Persistent offences - lotg exam

[JamesL]

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...

It actually resulted in.a red card for ander Herrera for SBO.. had it not rested in a red no1 would have batted an eyelid.
MO had clearly backed himself into a corner and couldnt get out of it.

 

[JamesL]

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.

Yes. We did something similar recently.
Question was after a dropped ball attacker takes three touches and scores a goal.. 2 marks.

Obviously the answer is GK. But I had a niggling feeling that there must be something I am missing, whats the extra mark for?

Turns out the extra mark was for no disciplinary sanction.

 

[Peter Grove]

You sum up my point. A caution is to the individual. There is no offence code for "team was committing too many fouls"

At the risk of repeating myself, while I disagreed with many of the things in the (discontinued and no longer applicable) Advice to Referees that used to be issued by the USSF, there were some things in there that I did agree with and which I thought expressed certain concepts rather succinctly.

Here's what they had to say about teams persistently targeting one opponent:

The referee must also recognize when a single opponent has become the target of fouls by multiple players. As above, upon recognizing the pattern, the referee should clearly indicate that the pattern has been observed and that further fouls against this opponent must cease. If another player commits a foul against the targeted opponent, that player must be cautioned but, in this case, the misconduct should be reported as unsporting behavior, as must any subsequent caution of any further foul against that same targeted opponent. Eventually, the team will get the message.