Question Persistent Fouling

[londonblue]

I know this is going back three matches now, but I remember during the Bury game that Bury were continuously fouling and in the end the ref booked one of their players. But, they carried on, and the ref did nothing.

The question I have is really for the referees out there. When should the ref caution a team a second time for persistent fouling? Once you've booked on player, do then book the offending player for every foul after that point, or does the team foul count effectively get reset, and you start all over again?

 

[Mick]

I know this is going back three matches now, but I remember during the Bury game that Bury were continuously fouling and in the end the ref booked one of their players. But, they carried on, and the ref did nothing.

The question I have is really for the referees out there. When should the ref caution a team a second time for persistent fouling? Once you've booked on player, do then book the offending player for every foul after that point, or does the team foul count effectively get reset, and you start all over again?

You don't caution teams, you caution players. (smart teams spread their fouls round!).

Whatever the referee's threshold is for persistent misconduct, say 5 fouls, then a player can effectively commit 5 fouls twice before the second yellow should be shown. I suspect some referees might lower their threshold for the second "batch" of persistent misconduct.

Hope that helps.

 

[londonblue]

That does help. Although, using your threshold of 5, a team could conceivably commit 56 fouls (11 players + 3 subs at four fouls each) before any player would be booked. Over a match, that's a foul every 96 seconds...

 

[Pubey]

You don't caution teams, you caution players. (smart teams spread their fouls round!).

Whatever the referee's threshold is for persistent misconduct, say 5 fouls, then a player can effectively commit 5 fouls twice before the second yellow should be shown. I suspect some referees might lower their threshold for the second "batch" of persistent misconduct.

Hope that helps.

I get what you're saying, however lets assume that the threshold is 4 fouls, then if teams do what you say and spread them around could it really be possible to have 44 fouls before the first yellow? Perhaps, yes, however in practice i'd suggest that after the ref has got worn out from blowing his whistle one player will be the unlucky one and get booked (perhaps for a second foul), as a way of the ref "trying to get control on the game".

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think it's an individual offence rather than a team offence.

Edit: Mick's already answered.

 

[Mick]

I get what you're saying, however lets assume that the threshold is 4 fouls, then if teams do what you say and spread them around could it really be possible to have 44 fouls before the first yellow? Perhaps, yes, however in practice i'd suggest that after the ref has got worn out from blowing his whistle one player will be the unlucky one and get booked (perhaps for a second foul), as a way of the ref "trying to get control on the game".

That would be wrong, if he did so.

It is extremely unlikely that 44 fouls would not include several worthy of a caution in their own right.

Sounds like he's pretty much got control (over control?) if he's given 44 fouls !!

 

[Pubey]

That would be wrong, if he did so.

It is extremely unlikely that 44 fouls would not include several worthy of a caution in their own right.

Sounds like he's pretty much got control (over control?) if he's given 44 fouls !!

lol point taken!

 

[londonblue]

That does help. Although, using your threshold of 5, a team could conceivably commit 56 fouls (11 players + 3 subs at four fouls each) before any player would be booked. Over a match, that's a foul every 96 seconds...

I think it's an individual offence rather than a team offence.

Edit: Mick's already answered.

I understand that, but at some point surely the ref would lose patience and book an unlucky player?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I get what you're saying, however lets assume that the threshold is 4 fouls, then if teams do what you say and spread them around could it really be possible to have 44 fouls before the first yellow? Perhaps, yes, however in practice i'd suggest that after the ref has got worn out from blowing his whistle one player will be the unlucky one and get booked (perhaps for a second foul), as a way of the ref "trying to get control on the game".

It's a threshhold rather than a quota that has to be filled.

That would be wrong, if he did so.

It is extremely unlikely that 44 fouls would not include several worthy of a caution in their own right.

Sounds like he's pretty much got control (over control?) if he's given 44 fouls !!

Are you saying it would be wrong to book someone for their second foul or to allow 44 fouls before the first booking?

If the ref calls the captain over and warns him he's getting tired of the niggling fouls and tells him to tell his team to cut it out, could the ref then book someone for dissent if they then went and committed a niggly foul straight away?

 

[Firestorm]

That would be wrong, if he did so.

It is extremely unlikely that 44 fouls would not include several worthy of a caution in their own right.

