Help - What is the exact rule and implementation?

[toepoker]

In my opinion on this particular night a player needed to be protected. In the middle 1/3 of the field Dominican went after the ball with 110% percent effort and did not seem to be concerned with playing under control. I am not sure exactly how the rule reads but after numerous fouls against the same player in a short span of time … (not sure of rule). MCA had the better of it in the first half and Dominican improved its effort in the second half due to the effect of cumulative fouls on the midfielder. After losing two of the previous matches I guess you could say the tactic-utilized means that the MCA coaches were out coached. In my opinion after seeing four yellow cards and twice as many fouls committed, and not once did a Dominican player complain - the style of play looked to be deliberate. I am certainly not implying that an individual player was targeted but the effect was the same. You have to score to win and unfortunately most teams that play possession soccer require a midfielder. I have seen the referee who did this game many times and without a doubt he is one of the best refs and that is not just limited to our state.

The MCA midfielder was begging for protection and simple fouls and the three yellow cards committed against her (4 cards Dominican - 0 cards MCA) were insufficient. With several fouls committed against her and upon the first yellow card (10 minute mark) the ref yelled "That's it #3 will not be hit again." Could the situation of too many fouls committed by a team against a particular player result in an ejection?

Good season MCA! Seniors you had a great career with four district championships and one state title. The answer to YMCA is stated above!

To the self proclaimed unbiased metro club coaches just remember the next time your team is being mauled - count to ten and say, “I am being out coached”.

Coach you got even with the MCA coach with a win but you may have lost the respect of many players that are and have been under your tutelage. They could have been injured for your club season. After two loses to MCA this season I personally think your tactics were brilliant but in my opinion you should have been down a player before the half.

Good luck Dominican - go show the lhsaa that this game should have been played in the semi-finals or perhaps the finals.

[brhsoccer14]

I believe what you are getting at is Persistent Infringement (PI). PI can be looked at in two ways, (1) one player is committing a number of fouls (this could begin with just two) in a certain time period. Obviously, if one player fouls in the 4th min and fouls again in the 60th min, this isn't PI (I'll say 99% of the time so I dont get argued with); (2) multiple players are committing fouls against a certain player. You will see this especially in the professional levels because they know who the star players are and will make sure this player is fouled so he/she is frustrated and plays off his/her game.
The penalty for one of the two of the above occurring is a caution. Technically, a player can be sent off for this, but only if he/she has a yellow card already.
Am I answering the question? Im tired.

[reddevil]

Yes, you are. A red card (or a second yellw to the same player) would have taken care of the problem.

This issue is actually going one step further. It's just allegations at this point but it looks like somehow the coach's instructions are now being revealed. LHSAA may get involved before this one is over.

One thing is for sure. Where there is smoke, there is fire. The whole story may never come out but after being outcoached the first game since his decision to play that same player man-to-man did not work (and when he was up 1-0 at HT, only to lose at the end....by the way, that's outcoaching), and after being outcoached the second game since his decision to leave that player alone did not work either, he went all the way with the new 'game plan'....take her out...which worked in the end, but still needed the extra 4 minutes and a questionable free kick outside the 18. That was it, game over and no time for the other coach to even attempt to tie the game!

[misltek]

Persistent Infringement (PI) is one of the least-cautioned items in our game, because one has to pay so much attention to it. There are also several other factors to take into context....is it the same player committing the fouls, the same player being fouled, the same foul type, the time span.....and most importantly, whether or not the card is needed for better match control.

It is much easier to sit in the stands as a scorekeeper and record who is fouling, who is being fouled...than to keep mental notes of it on the field. Put simply, if I see a face enough, and in a short enough amount of time, odds are I'll pull out a caution.

This is one area that we (referees) can improve on as a whole; recognizing fouling patterns and taking appropriate actions when necessary.

[toepoker]

I went to the NFHS website Monday and enjoyed many of the situations you created and the discussions.

I'm not sure if PI part 2 played a role due to the time factor. By the time the midfielder had a second yellow card awarded and about four or five fouls she was not a factor. The ball either did not go through her or she had been taken out of her game. However when she mustered up the strength and got back involved or the ball started going through her (chicken/egg or flow of the game?) the opposing team did not waste time fouling her. Shoulder to shoulder is physical play with an occasional misjudgment by a player but running through a player has no place in the game and even less if taught by a coach.

So the situation is: A player is repeatedly fouled by several players in a short span of time and then the opposing team takes charge of play or the flow of the game goes through the wings or a combination of factors for 5 mins., 10 mins., or maybe even 20 mins. With the first touch since the last take down the same player is taken out again. What relevance did time have in making sure the game is played in a beautiful manner?
This was not necessarily the case the other night. I think for a while, it was more like when she handled the ball she dished the ball off before she would get hit.

Or after the first series of hits the team stops fouling the player because they did intimidate. They then resume the same tactic at the start of the second half to seal the deal. Once the referee recognizes the tactic - what does time have to do with the strategy being utilized by a team? The player zigs when the defender expects a zag and feet become entangled - foul but no card on the player (P. I. sec. 2 not necessary). After many minutes of no contact with a player a foul is committed when a player is not playing under control – red card to stop the fouling on one player.

Circumstances seem to be a better guideline than the phrase “short span of time”. Once the HR suspects Persistent Infringement by a team on a single player than the penalty needs to be severe. After the HR suspects PI the coach would understand that any hit would cause him (see the above type of an exception) to be playing a man down.

I understand the issue of keeping track of the fouls and how hard this rule must be to implement. The suggestion stated would make it easier to keep track of but more to the point it would make this style of tactics to risky to utilize. Thanks for your input and sharing your experiences.