A&H

'Double Jeopardy'/Persistent fouls crossover

Q

Quarterback Punk

New Member
Level 6 Referee
Hi all. I'm a long time reader of these forums. What a great resource!

Reffed a match today in which I gave a late penalty - a trip from behind (no dogso). Having spoken to the offender 30 seconds before as his fouls were totting up, I booked him for persistent fouling.

After the game, the assessor that was at my game told me that I shouldn't have booked him because of the 'double jeopardy' rule and that the penalty is punishment enough. I disagreed with him, as there was no dogso. I told the player "one more foul" and that's what he did. The fact that the foul took place in the box doesn't matter at all, right? Or maybe I'm not right?

It really annoyed me. Please confirm that I am correct.
 
The Referee Store
Quarterback Punk said:
Hi all. I'm a long time reader of these forums. What a great resource!

Reffed a match today in which I gave a late penalty - a trip from behind (no dogso). Having spoken to the offender 30 seconds before as his fouls were totting up, I booked him for persistent fouling.

After the game, the assessor that was at my game told me that I shouldn't have booked him because of the 'double jeopardy' rule and that the penalty is punishment enough. I disagreed with him, as there was no dogso. I told the player "one more foul" and that's what he did. The fact that the foul took place in the box doesn't matter at all, right? Or maybe I'm not right?

It really annoyed me. Please confirm that I am correct.
Click to expand...
You were perfectly entitled to caution for persistent infringement of the Laws. The preceding warning and explanation given to the Assessor afterwards means he (sic the Assessor) was wrong to contest this. It sounds as though the Assessor was solely concerned with the notion that the Foul Tackle (or trip as you described) was an attempt to play the ball and as such, the player would not be cautioned for 'stopping a promising attack'. If the FT was a DOGSO, the dismissal would be downgraded to a caution (again, unless it was not an attempt to play the ball or the challenge was dangerous or reckless, in which case the downgrade does not apply)
 
Technically you are correct. But the assessor has a good point, albeit with the wrong reason in terms of "if you give penalty you don't card for SPA" (if in fact this was the reason he had given). From a game management point of view and also from game expectations, it would be better to not book for PO at that moment. His next foul after that would be your chance.

I have said this before, if it is not black and white, make a decision based on what punishment would bring the game to a balance again. In this case as your assessor said, the penalty is enough of a punishment to balance the game.
 
one said:
Technically you are correct. But the assessor has a good point, albeit with the wrong reason in terms of "if you give penalty you don't card for SPA" (if in fact this was the reason he was given). From a game management point of view and also from game expectations, it would be better to not book at that moment. His next foul after that would be your chance.

I have said this before, if it is not black and white, make a decision based on what punishment would bring the game to a balance again. In this case as your assessor said, the penalty is enough of a punishment to balance the game.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the Assessor is surely undermining him/herself when technically wrong in Law
If the player was clearly spoken to, just before the PK, it does leave the R in a bit of a quandary IMO and all I'd be looking for as an observer, is the correct explanation for the caution after the game (as long as overall Match Control was good)
 
Thanks all. I think there is definitely merit in a decision to give another chance to the player, however, it was 30 seconds before the offence and was still at the forefront of my mind.

If he had explained that then I wouldn't have got annoyed, but his explanation of the 'double jeopardy ' was just wrong. I haven't really heard it being discussed around bookable offences because that's not aim of the law, right? It's it keep 11 v 11 when a foul has been committed without intent.

I will see if he mentions it in a report and look forward to opening the discussion with him again.
 
Big Cat said:
I agree, but the Assessor is surely undermining him/herself when technically wrong in Law
If the player was clearly spoken to, just before the PK, it does leave the R in a bit of a quandary IMO and all I'd be looking for as an observer, is the correct explanation for the caution after the game (as long as overall Match Control was good)
Click to expand...
I would really need to be there to see how the advice was given and see if reports it as an incorrect caution (which it wasn't). Not a lot in the OP to explain this.
Oh and the assessor is not technically wrong in law. No specific number of offence are required for PO. What you say about 'spoke' and 'quandary' is not about law, it's about game management which I also explained in my post.

I also just thought of an analogy on rebalancing. Most leagues have X cautions in any number of games and you sit out a game. However. Double yellow in a game doesn't count because those yellows already get a bigger punishment (send off an a suspension). In the OP the foul already got its own bigger punishment and from a :game management' point of view doesn't add to the 'foul count' for PO. Of course all IMO.
 
I think you make good points. From my game management point of view, I had told him "that's a few now, next one goes in the book", 30 seconds or so prior. Maybe I need to be more specific with that.
 
Quarterback Punk said:
I think you make good points. From my game management point of view, I had told him "that's a few now, next one goes in the book", 30 seconds or so prior. Maybe I need to be more specific with that.
Click to expand...
You have backed yourself into a corner. Unfortunately this is not a situation you should have put yourself in. But here we are. Even so, let's say a player commits 'a few' fouls in the first 15 minutes. Enough for you to tell him, "that's a few now, next one goes in the book". His next one is in the 90th minutes, it's a simple careless foul in his attacking third. His team is trailing by 4 goals. Will you book him?