Is there something in the Laws which allows a booking for a foul though

I thought the 7 were
Unsporting Behaviour
Dissent
entering / leaving without permission
Failure to retreat
delaying the restart
and Persistant foul play.

if a foul is a bad foul then its Violent and its a straight red and if its denying a goalscoring opportunity its a straight red.

i know that certain fouls are treated as "unsporting behaviour" for booking purposes (shirt pulling etc) but I can not see how a ref can justify booking someone for their first or 2nd dodgy tackle

 

[Fish]

I'm not sure quotas are how it works! Refs have enough to think about without trying to keep a running total of how many fouls each player has committed. Plus, a foul is a foul. The laws of the game don't say anywhere 'you shouldn't trip players at all, but if you're going to do it, don't do it any more than four times'. They simply say 'players must not trip[ up opponents' (my wording, you get the drift). I don't buy all this ******** about 'it was only my first offence'. You're a professional footballer, it's YOUR job to know the rules you play to to earn your living. Yet week in, week out, they all pretend that 10 yards is a new concept to them, that they didn't mean to trip the guy they were chasing, etc etc, and that therefore they don't 'deserve' a yellow card.

I noticed the persistent fouling and time wasting at the Bury game too. What I noticed was the persistence, rather than who it is that's doing it - and that's what the ref should have dealt with much more than he did. Because he didn't, the players seek to exact their own justice instead, which is why we wended up with Bil and Harry squaring up to the tit of a goalkeeper who had taken the **** out of the ref the entire time after Bury took the lead.

In my book, if there's persistent fouls going on, it's either a tactic or one team is out of its depth in terms of the skill of tackling. Either way, if giving free kicks is not getting the message across, then the next message is the yellow card.

I don't referee football, but I do umpire hockey to a reasonable level (roughly the same level as Southend play in football). When I give a player a warning card, I would NEVER say 'you've fouled four times, here's your card, you've only got four more chances'. When I card a player, it means 'if you do that again, you'll get the next card up the ladder' (we have three: green, yellow (sinbin) and red (go home)).

Football is different. Cards are so personal, that all 11 players can commit the same yellow card offence without anyone being sent off. That's still a lot of fouls, and when a player sees the ref yellow card someone, most players think 'I can do that too without being sent off' rather than 'I'd better not do that, ref is trying to stamp it out'. In hockey, once I've shown a green card to a player, if one of his team mates does the same thing two minutes later, the team mate gets the yellow (5 minutes off) even if it's his first offence. why? Because the green card says 'no more - everyone'.

Yellow cards in football say 'no more - you'. To everyone else other than the player who receives it, theyare simply meaningless and they don't help the ref get control at all.

Free kicks don't help the ref get control either. If you blow for a free kick,you slow the game down, which is normally exactly what the guy who did the foul was trying to achieve. Result? fouler gets what he wants, fouled player gets frustrated, situation not dealt with.

 

[Mick]

Is there something in the Laws which allows a booking for a foul though

I thought the 7 were
Unsporting Behaviour
Dissent
entering / leaving without permission
Failure to retreat
delaying the restart
and Persistant foul play.

if a foul is a bad foul then its Violent and its a straight red and if its denying a goalscoring opportunity its a straight red.

i know that certain fouls are treated as "unsporting behaviour" for booking purposes (shirt pulling etc) but I can not see how a ref can justify booking someone for their first or 2nd dodgy tackle

Something like that:

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner
kick, free kick or throw-in
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
• deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

 

[Mick]

Is there something in the Laws which allows a booking for a foul though

I thought the 7 were
Unsporting Behaviour
Dissent
entering / leaving without permission
Failure to retreat
delaying the restart
and Persistant foul play.

That's six !!

 

[Cockle43]

This dovetails nicely with one of my observations.
Blair Sturrock and, to a lesser extent, Anthony Grant are quite happy playing with their back to goal, holding the ball if necessary and laying off the ball. This style of play is obviously going to attract a defender coming in tight behind to try and stop the turn or try and hinder the quality of the lay off, however, in several games this season, Charlton in JPT was a prime example, Sturrock was continually clattered from behind and his heels clipped virtually every time he received the ball. Eventually it worked in that after about 20-25 minutes Sturrock was no longer looking for the ball to be played in with his back to goal and thus became pretty ineffective having received absolutely no protection from the referee at all. Every week on MOTD you see fouls given for some pretty minimal contact but in League 2 it appears you can get kicked for ever before anything is done about it. IMHO it is no surprise that teams then decide to go long ball if their linking midfielders just get tapped all game.
Referees; do us all a favour, grow some dangly bits and get the card out early on for this sort of persistent fouling and give anyone trying to play a little bit of football some protection, after all, there's precious little played at this level!

 

[Fish]

@Cockle43 :clap: