I was the ref for a u13b competitive game. In the second half, I cautioned a player for a late sliding tackle which tripped the opponent, after the ball was gone (USB for reckless tackle). As I'm recording the details, I think to myself, "Hmm, this player has just about hit the limit for persistent infringement. Now what to do?" I decided to say nothing at that point. Maybe having gotten a caution he would calm down. But if he committed even the slightest infraction after that, I was going to have a good chat with him, indicating that he was almost gone. One more foul was going to do it. As it turned out, this player did not commit any more fouls. That might not have been solely because of the caution. His team was down by 2, and we had reached the time in the game where the intensity of play and emotions changed from despiration to resignation. Also, his coach pulled him from the game for a significant amount of the remaining time - whether in response to the caution or simply because his rotation was up, I don't know. But what if I had spoken to him earlier, warning him that he was fouling too much and that a caution was possible? Then he comes in with this reckless challenge - two yellows at once, = red?
First off, your main question -- I would never give two cautions at once for a single act (that being the latest foul). Pick one when he makes that latest foul -- if the foul is on the severe side, you can definitely go either way, UB or PI. Not that severe, book him for PI. In your situation, it doesn't really matter how you record the caution. I have warned a few players that they were fouling too much and they were walking a line toward a caution for PI. At the younger ages and less sophisticated levels, the players didn't have a clue what I was talking about. At the higher levels (either age or level of play), they understood and settled down. At the younger ages, you MIGHT mention it to the coach, but that can backfire. Try mentioning that they are committing too many fouls and you want them to settle down some -- without mention of the caution or why it would be a caution and you'll probably be more effective. That's probably the mistake I was making with my warnings to the lower levels -- I was making it too 'technical'.
Several months ago Jim Allen in Ask-A-Ref had said that this is within LOTG. In a recent private communication he said [almost] never do it.
Re: Re: USB and PI concurrently? Gotta love the 2 sided answer. Of course, the useful one was sent in private, so you (and now us) are the only ones that know this suggestion now.
Re: Re: Re: USB and PI concurrently? Mr Allen's required to state on his site what's allowed or not as per FIFA and USSF. He's not going to give out what he personally thinks are tough calls to sell,etc. Since it's perfectly within the bounds of the LOTG to give a caution for usb and PI for one offense, he gave, as he usually does, the correct answer. Suppose a player had been carelessly tripping 5-6 times and you warned him the next one would be a caution for PI. Then 2 minutes later, he does the same thing only this time recklessly. Caution for USB, caution for PI, send -off. All within the Law and I could easily see it being done although it would be rare, as Mr Allen suggests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: USB and PI concurrently? Ok this is a pet peeve of mine about recert clinics and things like this. I can read the book people!! I do not need to have the book read to me for an entire day and the obvious stated to me (which is basically what happens at recertification clinics). I just do not feel the "book" answer helps people, especially older intermediate referees like myself. I want to know what *should* be done, not what the book tells me to do, especially since it appears to me that there are a number of "should" vs. "law" rules out there (for example, PKs, this law, certain challanges). Or at least when answering this type of question in a public arena as he does, give both answers... "While I do not advise the intelligent referee to give 2 yellows on the same play, the letter of the law states that you can". I have just noticed when reading those "Ask a Referee" answers, they seem very bueracratic and wishy-washy, which like you said may be to due to the fact that he is forced to give the canned answer out. I guess I just find the lack of "real world" answers very annoying and feel that if the USSF wants to help referees develop, they should provide a bit more guidance. Shoot, I have never been able to find a class that deals with game management and situations that a Grade 8 such as myself can take, and the best I can do is books on refereeing and learning things on my own as I make mistakes during matches, not the way I like to learn. Ok I'm getting off my soap-box now .
off topic, but This is guidance. This is a "real world" answer. When considering the "book" answer vs. the "game" answer there are many shades of gray. A general rule of thumb, the younger the players or the less experienced the referee, err on the side of a stict interpretation of the LOTG. The older the players and the more experienced the referee, give more emphasis to "V8". Soccer ref'ing is real-time computing. What is considered when you make a decision is the LOTG and the myriad actions in this game. Maybe you need to factor in the history of the teams or the effect on standings. Then all of that is filtered through your experience as a referee before you call (or don't call) a foul or card (or not) a player. We all can learn from our successes and mistakes. Some of us can learn from the successes and mistakes of others, which is where this forum, SOCREF-L, etc. come in handy. It is one of the hardest things to accept that there may be several right answers. Every game is different. Don't expect to be able to come up with a soccer equivalent of the Pythogorean Theorem to apply in all cases. (Even the Pyth.Th. only works when you have a right angle. )
Yes sorry I went off topic, but I thought it did apply to the original question. I understand that much is soccer is gray, I guess I just feel "stupid" when I do certain things by the book and a more experienced referee goes "Why the heck did you do that??". I guess before I found this little site, I was never able to hear about other more "seasoned" referee's experiences, and just heard "The book says this are the penal fouls...etc". I mean, if the original poster got the answer that was given publically on the USSF site, he would continue to go on doing that without any thought into the matter (well I know I would if I got that answer). However, according to the private reply, more experienced referee's know that one should not do this. This is why I would prefer the book answer ALONG with the "game situation" suggestion to most questions. I know every situation is different, but I just like to hear a variety of interpretations on a situation so when I come across that same situation, I know which decisions are the accepted ones and which decisions are looked upon as "silly". Ok, I won't drag this any farther off topic .
Sticking very close to the book answer is usually the best bet. Too many newer referees look for ways to demonstrate their creative management skills. That said, there are a few 'by the book' answers you'd never expect to apply and deserve a little more in depth answer. And doing so would seem to involve little risk in many situations. Example: sending a player off for DOGSO on a violation punishable by an indirect free kick. On one board, someone wanted examples of why someone might be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity for an offense punishable by an indirect free kick, then criticized those that replied for coming up with such improbable examples - well, duh, it's pretty improbable that the average referee is going to see a situation where it would be appropriate to send off a player for DOGSO on an indirect free kick violation. By the way, the Pythagorean theorem may only work for right angles, but it does work in an infinite number of dimensions (2-D, 3-D, 4-D, even in the Fifth Dimension)
That one is easy. You cannot send off a player for DOGSO when the offence is only punishable by an IFK. Crowdie
This question was in my recent exam so I'll fire this one back at Statesman: Describe a situation where an IFK offence is a DOGSO situation. Crowdie
Scenario A: Cross coming into the penalty area from an attacker to his teammate. Only one defender and the keeper stand between him and the back of the net. The cross is set up at the perfect level to be deflected off a header for a goal. The attacker goes in with the head and it is clear he will win the ball and essentially score. The defender isn't aware the attacker will win the ball and attempts to kick the ball. The attacker flinches and turns away rather than receive a broken nose, the ball sails past. No contact is made between the players. Scenario B: The keeper has unsuccessfuly come off his line and the goal is exposed. The attacker going for goal slides the ball around the keeper for an easy score, but doesn't place much power on the ball. An alert defender slides and captures the ball between his legs to prevent the goal. Instead of releasing the ball, he remains on the ground pinning the ball. An attacker on the followup would have secured the goal once the defender got up had he done so. The defender is playing in a dangerous manner, and through his action has denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Scenario C (has yet to have official interpretation by FIFA): Attacker one on one with the keeper chips the ball for a sure-fire goal. The keeper had removed one of his gloves for adjustment. The keeper throws the glove at the ball with sufficient force to knock it off its path and deny the goal. USSF even released a position paper specifically reminding US refs that DOGSO does not solely occur through DFK offenses. The Law itself reads: "Denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick." The law does not limit this to direct free kicks. Happy to oblige.
Scenario A: Defender is guilty of dangerous play and attempting to kick the attacker. I would issue the DFK for the attempting to kick a player (this and little hacks from behind are two of my personal pet hates). Scenario B: Where is the keeper when the defender lies on the ball? Scenario C: Statesman when you can come up with scenarios like this one I think it is time you got out more The chipped ball would have to be moving so slowly for a keeper's glove to affect it. My younger brother has a Masters degree in physics so I have passed this one onto him. On the USSF front it will be interesting how much longer they continue to issue "interpretations" on the LOTG after the FIFA referee's board (it is almost midnight here so I can't remember their official name) issued the ruling that no body, apart from themselves, is allowed to issue interpretations or rulings on the LOTG. Crowdie
Another example: Indirect free kick from the 6, all of the defenders lined up on the goal line. A defender (not the goalkeeper) pushes off the shoulders of his team mates to head a legal shot over the crossbar. I used to argue the omission of direct free kick from the DOGSO clause was simply an oversight and used to cite the Italian version of the laws as better guidance, since they used to specifically state it had to be a direct free kick offense DOGSO. Alas, I post that as my selling argument and, less than a month later (around Jan 2002), they delete the word 'direct' from the Italian version of the laws. I never did get a definitive answer back from Jim Allen when I subsequently asked him this particular question. Instead, he referred me to the keeper throwing the glove, shoe, shinguard question, which was a send-off for an indirect free kick offense.
Bob that is a phenomenal example I hadn't heard or thought of before -- thank you for sharing it with us!
I agree. These are all great examples. I have sent them off to some senior referees here to get their view. Crowdie.
IIRC, it's the official opinion of USSF that an IFK offense (such as dangerous play) could qualify as DOGSO. It would be rare, but not impossible. It's a different question about a non-foul caution for which play is stopped - the restart is an IFK. That's what these examples are - throwing objects to stop the ball, climbing a teammate's shoulders for height, etc. The question is whether the caution can be "upgraded" into a DOGSO send-off. My understanding is that USSF asked FIFA/IFAB and has not yet gotten a response (perhaps it was 2-3 years ago now) and that the interim USSF answer is yes.