i believe most of us rely on the online version and never buy the hc.
I think the scope of PI is to punish players for infractions that are deliberate. I don't think I have ever seen any player deliberately put him/herself in an offside position with the intention of being punished for being there. In the case you mention in the initial post, unless the player was obviously putting himself in an offside position with no attempt to become "onside", and every time his team got possession of the ball it was deliberatly passed to him, there would be any cautionable infraction. If that were the case, I think it would be UB for wasting everyones time. On a theoretical note; if you issue a caution to a player for PI after the 12th offside infraction, and the same player is flagged for offside a 13th time, would you not then be obligated to issue a second caution/send-off. And what about the other players on the field who are santioned for offside more than once after the initial caution. You have to be consistant. If a referee did this in a game, he would have a mighty deep hole to climb out of.
That is my point. You would never card a person for doing this just once, but if he did it multiple times, even you might consider a card. If you caution a player for PI for multiple fouls, and he commits another foul, I don't think you are obligated to send the player off, so I don't know why it would be any different for offside.
Wasting time and using time are two different animals. You can't waste time when the ball is in play. Just the same as if Team A, who is leading 2-1 with five minutes to play, continually kicks the ball out for a throw-in or a GK. It's not very sporting, I'll grant you, but it's not an infraction.
Correct concept, but not a great example. If the team blasts the ball out of play, aiming for the next area code, across the ditch, and through the pricker bushes, the ref has two options - getting additional game balls, or adding on time. A better example of using time vs. wasting time is playing keep-away. Perfectly legal, even if it doesn't make for the most exciting of games.
Understood, but I was speaking at the conceptual level - what did the Team A player do? He kicked the ball across a boundary line. Is he allowed to do this? Yes. Now, did he hoof it half way to Hamburg? If so, let all and sundry know you'll be adding time.
I am the original person to send this question into Ask the referee two weeks ago. I write a blog about my refereeing and my views on things I see in refereeing....I wrote originally about Marcela Balboa's comments during FC Dallas/Rapids game. Balboa commented about how long it takes AR's to raise the flag on offside’s and how he feels it shouldn't take so long...I simply wrote about his ignorance on the topic in my opinion. Needless to say I got a comment on the blog from someone who called for PI to Oduro for his 5+ offsides calls. I honestly didn't know if one could give a card for PI for offsides so I thought I would research...You can see another post on my blog about the topic from my research. I wrote my original question to "ask a soccer referee" the way I did and stayed away from this forum post simply because I was not in self promoting my blog based on this but I do think the blog has something to add to this topic that has grown now because of this forum post. ONE big thing to keep in mind on this also is that the Rapids were running an offsides trying to catch Oduro offsides.... As far as I am concerned A) I don't think the LOTG allow us to give PI for offsides B) as an official I don't know that yellow card would help the game C) I would be putting my self in a tic tac corner that would be hard to work from with that yellow.
When IFAB was trying to come up with a way of preventing teams from having goalkeepers retain possession of the ball as a way of using time, they quite specifically referred to it as wasting time (see any of the IFAB meeting minutes from the early 90s). As you say, they are different animals, but IFAB wasn't so picky with their wording.
Was Balboa actually ignorant of the reasons ARs' now wait to raise the flag, or was he just expressing an opinion that the reasons ARs' wait don't outweigh the disadvantages and FIFA should go back to allowing ARs to flag offside immediately? That is, was he merely being ignorant or was he simply expressing his preference?