A&H

Intent

P

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
I hope this is OK but I'd like to take up on a point that was raised in another thread that has now been locked.

It's the question of intent. In that thread, it was stated:

We need to lose the ideas of intent as the word has been removed from the laws. As referees we cannot judge intent - this leaves us open to trickery and being fooled as we are judging an unknown factor. You will truly never know what a players intent is. In some cases its obvious, in others it isn't.
Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree with this. Intent has not been removed from the Laws - only from being a consideration in certain offences, in particular physical contact fouls.

The concept of intent, in the form of the words intentional and intentionally, still exists in the Laws. In addition, the words deliberate or deliberately occur dozens of times throughout the laws document in relation to multiple different offences and as far as the Laws are concerned according to the glossary in the Laws, intentional and deliberate amount to the same thing.

So where the laws say we have to consider whether a particular action was intentional or deliberate, we still have to do so. It is only for those offences where intent is not mentioned, that we have to ignore it.
 
The Referee Store
Though, in the weird world of LotG terminology, "intent" is not the same as "deliberate".

"Intent" (in LotG terms) is the concept of making a conscious decision to do something, thinking about it, meaning to do it. All things that refer to "conscious thought", and thus require some "mind-reading" to decipher.

"Deliberate" (in LotG terms) is a considered action, one done carefully and without hurry. In short, something that someone can decipher based on body language and movement.

And yes, in real-life terms, they're (almost) synonyms of one another, but remember that the LotG use a weirdly different version of the English vocabulary. :)
 
Thanks Peter. The word intentional/ly appears 7 times. 1 of which in the glossary. 3 of which are relating to restart of play (fk, throw, corner) twice for offside (law change) and once for suspending play with the intention of restarting, again in the glossary. And in the main as you point out the word deliberate is used instead, dozens of times.
Maybe I shouldnt have been so general with my comment as really it was aimed at the specifics of that thread and the topic in question but in the main the word deliberate is used instead of intent throughout the lotg and I feel this is, excuse me, intentional. :)
I had thought that judging intent and judging a deliberate action are independent thought processes and maybe I am mistaken here - particularly as the glossary describes intentionally as a deliberate action (not an accident).
In context of the post I would say there can be a difference though as it was argued in that thread that luiz's potential passback was legal as his original intention may not have been to pass back to the keeper but imo it was a deliberate trick he used, which ultimately, he used to circumvent the law. (not reopening his debate btw... just adding context.)
So I concede that intent does appear in the laws, I apologise for that generalisation, and even though the glossary intimates they are the same or have similar meaning I would still argue my intended point which is that a player can commit a deliberate action whereby the outcome is not what they intended for which they can and should be penalised for.
 
Last edited:
AlexF said:
Though, in the weird world of LotG terminology, "intent" is not the same as "deliberate".

"Intent" (in LotG terms) is the concept of making a conscious decision to do something, thinking about it, meaning to do it. All things that refer to "conscious thought", and thus require some "mind-reading" to decipher.

"Deliberate" (in LotG terms) is a considered action, one done carefully and without hurry. In short, something that someone can decipher based on body language and movement.

And yes, in real-life terms, they're (almost) synonyms of one another, but remember that the LotG use a weirdly different version of the English vocabulary. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that deliberate definition, doesn't really work for deliberate handball?
 
TopCat said:
I'm not sure about that deliberate definition, doesn't really work for deliberate handball?
Click to expand...
Sure it does... let's look at the considerations that FIFA has shared about deliberate handling:


41 Is the hand moving towards the ball or is the ball moving towards the hand?
42 Are the player's hands or arms in a "NATURAL POSITION" or an "UNNATURAL POSITION"?
43 Does the player attempt to avoid the ball striking his hand?
44 Does the ball strike his hand from a short or from a long distance?
45 Does the player use his hand or arm to deliberately touch or block the ball?
46 Does the player prevent an opponent gaining possession of the ball by handling it?
47 Does the player attempt to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball?
48 Does the player prevent a goal by deliberately handling the ball?
49 Does the player prevent an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball?
50 Does the player try to deceive the referee by handling the ball?
256 Is the ball moving in the direction of the goal?

41-43, and 45 are all about body language and movement, 45 is about the ball itself. Then 46-256 are things that help us determine if there should be a related sanction.

None of those considerations suggest that we should be doing "mind-reading".
 
AlexF said:
"Intent" (in LotG terms) is the concept of making a conscious decision to do something, thinking about it, meaning to do it. All things that refer to "conscious thought", and thus require some "mind-reading" to decipher.

