PRO's play of the week addresses PI by a team. In the discussion, PRO writes: The law also does not distinguish between fouls committed by an individual and/or committed by a team against an individual opponent(s). Of course, fouls committed by an individual are far more common and recognizable by referees. It is quite rare to see a situation where the referees have recognized infringements committed by a team against an individual opponent(s). So I guess PRO is ditching the prior view that targeting is USB rather than PI? I disagree with the premise, as the applicable LOTG say: A player is cautioned if guilty of: . . . • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game (no specific number or pattern of infringements constitutes “persistent”) A player has not persistently infringed the LOTG if he commits a first infringement, regardless of what his teammates have done. So, IMO, the language of the LOTG is not consistent with what PRO says. Though I also think, as has always been the case, that it is a trivia answer, not a substantive issue -- I'd just rather have the language of the law be consistent with the view. As an aside, I noticed that "infringement of the LOTG" has been replaced with "offences" in the new LOTG (which are not yet applicable in MLS). So I guess it will be PO instead of PI. I cannot fathom any reason to make that change -- and it is not identified as a change in the discussion of changes.
This is from the "Details of all Law changes 2017/18": Offences and infringements Many languages do not have different words for ‘offence’ and ‘infringement’, the difference is not clearly understood (even by English experts) and their use inconsistent e.g. a player can be an ‘offender’ but not an ‘infringer’. To make the Laws clearer and to assist translation, ‘offence’ and ‘offend’ replace ‘infringement’ and ‘infringe’.
Darn it, I recall that now -- it wasn't called out on the particular change, as it was a global change. Thanks for posting.
Thx for posting this! and interesting that pro has seen fit to turn some attention to this topic. To me, it's not so hard to keep track of how many times a star player gets fouled. No matter the level, it is often clear who the dangerous attacker or midfield puppetmaster is. What is harder is determining if those several fouls on an attacker comprise an unsporting strategy or simply the result of defenders being outplayed. The fouls themselves are not unsporting- it's the use of fouls as a tactic that is. Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference, but I can see an attacker being fouled 5 or 6 times in a game by various opponents and it not being unsporting, especially if they don't seem cynical. For the traditional PI committed by a single player, one does not need to interpret intent, because the behavior itself needs consequences regardless. The other thing is that PRO endorsed making a player (who has been fouled several times already, to be sure) off limits. I think this may be a "don't try this at home, kids" bit of guidance- I don't think it's ever good to tie your own hands, and you have incentivizes the attacker to simulate or goad his opponent. I do think the identification of PI is one of those things that separates the good from the common, so it's something I try to keep on the forebrain. What I really need work on is including fouls that result in advantage in players' foul counts.
I too have to watch this, especially in high school where a strong/skilled player will often have the ball themselves a huge majority of the time. Doing so makes them much more likely to be fouled completely carelessly just because they always have the ball. 5-6 fouls in a half against a team may not be excessive, 5-6 against one player is.
I've called the serial mugging UB a few times, and agree that it can be hard. First, I've felt compelled to announce "no more fouls against this person", which I find worrisome. Mostly, that does stop the issue. Second, it can be hard to tell the difference between a serial mugging and a player that just gets fouled a lot. I had an MBB game last night where one player got fouled quite a few times. Almost all of them were relatively minor nicks that he played through, so I had them on the trifling end of the scale. But I was talking to him after the 3rd or 4th one to make sure he wasn't getting frustrated with the contact. I could easily see a ref ignoring them as minor, and the player getting really mad about not getting protected.
I can see how this is problematic to enforce, even after you realize what is going on. On one hand, I don't think you want to announce an ultimatum and say "no more fouls on #12" and back yourself into a corner. What if the next foul is trifling or you want to play advantage. (yes, I know you can come back and caution after playing advantage, but would you really do that for PI?) But, at the same time, I almost feel like you have to let the offending team know that you are on to them so that the next guy doesn't get a card for PI on his first ticky-tack foul. If it is a single player doing all of the fouling, it is easier because you can have a word with him and tell him to calm down and play more in control. Then if he doesn't correct himself, a card is easy. I'm not sure how to handle that when it is a team focusing their fouling on one guy. Maybe warn the captain? I dunno...
