Persistent infringement
- Thread starter J79
- Start date
Yeah, you're spot on with that - the wording specifically gives room for interpretation so you can apply it appropriately where necessary for match control. Things I consider include: the severity of the various fouls, how close together in terms of time the fouls are (i.e. I'm much more likely to caution a player who commits 3 fouls in 10 minutes instead of the same 3 fouls over 80 minutes), and also whether or not I have warned the player before about their persistent infringement potentially leading to a caution. Even if a player has only committed 2 fouls, it can often be beneficial, in my experience, to show to other players that you are at least aware of this, and that they won't be getting away with it - a stern talking too along the lines of 'right, that's two fouls now - any more of that and I may have to caution you'. But like I said at the beginning, it's entirely open to interpretation, and as long as you don't let a ridiculous amount go unpunished, it's a very useful tool for match control.
You need to try and keep a mental tally of who has fouled who, which isn't easy. The key thing is that no player should ever be cautioned for PI without first having been told, publicly, that they are sailing close to the wind. You need to set them up for a fall, so that when they transgress again no one can say that they weren't warned.
How many fouls constitutes PI depends on the nature of the game. A player committing 3 fouls in a half where there were 20 fouls in total probably won't be standing out, whereas if there were only 8 fouls in that half you would have to ask how one player had committed nearly 40% of them. I assessed someone once where he eventually cautioned someone for PI in the second half, but my comment after was that given he had committed 8 out of the 19 fouls awarded to that point he perhaps should have been spoken to earlier, as this might have calmed him down.
How many fouls constitutes PI depends on the nature of the game. A player committing 3 fouls in a half where there were 20 fouls in total probably won't be standing out, whereas if there were only 8 fouls in that half you would have to ask how one player had committed nearly 40% of them. I assessed someone once where he eventually cautioned someone for PI in the second half, but my comment after was that given he had committed 8 out of the 19 fouls awarded to that point he perhaps should have been spoken to earlier, as this might have calmed him down.
Thanks. Warning before indeed seems crucial, they should maybe even explicitly add that to the rule (that you can't book for persistent infingement unless there has been a clear warning before).
I prefer alexgr's criteria/sugestions over RustyRef's. Don't think you should look at the relation between individual and team fouls.
Are there stats about how many (%) bookings there are given for "persistent infringement"? Seems referees rarely explicitly mention it in a their match report, probably just mentioning the "last" foul.
I prefer alexgr's criteria/sugestions over RustyRef's. Don't think you should look at the relation between individual and team fouls.
Are there stats about how many (%) bookings there are given for "persistent infringement"? Seems referees rarely explicitly mention it in a their match report, probably just mentioning the "last" foul.
Last edited:
You have to look at teams fouls to an extent, and it is fairly common to see a player pick up a yellow for a fairly minor foul because of fouls that opponents have made previously, especially if the fouls are being made against the same on or two players. You see it a lot with Barcelona where opponents target Messi and Neymar to try and stop them getting into their stride. If they are clever enough to get multiple players to commit these fouls the referee needs to be aware and deal with it.
Now that's absolutely true. That you sometimes see that a referee uses the "persistent infringement" rule so to say on a team level (although according to the rules, you'd have to interprete it on an individual level). 3-4 fouls (not worthy of a booking) by different players in a short period of time, then the next player who makes a foul gets the yellow (even if the foul itself is not a bookable offence).
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Carded a u13s player last season due to persistent infringement by the team. First foul in hindsight was probably worthy of a yellow in it's own right, but let the kid off with a repremand. Within a few minutes the team committed a couple more fouls, not unnecessarily yellows in their own right, gave team a public warning to calm it down as they were treading on thin ice. Within 30 seconds another fairly petty trip by the same team. Called player over and told him he could thank his team mates for the card.
Probably had the desired effect as they didn't commit another foul for the rest of the game.
Probably had the desired effect as they didn't commit another foul for the rest of the game.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think I have mentioned before that the now-discontinued USSF "Advice to Referees" was for me, very much of a "curate's egg" (although in the generally-used sense rather than the proper sense). This was one of the parts that I thought they did get right - at the end of their section on persistent infringement they had the following:
.
Not sure I'd agree with that. One player in 22 committing 15% of fouls would be getting into PI territory for me.
That's an interesting, perhaps controversial, approach. It's certainly frustrating to me (and opponents) when there are a number of minor fouls but committed by different players. In my pre match talk I usually warn players that if they see me talking to a team mate or opponent they should consider it as a warning themselves that I'm getting into caution territory.
And it has perhaps proved my point tonight. Man Utd were kicking lumps out of Hazard, and after Phil Jones fouled him he calls in Jones and Chris Smalling as the captain to make it clear it has to stop. Then straight from the restart Herrera chops Hazard down again so off he goes, having already had a caution for earlier taking out Hazard. That was a classic persistent infringement by the team.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
it was blatantly obvious exactly what was being explained last night to Jones / Smalling ... so i cant see what the protest from either Herrera or Smalling could have been ?
deusex
RefChat Addict
Kicking lumps?
Fouled 3 times in 35 mins? (First being a nothing foul, the 2nd not even being a foul and the 3rd being bundled over by Jones)
Is he okay?
Blatantly obvious for us on TV who watched the entire thing, but if you're a Man United player you've seen Jones commit a foul and the referee speak to Jones and Smalling. And that's if you've seen it. Guarantee that the other United players were having a chat, talking to Mourinho, had their back turned etc when Jones was getting a talking to.
Not saying Oliver was wrong, but I don't think it's right to say that it was blatantly obvious to all the players.
PP62
Well-Known Member
Good point but he got Smalling, the captain, in to explain the situation to him. The fact Smalling didn't communicate this to his players suggests he might not be the ideal person to be captain and must share some of the blame. Actually, that's not fair; many a time when I speak to a captain they don't back me up. I don't know why we bother involving captains, most of them are no help at all!
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
yep agreed, last week, i asked both captains pre kick off to be pro-active with their players , especially regarding dissent.... '' yes yes ref'', and knowing nods....
lo and behold the very first person to dissent was the home captain... good work there sir
But then when you do hand out his prize for being the first "a fresh bright yellow"
, he can't blame you then; can he now?! But back to a more serious note, i find it a hit and miss with these captains. Last match 2 captains complete opposites of one another, away captain wasn't interested in being involved didn't speak to anyone or "share responsibility". The home captain while on a few rare occasions strongly disagreed with me, backed me up when i cautioned his player for a silly cynical tackle. The offending player was defending himself by claiming that it was his first offence, and before i could reply his captain was jumping to my defence by saying it was a stupid needless tackle so job done for me!!
So Smalling should have told his players to make sure only players not yet booked should kick Hazard. I think that, especially in Cup games, there is a general leniency among EPL refs toward lesser players kicking more skilful players (ask David Siva's ankles) - which lumps United on Monday v Chelsea in with Boro on Saturday v City.