Look I don't really want to force the issue here. Just giving you some food for thought and some options on how the game could have been managed differently. The atmosphere of the game etc also has a bearing here. Give it a few days and read these again. It may be helpful or it may not.
 
Last edited:
one said:
You have backed yourself into a corner. Unfortunately this is not a situation you should have put yourself in. But here we are. Even so, let's say a player commits 'a few' fouls in the first 15 minutes. Enough for you to tell him, "that's a few now, next one goes in the book". His next one is in the 90th minutes, it's a simple careless foul in his attacking third. His team is trailing by 4 goals. Will you book him?

Look I don't really want to force the issue here. Just giving you some food for thought and some options on how the game could have been managed differently. The atmosphere of the game etc also has a bearing here. Give it a few days and read these again. It may be helpful or it may not.
Click to expand...
When I think about it, I'm never gonna dish out a caution at a PK unless it's 'mandatory' because it's likely you have enough on your plate as R without inviting further bad feeling by weighing in with cards. At the award of a PK, we don't wanna be engaging with any defensive player unnecessarily
I just think it's harsh to explicitly oppose the R's reasoning for a caution in such circumstances given the immediate warning beforehand. Also, need to take into account the Level of the promotion and whether such game management is expected for that level of promotion
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
It's very helpful and thanks for your input.

Can I ask if anyone else warns players "one more..."? I find that it usually puts a stop to them putting it about a bit, but you are right that it puts me in a corner.
 
Quarterback Punk said:
It's very helpful and thanks for your input.

Can I ask if anyone else warns players "one more..."? I find that it usually puts a stop to them putting it about a bit, but you are right that it puts me in a corner.
Click to expand...
I think @one is very right to advise us to use appropriate words. A vague warning is better than an explicit instruction... as @one pointed out with his scenario of a subsequent foul occurring an hour after the warning (or in your case, when awarding a PK)
Words will always be used against us, especially when we give ultimatums which we subsequently find difficult to enact for whatever reason
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Quarterback Punk said:
It's very helpful and thanks for your input.

Can I ask if anyone else warns players "one more..."? I find that it usually puts a stop to them putting it about a bit, but you are right that it puts me in a corner.
Click to expand...
My go-to is "one more and I will take serious action". My serious action could just be a much harsher bollocking or a yellow. It allows me some flexibility.
 
Quarterback Punk said:
It's very helpful and thanks for your input.

Can I ask if anyone else warns players "one more..."? I find that it usually puts a stop to them putting it about a bit, but you are right that it puts me in a corner.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a problem with what you’ve done based on what you said to the player. It’s understandable why the assessor would initially question it, but once you’ve explained, that should be fine. Your report from the assessor might reflect what you told him though so don’t be too concerned.

personally, I try to avoid saying things which back me into a corner such as ‘final warning’ or ‘last one’ for various reasons, but one is that I feel an opposition player could use it against me if they’ve overheard. I try to warn players but leave it a bit open ended so I can change the line depending on future scenarios
 
Also, keep in mind that we expect the observers to be perfect, but that's an unrealistic expectation, especially at grass-roots level. Might be worth discussing with your coordinator by acknowledging that there's a learning point to be had from the incident, even though you felt that you weren't 'wrong' with your sanction. After all, they expect you to have dev points and it's up to them to identify scope for them (even when they're not black/white)

Speaking with higher Level R's, contention between observer and R is just a fact of life

@Quarterback Punk How have your other observations gone?
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
When I think about it, I'm never gonna dish out a caution at a PK unless it's 'mandatory' because it's likely you have enough on your plate as R without inviting further bad feeling by weighing in with cards. At the award of a PK, we don't wanna be engaging with any defensive player unnecessarily
I just think it's harsh to explicitly oppose the R's reasoning for a caution in such circumstances given the immediate warning beforehand. Also, need to take into account the Level of the promotion and whether such game management is expected for that level of promotion
Click to expand...
Good game management on the first paragraph as far as I am concerned.
On the second paragraph, I just don't want to make assumption without knowing the full story from the assessor's view point and what he meant by 'double jeopardy'. But as you say, assessors are not perfect, they make mistakes just like referees do.
 
Big Cat said:
Also, keep in mind that we expect the observers to be perfect, but that's an unrealistic expectation, especially at grass-roots level. Might be worth discussing with your coordinator by acknowledging that there's a learning point to be had from the incident, even though you felt that you weren't 'wrong' with your sanction. After all, they expect you to have dev points and it's up to them to identify scope for them (even when they're not black/white)

Speaking with higher Level R's, contention between observer and R is just a fact of life

@Quarterback Punk How have your other observations gone?
Click to expand...
Pretty well all in all. I've recently returned to reffing after a few years away, so am a little rusty in some areas. I'm actually reffing in Australia now, so it's also a bit of a different system, albeit mainly with players from the UK.
 
Quarterback Punk said:
Pretty well all in all. I've recently returned to reffing after a few years away, so am a little rusty in some areas. I'm actually reffing in Australia now, so it's also a bit of a different system, albeit mainly with players from the UK.
Click to expand...
That explains you calling them assessors. Where in Australia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top