Because for the first one the opponent has got away from him, with the ball, and he has pulled him back. Obviously a still doesn't show this, but it was also much more of a hold than the second one, and was textbook SPA.
Fully agree with this. With my observer hat on, you can’t use lack of respect to engineer cards for offences that don’t meet trained/written YC offence definitions.
Being pedantic, but Dermot isn't a referee.
Just trying this hypothetical - it is more extreme than other examples given so far.
I just said that it didn't - you need to accept that for the purpose of the exercise. It is very low level in terms of force
C1, Foul tackle (in England only)
Yes, but that's the debate. It's not SPA and it's not reckless. We then need to use our discretion under the principle of USB to caution.
Then you need to come up with a different example. "What do I caution a reckless tackle for if I decide I don't want to count it as a reckless tackle?" is not a particularly helpful question, because the only possible answer is "just count it as a reckless tackle".
To find that each and every 'rugby tackle', regardless of severity or force, is with disregard to the consequences of an opponent can only be so if you accept that 'consequences' is an extremely broad term taking into account more than safety (and including, for instance, losing position or the ability to play the ball). I'm fine with that (there has to be a reason that the word safety was substituted for consequences), but it rather means that anything unlawful done with disregard to any advantage to the opponent, or done intentionally, is cautionable. Recklessness then sounds a bit like general USB.
Wouldnt you know it.
I don't agree with that premise at all. Launching yourself head-first at someone's legs when they're expecting a game of football isn't even the LOTG definition of reckless; it's the dictionary definition!
Who said anything about that?
You may have missed the word 'general'Wouldnt you know it.
Listed under Cautions for Unsporting behaviour:
• "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence"
Arms and head are pretty close. I may not be a rugby expert, but I think it's quite difficult to use your arms to wrap around an opponents legs without getting your head somewhere in the vicinity as well?
You wanted a label for any caution - as others have said, any form of rugby tackle in Association Football warrants a caution.
You also snuck the word 'launching' in there. You're overblowing the scenario to suit your case. It suggests you don't wish to take the exercise on in a genuine way because you are concerned it will undermine your position.
