The Ref Stop

Persistent offences - lotg exam

one

one

RefChat Addict
How many offences constitute "persistent offences"?

To set the seen:
I did my latest exam a couple of years ago and this was one of ten written response questions worth 2 out of 20 marks. 20 minute to answer all 10 questions and 85% to pass the written component. (There was also a multiple choice and a video component).
 
The Ref Stop
Its a good question, as, we might easy caution then dimiss someone who committs, four fouls in a 15 min period, whereas its possible someone who commits 5 fouls, say, 2m, 30m, 46m, 75m and 90m might escape even a yellow.
 
Great question! From my understanding there is no defined 'correct' answer to this. However, based on input from various observations, if a player is getting towards 5 offences in a game, or 3 in a half then he /she should most definitely be obviously 'on your radar' at the very least. To illustrate this point, if all 20 outfield players were fouling at this rate then it would equate to more than one foul for every minute of the game! It also depends on how close together the fouls are and the degree of carelessness involved in them ... basically is that player 'standing out' from the general behaviour of the other players ....
 
It would be unlikely for me to caution a player for C3 without having given them verbal warning of the imminence of the yellow card. It also depends on the severity of the fouls. If I've given a 'talking to' (rather than a caution) for marginal RP, any subsequent foul in the same half could be fairly squared with C3 and the player would have no comebacks. So a lot depends on the 'verbal contract' you have with the player issued via the warning.
Also, two offences which are similar in nature (e.g. RP), would justify a card, whereas two or more dissimilar offences might not.
I take it the Q) was after a written answer and not just a number?
 
Last edited:
It depends on a lot of factors, probably the most important being the number of fouls in the game or that period of the game. If there have been 20 fouls in the first half and one player has committed 3 of them I might not be too worried, whereas if there had only been 6 fouls in the half his 3 would stand out and I'd expect the referee to be identifying this. Not necessarily caution, but speak to him and set him up for a fall.
 
On the last two occasions that I have cautioned for persistent offences, it has been the individual concerned’s first foul for some time, but the team(s) were notching up a number of fouls. Warned captains (loudly enough for all to here), lo and behold, less than a minute later, another foul, card comes out.

All accepted it; individual carded less happy, but as one of his team mates said: “don’t worry, Bob. You’ve taken that for the team. Fred can pay your fine.”
 
RefJef said:
On the last two occasions that I have cautioned for persistent offences, it has been the individual concerned’s first foul for some time, but the team(s) were notching up a number of fouls. Warned captains (loudly enough for all to here), lo and behold, less than a minute later, another foul, card comes out.

All accepted it; individual carded less happy, but as one of his team mates said: “don’t worry, Bob. You’ve taken that for the team. Fred can pay your fine.”
Click to expand...


your point is the Fergie tactic used at United, everybody, Scholes, Keane, Butt, Neville, would make their mark, not enough for a caution on its own merits, taking a shot each, pushing the ref as far as they could before the caution arrived.
I dont think you can justify cautioning an individual for persistant where it is a team accumulation, afterall, the caution report would say, that number 5 persistantly infringed, when indeed, he clearly did not if it was his first foul, making your caution technically incorrect. I would however if desperate to produce the card, make it for the tackle itself....

Am sure Oliver did that in the Chelsea United game when it was clear Hazzard was being targetted, and said enough was enough and cautioned the next offender and I recall if it matters, Keith Hacket went ballistic online in saying the offence that was cautioned was not in any way worthy of a card...
 
I was recently a 2nd Assistant to a (good, L4?) ref. The other assistant was the ref’s coach/mentor, a very experienced official, a former FL line etc. It was a great experience for me to be part of the debrief in the changing room to the ref at halftime and again at full time.

In the first half, after about 15 mins, a “white” was cautioned, correctly, for a reckless challenge. Then whites, the better side, began to dominate the game, passing and playing, but kept getting thwarted by fouls from red. I had seen the ref get his card out (for the white player, earlier) and was waiting to see him card one of the reds, but it didn’t happen. It was clear the spectacle was being diminished, white players and the white bench were becoming increasingly frustrated at the niggling fouls.

At half time, the coach/mentor debriefed the ref. It was the first thing he brought up, that he needed to card a red as they were “fouling without fear” (I remember his words)

I get the point about making the card for the foul rather than persistent infringement. Prompted by this discussion, I’ve had another look at the LOTG and it does say if a player (not players) persistently infringe.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Am sure Oliver did that in the Chelsea United game when it was clear Hazzard was being targetted, and said enough was enough and cautioned the next offender and I recall if it matters, Keith Hacket went ballistic online in saying the offence that was cautioned was not in any way worthy of a card...
Click to expand...

See, I think that is a brilliant use of cautioning for persistent - you're literally cautioning for repeated offences that on their own wouldn't amount to a card. As long as this is communicated effectively, beforehand of course, I don't see any issues. Maybe Keith didn't realise it was for persistence at a team level...?
 
Martiju said:
See, I think that is a brilliant use of cautioning for persistent - you're literally cautioning for repeated offences that on their own wouldn't amount to a card. As long as this is communicated effectively, beforehand of course, I don't see any issues. Maybe Keith didn't realise it was for persistence at a team level...?
Click to expand...


You sum up my point. A caution is to the individual. There is no offence code for "team was committing too many fouls"
 
Reminds me of the top flight player in Scotland who was shown 4 yellows in the same fixture over the course of 2 games and a time of 20 mins yet only saw one red card...
 
I lost one mark for this question in the exam but still ended up with 90%. Simply giving too much irrelevant information after quoting LOTG, thinking it can't be as simple as a one line answer. Just like many others here I explained other impacting factors. Its a LOTG exam, a LOTG question and simply needs a LOTG response. If it wanted justification, explanations or opinions, it would have asked for it.

Not really disputing the reasoning here but pointing out when doing LOTG exams, be precise and to the point, no more, no less.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I’ve booked in the first minute so it’s your call
Click to expand...
Persistent offences in the first minute? I know it is your call but that is some mighty effort in setting the expectations/precedent.
Big Cat said:
I take it the Q) was after a written answer and not just a number?
Click to expand...
Written response exam so you chose what you want to write. E.g another question was listing 10 (I think) USB offences .
 
Last edited:
one said:
Persistent offences in the first minute? I know it is your call but that is some mighty effort in setting the expectations/precedent.
Click to expand...
Two exact same foul offences within 20 seconds, one of those, let's hit them early and let them know you're there type of teams!!!
I let them know I was there and it nipped it in the bud!! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top