"Deliberate" (in LotG terms) is a considered action, one done carefully and without hurry. In short, something that someone can decipher based on body language and movement.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. There are no such definitions to be found anywhere in the Laws of the Game. The closest thing to a definition of either is in the "Football terms" section, where (as @James Long says) we find:
Intentional
A deliberate action (not an accident)
Click to expand...
So all we can say about the words in terms of how the LotG sees them is that they are pretty much considered to be synonyms.
 
The real problem with discussing "intentional" or "deliberate" actions in football is that the Laws of the Game are a patchwork cobbled together over 154 years, and at different times different authors clearly intended the words to be taken in different senses.

Back in mid Victorian times, the two words did have very different connotations: Deliberate was applied merely to the ACT and simply meant not accidental. Intentional was applied to the CONSEQUENCES of that act and meant things turned out as the perpetrator intended. So a Victorian schoolboy, throwing a book which hit the teacher, might be asked "was that deliberate?" meaning NOT "did you mean to hit me?" but rather "did you throw that, or did it just slip out of your hand?" There was a scale of intent moving from ACCIDENTAL - DELIBERATE - INTENTIONAL.

Language however changes with time and it is clear that today the two words are popularly taken as virtually synonymous. And, as Peter Grove points out, the glossary to the Laws equates them as meaning the same thing. The problem is that a great part of the Laws consists of "interpretations", some written down, some given out in FIFA position papers, some just accepted as the customary way it is done. And in several different Laws this idea of intent is treated very differently.

FOULS:
Before the 1997 rewrite any foul had to be committed "intentionally". We then switched to an outcome based approach, where we merely had to be sure the foul had taken place, thus moving from a foul needing to be fully intended, to even purely accidental contact being penalised. Interestingly, though intent has been removed from consideration of judging whether an offence is a foul, it is still a possibility to consider when judging if an offence is misconduct.

OFFSIDE
Though the actual words deliberate or intentional do not appear in the wording of the offside Law the original Victorian distinction has been revived in FIFA's interpretations. If a ball from attacker number 8 (say)is played through to another striker (9) in an offside position, but en route a defender attempts to clear it with a kick, but it spins off the defender's boot straight to the
number 9 attacker, there is question of whether this resets offside or not. back in the day the slightest accidental touch by the defender played the attacker on. Then it started to be interpreted that the defender needed full control of the ball before attackers benefited from a miss pass. Now FIFA make clear that any DELIBERATE play on the ball, even if it wildly mis-cues, resets offside.

HANDLING
In this Law the word Deliberate keeps its older meaning of a deliberate act, rather than an intended outcome. Hence a player running in with arms spread wide, and the ball hitting an arm, would likely be guilty of a handling offence because of a deliberate act, even if handling was not clearly intentional.

"BACK PASS"
I will use this term for clarity, yet all the Laws state is that a "deliberate kick" to the goalkeeper in his area cannot be handled. Interestingly, even though exactly the same word "deliberate" is used as in the handling Law, here it is taken to mean "intentional" and we attempt to judge not the mere act but the actual intent of the player who kicked it. In this case a player who played a mis-cued kick would likely be given the benefit of the doubt as to intent.

To conclude, no wonder players and fans (and referees) get confused over the words deliberate or intentional when the Laws of the Game use them in an inconsistent and changeable way.
 
Excellent post Gangling... I've found an excerpt from Mintys first referee exam. Not sure if he ever made promotion that season!!!

The first written set of laws were produced at the club's first annual general meeting on 21 October 1858. The original draft was amended at the same meeting to produce the following set of rules for the 1858–59 season.
  1. The kick off from the middle must be a place kick.
  2. Kick out must not be more than 25 yards [23 m] out of goal.
  3. A fair catch is a catch from any player provided the ball has not touched the ground or has not been thrown from touch and is entitled to a free-kick.
  4. Charging is fair in case of a place kick (with the exception of a kick off as soon as a player offers to kick) but he may always draw back unless he has actually touched the ball with his foot.
  5. Pushing with the hands is allowed but no hacking or tripping up is fair under any circumstances whatever.
  6. No player may be held or pulled over.
  7. It is not lawful to take the ball off the ground (except in touch) for any purpose whatever.
  8. The ball may be pushed or hit with the hand, but holding the ball except in the case of a free kick is altogether disallowed.
  9. A goal must be kicked but not from touch nor by a free kick from a catch.
  10. A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch.
  11. Each player must provide himself with a red and dark blue flannel cap, one colour to be worn by each side.
 
Can't wait to see my teams faces when I won't let them on this afternoon with out their regulation flannel caps!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top