I know there is no formal definition of "persistent infringement" but I was wondering if some of you have a rule of thumb you use for PI bookings. 3 fouls of similar nature? A majority of the fouls in the game committed by the same person? Your insights are appreciated.
It's all ITOOTR. Two quick hard or clumsy fouls by themselves not quite a yellow can be persistent infringment. Sometimes it might be the fourth or fifth foul if they aren't too bad, and well spaced and of different types. It's when you realize it's time to do something about this player.
Jarrett, This is a good question and one faced by every new referee. It is a good illustration of why it is so important to separate that which is a foul, and is an expected part of the game, and that which is misconduct, and has no place in the game. Multiple fouls or infringements of the laws are expected, and when they occur, if the referee stops play, awards the restart to the opponent, then play goes on because it is acknowleged that this is sufficient punishment. There is no limit on how many offenses can be punished. Even if a player commits the same foul twenty times, as long as each instance is dealt with, there may be no misconduct. Multiple offenses only become misconduct when either a) they are not punished, b) they represent a pattern of fouls against an opponent, or c) they are tactical or cynical. Let me illustrate each. a) unpunished offenses - if a player continually tries to trip or hold an opponent, but the opponent keeps possession so you apply advantage or make no call, since the foul has no effect, it may be necessary, if the fouls continue after a warning, to caution the offender at the next stoppage. b) a pattern of fouls - when a team singles out a oarticular player, usually a star, to foul repeatedly so they cannot participate in an attack, etc. this is misconduct. Warn them and let them know that if you see another foul on this player the perp will recieve a caution. c) tactical or cynical - repeated encroachment, particualry at a PK, a pattern of timewasting when a team is ahead. Here again, warn them and if they persist, book-em. Note that in each example, either there was no restart to re-establish fairness (a no call or play on) or the restart was of no consequence to the objective of the fouls, and that the team or players were warned or put on notice that the pattern of offeneses must stop. It was not the individual act but the continued, cynical, pattern which violated the spirt of the game.
I'm particularly interested in this one as it came up over the weekend. I had U14 boys game that was a real tinderbox. I had one boy in particular that was attempting to play with a high boot on several occassions and also made a few bad slide tackles with studs up. But on each and every occassion, I did not stop play because he missed entirely with his slide tackles and there was no significant contact on the dangerous plays. Plus his opponent always seemed to end up with the advantage (I guess we conclude from this that he wasn't very skilled as he couldn't even commit a good foul ) Several times I mentioned "Watch the high boot" or "That was a studs up challenge" as we ran down the field but of course each time he said "But I didn't even touch him!" I was contemplating carding him for PI but wasn't sure if this was appropriate since I hadn't even called a foul on him yet. I can see from your explanation that by the third or fourth time I should have booked him. Thanks, Jarrett
You could have, not "should" have. Before you pull the plastic, consider the following: What I am saying is that unless you need the caution, keep the cards in your pocket. Sherman
It's my firm belief you can do virtually any youth game (by youth I mean U15 and below, U16 and up and they start playing more like adults) without the need for a single card. There is always something, SOMETHING the referee can do that will make the youth alter his behavior or outlook on the game without simply holding up a yellow-colored piece of plastic. Find out what that something is and you're set for life.
I once got a similar comment from a player who said the same thing after I warned him for what would have been a foul but he missed the opponent completely. My reply was, "And it's a good thing you missed him, or you'd have been in trouble!" Remember that kicking, tripping or striking can all be fouls even if merely attempted; they don't actually need to connect. So a player like this can still be called for a foul or two, if you think it will moderate their behavior before you have to pull out the plastic.
I concur for the average infraction. However even U-12s are capable of suddenly taking a swing at someone without any particular trend to alert the ref to the brewing brouhaha. And then you will be making a petrochemical play for your pocket. Jim
U12's don't just suddenly take a swing at someone, there has to be something inciting them to do so whether it be frustration or retaliation, etc. My belief is that the ideal referee would take notice of the inciting factor no matter how small and offer some action to alter the child's behavior before an incident occurs calling for a card. Ideally speaking, of course.
I think the word "virtually" was key to your point. The minute we say that we would never caution or send-off in a U12, out will pop an 11 year old sociopath with a chip on his shoulder who we can't book fast enough. But this is the rarest of exceptions. I think the most compelling reason for making every possible effort to manage the younger age game without cards is that we must not condition the players to accept them as the normal consequence for clumsy or enthusiastic fouls, which do not rise to the level of misconduct. If we use our cards for trivial behavior, what do we have left when something serious does come along? Another, maybe even more compelling reason to hold back on your cards at the younger age groups, is that, unless it is absolutely necessary and everyone recognizes that the player has earned that punishment and you have no other choice, standing in front of someone half your size,while holding a piece of colored plastic over your head can make you look like a total boob. If undeserved (and this applies to all levels), the use of cards undermines not only your own authority, but that of every other referee. We must not condition players that cards are an expcected consequence of play. On the other hand (and this also applies at all levels), when it is obvious that the misconduct must be punished and no other choice is available, then the the referee's use of cards makes him a hero, and builds not only is own credibility but the stature of all other referees.
Heros I wasn't speaking for myself, either. This was for those aspiring "Ideal" referees that Statesman was referring to. Actually, there is quite a lot of courage involved in refereeing. I see it particularly in the young referees who make the tough decisions, often unpopular with parents and coaches. Sometimes the greatest courage is shown for a no-call for accidental handling. It does not always have to be something dramatic like dismissing a coach.
Statesmanship Hmmm. There are some cynical little teams out there (often, the very good teams, made up of kids who have seen a lot of adult soccer and who know how the game is played) -- teams that at U10/U11 are routinely taking down attackers if they beat the defender, who are shoving & trash talking opponents when they think the referee isn't looking, who are grabbing shorts, who are coming in with two-footed tackles. Maybe a well-chosen word or other noncard tactic will work on these kids ... just as a well-chosen word might work on adults. And I agree, a card shouldn't be the first option. But as far as I'm concerned, these cynical little teams act like adult teams, and should be treated in the same fashion. Let's put it this way, when my 9-year-old's nose was nearly broken by an elbow that was thrown into his face in minute 55 of what turned out to be a 60-minute hackfest, it weren't no accident. And the kid who threw it sure didn't have to think twice, since no card had been given up to that point. And indeed, no card was given for that play either.
What do you think the referee could have done to prevent the "hackfest" from ensuing outside of reaching for his cards, John?
Persistent infringement You may want to check out the new CD produced by USSF and done by Esse Baharmast. It is an excellent presentation with Esse's comments, discussion and video examples. I would highly recommend it. Have fun on the pitch.
Persisting in Infringing get the new presentation from Esse. Its one of the best, most precise videos that has come down the pipe in YEARS. Excellent coverage of most of the fine points. Very well done
Re: Persisting in Infringing If a player fouls an opponent on 3 occasions by an offense that warrants no caution, that's persisstant infringment. I normally go by a "3 strikes and your out" rule. When cautioning someone for PF, I tell them that's what it's for and use my fingers to show 1,2,3. That way they know right away they have been cautioned for 3 fouls.