RefSix

Three card trick?

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#1
Had my third observation today where the observer asked me if I was tempted by two yellows for one foul. Red 5 had committed a couple fouls and I called him in, had a chat, final warning. Blues then on the counter, four on three breaking from a defensive corner. 5 trips the ball carrier. I call him in and book him for the persistent infringement and the observer mentioned I could have also booked him a second time straight after for that foul also breaking up a promising attack and technically, that one foul broke two laws in one go. He was happy for me not to do go down that route though, but just asked me if I was tempted

Would any of you done the three card trick there?
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#2
Had my third observation today where the observer asked me if I was tempted by two yellows for one foul. Red 5 had committed a couple fouls and I called him in, had a chat, final warning. Blues then on the counter, four on three breaking from a defensive corner. 5 trips the ball carrier. I call him in and book him for the persistent infringement and the observer mentioned I could have also booked him a second time straight after for that foul also breaking up a promising attack and technically, that one foul broke two laws in one go. He was happy for me not to do go down that route though, but just asked me if I was tempted

Would any of you done the three card trick there?
That would be incorrect in law. Observer should know better.

"punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart,
physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs
at the same time"
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#3
That would be incorrect in law. Observer should know better.

"punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart,
physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs
at the same time"
I may have worded my post badly. He didn’t tell me I should have done it, he just explained the reasoning above and asked me if I was tempted. Maybe a little test to find out my thought process for foul recognition? But good to know I made the correct decision as it did plant a bit of doubt in my mind
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#5
I may have worded my post badly. He didn’t tell me I should have done it, he just explained the reasoning above and asked me if I was tempted. Maybe a little test to find out my thought process for foul recognition? But good to know I made the correct decision as it did plant a bit of doubt in my mind
Well I'm glad you weren't and I'm glad you didn't! Would've been incorrect in law and probably caused a riot!
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#7
Yes I read it as, there is yellow for persistant and btw your also getting a yellow cos your foul stopped a promising attack?

Observer, if that's what he was implying should not be planting that kind of seed, full stop, as pointed out, its incorrect.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
#8
Can he credit you for recognising it stopped a promising attack even though you had chosen to caution him for persistent infringement? Maybe he was trying to help you out.
 
#10
Whilst I suppose technically correct, your match control would go out the window.

You should state that the foul is a yellow in its own right, and maybe at the next one bin him, but in that moment I don't see how giving two yellows would benifit anyone.

Even the opposition team wouldn't be expecting that, and that's a clue often.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#13
I think its important to mention this and makes a good discussion point.

In OP, or when a player can be cautioned for either PO or reckless challenge, no matter what reason you choose to caution the player for there, the PO consideration is not reset. It is still up to you (the referee) to decide if the player's next offence qualifies him/her for persistent offences and another caution.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#14
I think @bester was on the right lines with the observer's thought and the competencies they are looking at. One of the "box ticks" is around PI. It sounds like he didnt make the message clear and possibly got jumbled up in what he was trying to say.
 

markref

Active Member
#15
I think its important to mention this and makes a good discussion point.

In OP, or when a player can be cautioned for either PO or reckless challenge, not matter what reason you choose to caution the player for there, the PO consideration is not reset. It is still up to you (the referee) to decide if the player's next offence qualifies him/her for persistent infringement and another caution.
This is all I can think the observer meant, because saying you could have cautioned twice for the same foul is totally wrong in law and I can’t believe he would get this so wrong.

Do you think he meant you should have cautioned for SPA (which presumably you would have done any other player for if they had committed the foul) not PI? Then told him that he was walking next foul he committed for PI.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#16
Then told him that he was walking next foul he committed for PI.
I may be taking this out of context :).

Say something in the general meaning of being on the edge for PO but don't use the words 'next foul'. Lets say the incident is in 10th minute and the opponent's captain hears it. Opponent are desperate for a goal in a tight but good spirited game. The mentioned player commits is next 'next foul' in the 88th minute. A simple accidental careless foul in a neutral spot. The captain now wants you to deliver on your 'promise'.
 

markref

Active Member
#17
Thanks, yes. Poorly worded on my part. I meant, make him understand he’s not getting away with PI by committing a foul that any other player on the pitch would be cautioned for on its own. If he commits SPA then he needs to understand he’s being cautioned for this and not for PI. He’s already been warned he’s on the edge of a yellow for PI so he may think this is the one.
 

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#18
Thanks, yes. Poorly worded on my part. I meant, make him understand he’s not getting away with PI by committing a foul that any other player on the pitch would be cautioned for on its own. If he commits SPA then he needs to understand he’s being cautioned for this and not for PI. He’s already been warned he’s on the edge of a yellow for PI so he may think this is the one.
But you don’t just get a clean slate for more PI when you get cautioned for PI anyway. A caution is a warning to change behavior.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#20
But you don’t just get a clean slate for more PI when you get cautioned for PI anyway. A caution is a warning to change behavior.
I disagree, for me a caution for PI resets the PI counter. If you caution for PI you have told him he has gone beyond having too many fouls, the caution is his punishment for this. To then caution him for his next foul for PI and then send him off would be beyond harsh, unless of course the challenge was reckless in its own right.
 
Top