team tactic yellow for Persistant infringement then RED?

If after the third foul, a referee thinks it's PI, then that player should be cautioned. If another player fouls this attacker, that defender should be cautioned too. The referee should keep cautioning until the team gets the message. I don't think there's anyway to justify a red to a player for a team tactic if a) this player wasn't cautioned already and b) the offense wasn't worthy of a red on it's own.

After the first card, the referee is going to make it clear why the card is being issued, if it takes every player on a team being cautioned in the first 20 minutes for them to get the message, then so be it. The key here is communication. If the players know the referee is serious and understand why cautions are being issued, it'll stop. Jumping to a red will likely cause more problems for the referee than it'll solve.

 

Originally posted by Grizzlierbear
... Can you yellow card for PI?...

Yes

... Could you go to a red card as a second caution if the player is fouled by a fourth player ... Does the 4th foul upgrade to SFP or could we consider the fouling now as VC?

No, you can't treat it as a 2nd caution sendoff. If you view it as a continuation of the team's PI, it would be a caution to this specific player. Of course it could be a straight sendoff if the circumstances of the individual foul dictated it, for example a hack to the back of the legs.

 

As a player and coach I would say that a team would never as a tactic decide to foul the same player repeatedly. What might be said is that this player is very important to the other team's success and he should not be allowed any time on the ball and that he should be tackled 'hard'. Players might also be told not to worry if they give up a foul (not in a dangerous area of the field of course) due to mis-timed tackle.
If a player is so good that he is given this type of attention often players will miss the ball and foul a player unintentionally.
Before giving a player a yellow card for a first foul that does not in itself warrant a yellow card I think a referee should issue a verbal warning to the fouling player and also to the team captain. I think often referees don't understand the impact they can have on players by simply telling them that they understand what they are doing and telling them that it will not be tolerated. A yellow card is not always necessary to get this message across.

 

Originally posted by Bizzo:
"As a player and coach I would say that a team would never as a tactic decide to foul the same player repeatedly. ..."

Unfortunately not all players and coaches are as sporting as you are.

Originally posted by Bizzo: " ... What might be said is that this player is very important to the other team's success and he should not be allowed any time on the ball and that he should be tackled 'hard'. Players might also be told not to worry if they give up a foul (not in a dangerous area of the field of course) due to mis-timed tackle. If a player is so good that he is given this type of attention often players will miss the ball and foul a player unintentionally..."

That's often how the situation develops. The players need to understand that they must still maintain control - they aren't held to a lesser standard of care when dealing with a superior player. In fact, we're told by Esse et al that we have a specific obligation to protect these skilled players.

Originally posted by Bizzo: "... Before giving a player a yellow card for a first foul that does not in itself warrant a yellow card I think a referee should issue a verbal warning to the fouling player and also to the team captain. I think often referees don't understand the impact they can have on players by simply telling them that they understand what they are doing and telling them that it will not be tolerated. A yellow card is not always necessary to get this message across."

Good advice for many situations. Also don't forget that the caution itself should be viewed as a tool to correct inappropriate behavior, not to punish it. Unfortunately, many leagues have imposed administrative sanctions that make a caution something other than what it is supposed to be.

 

Hey Griz, good question.

This is exactly how one should apply PI and what distinguishes repetitive offenses which are not misconduct, such as just being unlucky or clumsy, from cynical /tactical misconduct which has no place in the game. PI is specifically appropriate to team fouls.

So absolutely, you can caution and show a yellow card to a player in your first situation, however, it is usually a good idea, once you recognize the pattern, to put eveyone on notice that this behavior has reached its limit.

Then if it persists, which is unlikely but does happen, you are kind of forced to caution every subsequent infringment on that player, but in my experinece, those already cautioned rarely go in for a second bite.

You cannot, however, send-off and show the red card to a second offender, as a second cautionable offense, if it was not they who had individually recieved the first cautionable offense. You just have to keep showing the gold, booking the players, and make sure you don't lose track of who you book.

Fouls do not upgrade or escalate, regradless of how thin this wears our patience. The whole idea of restarting is that we deal with the foul or misconduct, restart play, and this wipes the slate clean as far as the game is concerned. The fourth foul, or fortieth incidence of a foul it is still the same offense, and the punishment and restart are the same.

We deal with what happens. This is why it is so important to understand that fouls and misconduct must be judged independently. For example, we often see PI occur when no fouls are called because the are trifling. This is common when you have a very talented player and the opponents gang up on him or her, but their attempts are of no effect, or we apply APO. When you see this, you might caution at the next stoppage.

A careless foul does not, through repetition, become SFP or VC. Never. We must deal only ith what happens out there and get on with the game giving every player an equal chance to contest for the ball, without unfairly restricting any players efforts.

 

This same EXACT scenario came up in our advanced clinic last summer. Instructor answered exactly as others here have -- you can yellow card every player on the pitch for PI for each and every foul after your first PI card, but you can't red card anyone until they individually get a second card.

 

This is ONE CORRECT interpretation of LOTG. But is it the only one?

When the CUMULATIVE EFFECT of all these fouls is painful to the victim, it can be said that he is the victim of intentional violence, metered out slowly. The culprit team has indeed schemed against the victim. So when the cumulative effect reaches a certain level, I think that the referee could be justified in deciding that the next (or current) foul is intentional violence. And that is VC.