I saw an interesting mechanic in the FC Cincinnati vs Columbus Crew game in the open cup. I think it was late in the first half and fouls were starting to accumulate on FC's best scorer. At the next foul the referee pulled the crew captain and the FC player aside. He made a circular motion with his hand around the FC player and then gave the "no more" signal. It was clear he was tired of the fouls and wanted everyone to know. I'm probably going to adopt this.
I preferred, "Hey, this guy's getting fouled a lot - let's knock it off!" Only time I can really remember using something like that was in a U12 or U14 rec game. Away team was behaving absolutely horrendously, fouling time and time again. I feared retaliation, except I knew the home coach and knew he wouldn't tolerate it from his team. As I recall, I got the feeling that the Away coach condoned the behavior and would be no help to me whatsoever. Shortly before halftime I made a general announcement that there were far too many fouls happening, and it had to stop NOW. At the half, I went to Home's bench area (on opposite sides of the field, so Away didn't hear me) and told them that I was this close to stopping the game. But that I needed them to continue to play fairly, and if things didn't improve, we weren't going to get to the end of the game. Fortunately Away cleaned up their act in the second half. Else I would have had to start issuing cards for PI/USB. And if that hadn't worked, we'd be going home early.
I had a sort of PI situation. GU12 Div 1. The away team has three different players, fouling 3 different players, but all of their fouls were the same - running straight through the opponent. On the third one, the victim's head hits the turf, enough to bring some tears and a sub, but not a concussion (to my untrained eyes). I get everyone's attention, point out the three away team players that had committed the foul,4s and told the whole team to stop or I would give them a yellow card. The players got it. The parents, however, did not. "Don't let him tell you how to play." "Keep it up!" and so forth. This was right before half time so at halftime I talked to the coach. She had been silent all game, but I warned her what the parents were saying and that if it continued, I would need her help to dismiss a parent. She didn't end up saying anything to the parents, and fortunately the parents quieted down, but yeesh.
That's precisely the part that's problematic. I really really really try to avoid ultimatums. I've seen too many "One more word and you'll get a card," generating a response like "Ok, I'll shut up now". No matter what happens next, credibility has been tossed with very little gained. @Gary V has an interesting suggestion later in the thread. Just telling everyone that this was too many fouls on one player is enough to suggest that you're on to them, without tying your hands.
One of our assignors loves to tell the story about one of his referees. MBB mid-level game. A player has been complaining throughout the game, so the referee tells him "One more word and I'm giving you a card." Player shuts up. The referee is walking next to the player and asks several times "Did you hear what I said?" The player doesn't say anything the first couple of times he's asked that question. Finally he breaks and says "Yes, I heard you". BAM - yellow card.
Whats wrong with the same mechanic for publically warning that you would use with an individual player (ie the hold up play and point and tick off the places where his last couple fouls were). All you change is you point at the places where the player got fouled and finish with something like "and you all have fouled him four times in the last 15 minutes, knock it off"? No need to reinvent the wheel just cause it is team PI. On a sidenote, I fully agree that recognising this is what can be tricky, but I disagree that it has to be an intentional pattern of behaviour as others in this thread-not the quoted poster have suggested. If the same player is fouled 5-6 times because he is outplaying seperate defenders, is that not reckless in the same way that a single player out of his depth commits several fouls in a row? Not sure intent or tactics has anything to do with PI, though a single cynical intended tackle can of course be USB.
True. This was so long ago, I don't remember if I had issued any cautions or not. I should have cautioned before considering to abandon the game - but I'm older and I like to think slightly wiser now.
M. I can't really see the difference between serial fouling and a bunch of random fouls. To me, if a player gets whacked a bunch, a warning will be given , and if it keeps going then someone will see a yellow
I believe it is easy enough to make a general announcement that you are fed up with the nonsense, without tying your hands and backing yourself into a corner. Basically I let them know that I'm pissed with a major whistle blast on the nth foul and loud KNOCK IT OFF and maybe point at the latest fouler and hold up a number of fingers (usually 3 or 4). This invariably leads to a "but reffffff......", to which I respond, "I said knock it off" and I run to my position. I consider this a general warning that I think lets them know that if the next one ends up as a card, they know where it came from, but allows me to not card lower level fouls (if I so choose).