The Ref Stop

'Double Jeopardy'/Persistent fouls crossover

I was a fourth official in a club State Cup game on Saturday afternoon. The center in that game used a line that I thought worked well in this context.

"5, I don't want to have to talk to you again about that."

I've never been a fan of the line, "One more foul and you're in the book." It paints you into a corner. The line I usually use is something like, "We don't need any more of that, (number)." For both my standard line and the one the center used on Saturday, I feel like they get the message across that you aren't going to tolerate more fouls like that, but you don't get stuck in the "one more foul" line.

Regarding a caution for persistent fouling on just the second foul - I think it's justified if the fouls are both more than just your standard careless foul. I had a game a couple of years ago where a player committed a hard foul and I gave him a very loud and public talking to. The entire field knew I wasn't happy. Less then 45 seconds later, the same player committed a foul going through the back of the opponent. I cautioned and gave my standard "point to the spot of the other foul" motion to show it was for persistence. His coach gave me the expected line of, "But that was only his second one!" My response was that he committed two hard fouls within a minute of each other and that persistence doesn't have a minimum foul count. He didn't like the call, but he stopped arguing.
 
The Ref Stop
Just a minor add on. I agree about not painting oneself in the corner on PI warnings (or any other warnings for that matter). My add on is that when warning for PI, it is valuable to point to the spots of the prior fouls. That communicates to everyone that you are aware of what is happening on the field and also means that the bench won't be surprised when a PI card comes out a few minutes later, as the nature of the warning was clear.
 
Agree with above. I think you do also need to make it clear what the possible outcome is.
I tend to say, "you've committed x amount of fouls now," pointing to the areas they were committed, "which means you are now on my radar, if the fouls keep happening, you are running the risk of a yellow card for persistent offences".
But, if I am giving a Last warning, I'll make that clear with a cutting signal as I tell the player he is in last chance saloon, and if I do that he will pretty much always get a yellow for his next foul.
 
What he should be doing is asking you after the game to confirm each of the cautions, and once you told him it was for PI rather than SPA he shouldn't even be raising it.

You can help to sell the decision by pointing back at the previous foul locations before showing the yellow card.
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
What he should be doing is asking you after the game to confirm each of the cautions, and once you told him it was for PI rather than SFP he shouldn't even be raising it.

You can help to sell the decision by pointing back at the previous foul locations before showing the yellow card.
Click to expand...
Agree with this 100%. He's absolutely right to be concerned that you've booked for SPA when you shouldn't have. As soon as you clarify it was for PI, as long as he's happy with that being the case (ie you haven't gone too early on that or mixed up two players), that should be the end of it.
 
Disagree. A big part of assesment is giving feedback so that the referee becomes a better referee. That for me is more important than the mark.

So if the reason given is PO then that the end of any dispute for application of law. However from a game management point of view I would still like to discuss and give some other options on how the incident, and the game as a whole in the context of that incident could have been managed.

Take the discussion on this thread for example. He may not agree with my suggestion of not cautioning for PO on that specific foul but the discussion lead to another area we all agreed he can improve on (not backing yourself into a corner). This would not have been possible if I had just said "it's for PO, all good, let's move on".

@RustyRef I certainly hope you more than just caution for SFP 😝
 
one said:
Disagree. A big part of assesment is giving feedback so that the referee becomes a better referee. That for me is more important than the mark.

So if the reason given is PO then that the end of any dispute for application of law. However from a game management point of view I would still like to discuss and give some other options on how the incident, and the game as a whole in the context of that incident could have been managed.

Take the discussion on this thread for example. He may not agree with my suggestion of not cautioning for PO on that specific foul but the discussion lead to another area we all agreed he can improve on (not backing yourself into a corner). This would not have been possible if I had just said "it's for PO, all good, let's move on".

