State Cup game this past weekend. I’m coaching. Other team fouls us as soon as we have the ball. Referee called a LOT of fouls in the 1st half. But no plastic came out. We were up 2-0 early. Went into half time tied 2-2. About 10 minutes before the end of the half, the referee stops the game to have a chat with parents on my sideline. They are usually pretty chill. At halftime, I approached the ref to ask if I had a parent issue that I should deal with. He said he handled it and not to worry. I also took this opportunity to ask if he could be a little more stern with his warnings to the other team and that a card might calm things down. I said “I thank you for call the fouls. It’s not like you are allowing them to get away with it. But at some point, I’d like to try and play soccer today. Them fouling us every time we have the ball cant go on for another 40 minutes”. He said “I’ve been calling the fouls. They are not overly careless or reckless”. I agreed and said “how about persistent infringement.” He said he’d control the game and we parted ways. 2nd half was much of the same from the other team. Ref did pull out some yellow. Some for dissent after he called a foul. Some for recklessness. Some for PI. In total, there were 9 yellows against them. One of them being a double to their center back. (So 9 yellow and 1 red). Coach was telling his players to stop fouling, but they didn’t seem to understand. Their coach got a shiny yellow card too. For arguing an advantage call for his team near the corner the resulted in a shot on goal.
As a general guideline I think 4 fouls in a half or 6 in a match is grounds for PI (I remember hearing this as guidance from somewhere but don't remember where) but YMMV. If they are hard tackles it may be less. If there are "oops" fouls - like a player stumbles and falls into an opponent - I tend not to count them for PI purposes.
I think that was a Bellion and Evans suggestion--in their book they did some math based on total average number of fouls in a game to get there. But its a very rough guide. Two or three in quick succession, especially harder fouls, might suffice. And four innocuous fouls spread through a half might not warrant a caution. Keep in mind that PI (well, now PO) is for a player who fouls, not a team. A team could commit many fouls without a player hitting a threshold. The team version, generally considered USB rather than PO, but it is generally for fouls at a single target on the other team, not just a high number of fouls by the team in general.
Did this change sometime? I was always taught that lots of fouls against a single target could also result in a PI (now PO).
PI/PO is formally the repeated fouls by a single player against one or more opponents: the thing we call "team PI" or "targeting" is formally Unsporting Behavior. https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/op3a01vqh2lt7728m90p7e1m39tlpjr5 lays out the report codes (at least for USSF) and makes the first case clear; the second one (I think) just falls into the "lack of respect" catchall.
What does PO mean? Persistent offense? If the same player keeps fouling another for 20 yards until he loses the ball, he's getting a card and I'll call it PI. But usually I give a PI card if I notice the same player keeps doing the same stuff. Late tackles, unnecessary contact, keeps fouling the guy he's marking because he's bad.
It's a difference that doesn't really matter. But the language was that a player is cautioned for persistently infringing (now "a player is cautioned if guilty of . . . persistent offences"). since in a targeting case the player has not committed persistent offenses, but perhaps a single offense, the only true fit is USB. (And this is what was taught, at least by USSF, for many years.) But only a deeply pedantic appeal panel would really care if the wrong code was used--alas, there are some of those.
And to address the original question: there is no hard-and-fast guideline, or obvious best practice, for what you do when lots of players are fouling lots of times. PI in particular is really tricky here, because you probably aren't remembering that six different players have three different fouls etc., and it's not what people are expecting. What's worked best for me after a couple of verbal warnings is just faster yellows for tackles that are hard enough that it warrants making a point. Nobody loves the parade of yellows for sub-reckless fouls - and you will have a conversation around "why is that a yellow card" - but it's one way to get the message across that this behavior will no longer be tolerated, and can be justified with (again) the "lack of respect" reasoning (and some more details).
These 'oops' fouls, and stumbles, are pretty prevalent in girls matches. Outwardly they are apologetic too, didnt mean to and such, but they are actually not. In such cases, the 2nd oops or stumble gets a public warning; this situation is covered seriously during pre-game. Unlike boys, the girls may not acknowledge the warning, however, the message is taken aboard, by the team.
It may be worthy to note that the particular sanction issued is for reporting; many leagues-organisation have this requirement. In terms of game management, as soon as the team version is recognised, the acknowledgement is conveyed publically. Mine method is ... i know what is going on here ... better spread ... has almost always got the offending team modify their behaviour and pattern. Nip the persistence in the bud sort of. I also found that when the sanction is issued (po ub, whichever code) in the first half, the game then settles in. Not being a psychologist, cannot explain, however, it could be that the players know the threshold, so they get down to the business of playing.
9 yellow cards, yet only 1 2ct! Nearly everyone got a card to go home with. Now that’s a participation trophy!
A long time ago, I overheard a teenaged player, who was a ref, translate Persistent Infringement to his teammate as: "Too many fouls". The kid immediately knew what he was talking about. So, that's the phrase I use. I don't wait for them to ask, either. Card up. "Too many fouls." Everyone gets it.
Interestingly I set up a team this weekend for persistent fouling of a single player. He'd suffered 4 in about 20 minutes of the second half. While standing next to the kid, hand over head pointing down at him, "[Team Name], it is too many fouls on this player. It cannot continue!" Wouldn't you know it, he wasn't fouled again. My point is that we should set up the player(s) so they know what is coming. We want to modify the behavior of players with yellow cards, so why not try modify before we have to use a card? If we call them out on the persistence, maybe we can prevent it from continuing.
Absolutely. If you want to “control” a game, you are talking to players actively. A card for PI imo should not be a surprise, but a penultimate measure of control when your warnings and ass chewings are not getting the message across. If you go straight to a card without doing some man management first, you aren’t using your toolbox in the most effective way. In the OP, being more proactive (and perhaps an earlier card) could very well have saved the ref the tumult of the second half, and likely more soccer could have been played.
For newer refs: A common and effective way to communicate PO (that still just feels wrong...) to a player is to point at the spots where his fouls occurred as you talk to him--that visually informs the coach as well. The same can be done for "targeting" of a particular opponent. Doing this means it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention, not just the players who heard you talking.
You'd think so, right? Oh, wait, you qualified that with "paying attention"... Watching daughter's HS game from high in the stands and off to the side... They're playing lazy and fouling on every other challenge; seemed like 6 in 10 minutes. From my perch, even *I* hear the referee: "White team, you're fouling way too often! Too many fouls! Knock it off now!" Of course, less than 10 seconds later it's another careless trip from the side and I'm shaking my head... he YC's and again gestures why. Players are doing their "whut?? a yellow?? for that??" Typical parents' "what! that wasn't that bad!" then look towards me as usual (I can't spectate in peace)... I raise my hands, "He clearly warned them" and briefly explained "team" persistent infringement, but they weren't having any of it.. The very next day, different opponent and they do it all over again! (I ignored parents this time). However, a group of her teammates asked me about it afterwards and finally understood. But why they didn't get that from their coach is still a mystery...
The PO criteria, for me, is dependent on the level, age, and sex of the teams involved. Older boy groups at a good level. Two hard (ish) fouls in a short amount of time and the no more signal comes out.
I'm the same way. Older age groups, they know what they're doing. Second foul in a short amount of time gets a talking to with a signal for "no more". Next one, the YC comes out, along with pointing where the fouls occurred.
The only exception to the rule of not warning first is when the same player commits 2 or more fouls consecutively on the same play against one or more opponents. This is the only time I do not want and go straight for a yellow. I has happened in my boys games 2 times last season and this Saturday on a college game.