What is your PI counter? 4? 5?
Three card trick?
- Thread starter QuaverRef
- Start date
Depends on timings and number of fouls in the game. If a player commits four fouls I might not be too worried if they are spread across 90 minutes, if they are all in the first half I would be twitching. Likewise if a player commits 3 out of 20 fouls in a half I'd probably let that go, if he commits 3 out of 10 alarm bells should be ringing and I'd expect the referee to be dealing with that.
I cautioned for it today, on their fourth foul of the first half. Had a quiet word, public word and he still didn't get the message. Would you say intensity is a factor, his first foul was borderline reckless, should this make my tolerance for successive fouls lower?
one
RefChat Addict
The law is specific on not being specific
. 
I would also add a few other things to Rusty's timing and spread. Severity of fouls, their tactical intent and impact, temperature of the game... I am sure there are more factors.
For me a similar case (many factors) on resetting 'the count' or getting a clean slate after being cautioned for PO. It could be the case but it's not automatic.
For example (example only, YHTBT for every case), very hot game, agitated player who is not calming down. Two quick fouls, one close to yellow and the other tactical (not SPA) that causes an uproar from opponents (wont impact my decision but sets the seen); the player gets a warning from me. Two minutes later another tactical foul and he is booked for PI, and a quite word to the captain to get him back in line. A minute later he goes for another very physical unnecessary foul (not reckless). Now I am well within my right and very likely to book him again for PO.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It depends. I never say "your next is a caution (or send off)." Most likely, absent aggravating factors, he'd get a harsh discussion about already being on a caution--but I'm probably going to be in pretty much the same place if the caution was for reckless or SPA as for PI. And if the player commits a clear foul immediately after the caution, reckless or not, likely I would go with the send off as he has clearly demonstrated that the caution had no effect. (All that said, I have never had a second caution for PI.)
Like so many things, it depends. I'm going to get to PI (do I need to write PO before someone pedantically corrects me?
) faster with worse fouls than with "honest" fouls. Evans and Ballion have an excellent discussion of PI in their book The Art of Refereeing.The player that I cautioned's first foul was a cynical trip with no attempt to win the ball, just to trip the player, but not SPA. From the nature of that first foul he was treading on thin ice for me.The law is specific on not being specific
View attachment 3064
I would also add a few other things to Rusty's timing and spread. Severity of fouls, their tactical intent and impact, temperature of the game... I am sure there are more factors.
For me a similar case (many factors) on resetting 'the count' or getting a clean slate after being cautioned for PO. It could be the case but it's not automatic.
For example (example only, YHTBT for every case), very hot game, agitated player who is not calming down. Two quick fouls, one close to yellow and the other tactical (not SPA) that causes an uproar from opponents (wont impact my decision but sets the seen); the player gets a warning from me. Two minutes later another tactical foul and he is booked for PI, and a quite word to the captain to get him back in line. A minute later he goes for another very physical unnecessary foul (not reckless). Now I am well within my right and very likely to book him again for PO.