@RustyRef I certainly hope you more than just caution for SFP 😝
Click to expand...
Maybe you have a point here. But 1) You're guessing as to what happened and 2) none of this has any relation to what the assessor in this situation was actually saying. Maybe there's room for some game management reflection. But that's optional, and also, requires a correct understanding of law and how that relates to the situation in order to be correct. In a situation where the assessor is starting with a misunderstanding of what's going on, it's asking a lot to expect them to immediately pivot into useful game management advice around one situation when they were all prepared to discuss what they thought was a different mistake in law!
 
Quarterback Punk said:
I think you make good points. From my game management point of view, I had told him "that's a few now, next one goes in the book", 30 seconds or so prior. Maybe I need to be more specific with that.
Click to expand...
We had a good little discussion about this a short while ago - there might be some handy hints here for dealing with these kinds of game management issues: 'one of those games'
 
one said:
Disagree. A big part of assesment is giving feedback so that the referee becomes a better referee. That for me is more important than the mark.

So if the reason given is PO then that the end of any dispute for application of law. However from a game management point of view I would still like to discuss and give some other options on how the incident, and the game as a whole in the context of that incident could have been managed.

Take the discussion on this thread for example. He may not agree with my suggestion of not cautioning for PO on that specific foul but the discussion lead to another area we all agreed he can improve on (not backing yourself into a corner). This would not have been possible if I had just said "it's for PO, all good, let's move on".

@RustyRef I certainly hope you more than just caution for SFP 😝
Click to expand...

Trying to do too many things at one, corrected :)

The discussion is fine, but I wouldn't want to see an observer / assessor suggesting a decision was incorrect until he knew exactly why the referee had made that decision. If I was then told the caution was for PI I would fully support that, but then explain that he needed to make that more clear to everyone. It is very common that I've written something down for a caution and the referee says something different, most usually SPA and RP. But the key thing is I want to know the referee's thought process in terms of how he or she came to that decision, especially at lower levels.
 
Had an observer go through a penalty incident after the new law come in. First he wanted to know why it wasn't DOGSO; Told him number of defenders etc, he agreed.
Then he wanted to discuss SPA; told him hadn't cautioned due to the new law it was a careless challenge and an attempt for the ball etc. He, seemingly, agreed.

The player was already on a yellow, so got done for a missed second yellow as well.

"
Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence

As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions
agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the
attempt to gain the ball by the number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for
the recklessness of the challenge."
 
bester said:
Had an observer go through a penalty incident after the new law come in. First he wanted to know why it wasn't DOGSO; Told him number of defenders etc, he agreed.
Then he wanted to discuss SPA; told him hadn't cautioned due to the new law it was a careless challenge and an attempt for the ball etc. He, seemingly, agreed.

The player was already on a yellow, so got done for a missed second yellow as well.

"
Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence

As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions
agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the
attempt to gain the ball by the number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for
the recklessness of the challenge."
Click to expand...

That comment is correct though, you can't caution for SPA on a penalty if it was an attempt for the ball, but that doesn't mean there can't be a caution for reckless. He's made sure that his report is watertight by using the word recklessness in that developmental advice section.
 
RustyRef said:
That comment is correct though, you can't caution for SPA on a penalty if it was an attempt for the ball, but that doesn't mean there can't be a caution for reckless. He's made sure that his report is watertight by using the word recklessness in that developmental advice section.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% certain he didn't know the law and thought he'd got me on a missed SPA. Notorious assassin. Was a textbook careless challenge.
 
bester said:
I'm 100% certain he didn't know the law and thought he'd got me on a missed SPA. Notorious assassin. Was a textbook careless challenge.
Click to expand...

He should have used the word reckless in the debrief if he was going to put it in the report as a missed caution. Would be your word against his thought so ultimately not a lot you could have done about it.
 
one said:
My go-to is "one more and I will take serious action". My serious action could just be a much harsher bollocking or a yellow. It allows me some flexibility.
Click to expand...
"I will take serious action"?

Is it just me or does that risk sounding a bit Captain Mainwaring?

For me, just "I'm counting..."

And I wouldn't follow it up with the assessor next time... it's a sleeping dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top