Ref Watch

[halfcenturyup]

I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.

Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.

That’s our tactic and a good one. When we lose the ball, we press to win it back, if we can’t win it back a foul is a good option because it’s usually deep in the opposition half so not a danger on our goal.

 

[Vic]

Shame a manager can't be booked for their team persistently fouling the same player.

I remember the infamous Rag's v Arse game when Riley allowed the Rag's to take it in turns to kick f*ck out of Reyes.
There should have been about 5 or 6 yellow cards before the Whistling Wanker eventually booked Phil Chuckle.

Or the Derby when SWP was targeted...

 

[Vic]

The Law is open to interpretation, or as @richardtheref pointed out, could be subject to additional explanation or clarification for referees only.

There is a thread on this topic in a referee forum, here: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/persistently-infringing-lotg.16065/

This is an extract that is fairly typical of the general approach being taken by referees.

Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.

Yes, that's my thought too.

I think this is false memory from the Chelsea-Utd cup match from a few years ago with Oliver (I think) reffing. After about 25 minutes of rotational clogging of Hazard, the ref called the captain over and pretty much clearly said that the next one got a card, whether first foul or not. Less than 10 seconds later, Herrera clogged Hazard, got his second yellow card and was off.

There was a lot of discussion afterwards over whether the ref had applied the persistent infringement rule correctly, or interpreted something else, or just had enough!

 

[Paladin]

Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.

You didn't read my post correctly. That reply was typical of the majority of replies. Go have a look for yourself, the link is there.

I repeat, it is common practice for referees to caution players for persistent fouling (targeting) against one player, even if the cautioned player has only made one foul.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Tanganga - enough said

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t

Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.

 

[Vic]

Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.

It's a caution for SPA (stopping a promising attack). That can be anywhere on the pitch.

 

[richardtheref]

Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.

So last year McTominey committed 87 fouls between bookings. Imagine Fernandinho getting away with that