If we really did have 11 fouls such as hefty charges, trips, tackles, etc. plus one or two "starters" before the referee decided it were PI, what would the victim think? In his eyes (and accurately I think), he is experiencing a series of painful fouls (intentional violence) that is metered out slowly. And the referee isn't doing much to protect him. In such a case, I think that the referee has to be able to decide "VC, no more!"

I recall hearing of an incident when Esse, after issuing three PI cautions, just tossed his yellow card away in front of the players - he would finish the match with just his red card. There was no more PI.

 

That's a classic. It would be great to see the expression on the players' faces to see him to that and then to watch it slowly dawn on them what it meant.

 

I am sorry, but escalatiing a caution to a red goes beyond creative officiating. If a referee I assigned ever abused his/or her authority in such a manner they would be dropped from my list of eligible officials. If their game managment skills are so bad, that they cannot enforce the laws without breaking them themselves, then they have no business on the pitch, at any level of play.

As to your Baharmast story, which, as a note I have heard attributed to more than one other official, many referees, myself included, carry more than one set of cards. There is the set in our data wallet and the ones we carry in our pockets. If a referee, in fact, made such a demonstration, it was more as a means of demonstrating to the players that they had crossed a line, than it that he was depriving himself of the ability to caution.

 

I'm not sure which leagues you referee, but in the leagues I referee in, every caution or send off must be documented on the match report and the governing body notified in writing as to the details of the offense( some allow email, some have forms available online). What would you document as being the justification for a red, if the player had not himself committed SFP or VC in the instance he received the send off?
The governing bodies I submit these reports to would not accept the fact that it was other player's actions that affected my decision to send a player off. If he's carrying a yellow, and commits another foul worthy of a yellow, he gets the yellow then the red.
If it's his first shot at the player, even if there have been 10 prior fouls to the same player, he gets a yellow. We issue cautions and send offs to a player, not to a team. If, however, I had just given the last clean player on that team a yellow, I might be heard to say that there would be no more need for the yellow card against their team.
I also might just decide that the jersey pocket would be a much better location for the red card than the pocket in my shorts where I ususlly keep it. And, the transfer of that card from one pocket to the other might just be done in plain view of the offending players and their coach.
I'd imagine that the coach would not like to see that his players will be shown the sideline quick, fast, and in rapid succession, and change his players' tactics pretty quickly.
Seriously, though, I hope I never encounter that in a game, as it would seriously try my patience, and after about the 4th or 5th foul on that player, I would be having a conversation with the coach.

 

And what would you say to the coach?

 

Great discussion, and timely as PI was the point of emphasis at recertification this December. Now we know you can't just upgrade to a red to get the point across, but say you've given a couple of yellows, and gathered the players and coach and told them that this behavior will not be tolerated. If that player was fouled again, by yet another player on the offending team, couldn't you at that point, having given the team ample warning, give the player a yellow for PI, then another for dissent or USB?

 

pkCrouse has obviously seen Esse's new USSF presentation on "Persistent Infringment." We present it at every recertification we teach, and I've done three so far, so I'm getting familiar with the presentation. It's excellent, and does a great job of selling the concept of just a few fouls or fouls by different players on the same player, as PI. Unfortunately it is slides, and video, with Esse narrating, so you can't download it off USSF.

 

It really is a nice half-hour presentation, isn't it Keith? Worth the $15 expenditure for every local chapter's library, I think. In addition to its value specifically for instruction on dealing with PI, it works well as a part of any Law 12 presentation at the intermediate level. Esse's commentary about the need for every referee to treat every young player as a potential Donovan is also a great motivator for newly certified referees to hear. Helps to counter that "oh I'm just a lowly grade 8 doing U-10 division 3 rec games" mentality.

Paul

 

I don't see how there can be a double yellow. There is only one action for which there can be only one caution, regardless of how many just causes.

However, you lead into an aspect that seems to have been omitted from this thread - USB. The original two or three fouls directed at a particular opponent were deemed to be insufficient (not nasty enough) for USB. Once the threat (or card) for PI has been given, what is to prevent the culprit team from reasoning as follows?
1. A card for PI is a caution.
2. A card for USB is a caution.
3. I can be more nasty and still get only one caution!

Whipple previously talked about crossing a line. Does not escalation of the fouls to a higher level (but still not ordinarily SFP/VC) call for some escalation by the referee? If so, what is that level? Does it get preceded by a warning of some kind?

 

Of course it's preceded by a warning. You would have to have the players and coaches know that this will not be tolerated anymore. But your thing about how the guy might reason he can get only a caution is exactly what I'm trying to eliminate. After you've given an "order", like, I won't allow this behavior to continue, can't you card people for disobeying this "order" in addition to the continual infringment of the laws?

 

At any level outside of professional, repeated attacks against a single player by a team would warrant the game being terminated. If you've cuationed a couple guys for team tactic PI already and told them enough is enough, only to have them persist, then that game should be over and disciplinary reports filed.

 

Re: Re: team tactic yellow for Persistant infringement then RED?

Sorry for the delay. The coach is the first point of contact for unacceptable team tactics, a quick notification that USB will not be tolerated is usually enough to have him rethinking the team's tactics.
This is, after all, a team tactic, not an individual's tactic, and if he believes that players will be carded, he will change the behavior. Especially, in the case of the leagues I do, when the administrators keep track of cautions issued throughout the season, and hand out suspensions for accumulations.