France V Australia

[Trip]

You say 'you can't avoid', the law says nothing about intent. Many fouls can be accidental.

I don't understand how the question of intent comes up. The contact was unavoidable. That does not imply intent or a lack of intent. It was not possible to make that challenge without subsequently making contact with the attacker. Since he made contact with the ball before the man the inevitable contact, given it wasn't dangerous or reckless, is allowed, surely?

 

[one]

I don't understand how the question of intent comes up. The contact was unavoidable. That does not imply intent or a lack of intent.

My logical inference really. If you can avoid it but it still happens then there is intent. If you wouldn't want it (as would be the case with the defender in this incident) but it happens, there is no intent.

Since he made contact with the ball before the man the inevitable contact, given it wasn't dangerous or reckless, is allowed, surely?

Not sure if this is a question of statement I will ask you a question though in the same format. He made contact with the ball before the man the inevitable contact, given it was careless (challenge or trip), is it a foul?

 

[Trip]

He made contact with the ball before the man the inevitable contact, given it was careless (challenge or trip), is it a foul?

That's not possible. If he made contact with the ball and then made contact with the player that he could not avoid then by definition it's not careless.

 

[one]

That's not possible. If he made contact with the ball and then made contact with the player that he could not avoid then by definition it's not careless.

I am not familiar with that definition of careless. I only know of one definition which is in the lotg and it does not include the phrase "unless contact is unavoidable and the ball is played prior"

EDIT: using that logic then how is it possible for it to be reckless?

 

[bester]

If the defender hadn't played the ball onto Greizmann’s foot then how many would be giving a foul? Assuming similar contact with Greizmann after the defender had played the ball.

 

[Trip]

There is no generally accepted definition of the word careless which can be applied to an event which cannot be avoided. That includes the definition in the laws.

 

[Trip]

If the defender hadn't played the ball onto Greizmann’s foot then how many would be giving a foul? Assuming similar contact with Greizmann after the defender had played the ball.

Do you mean if he'd made contact with the ball but not knocked it onto the attacker's foot? Or not made contact with the ball at all?

In the former case, no foul (for me). In the latter, foul.

 

[bester]

Do you mean if he'd made contact with the ball but not knocked it onto the attacker's foot? Or not made contact with the ball at all?

In the former case, no foul (for me). In the latter, foul.

The former. I get the impression that people are treating it differently on the basis Greizmann ‘regained’ possession after the ball was played by the defender but before the contact.

 

[one]

There is no generally accepted definition of the word careless which can be applied to an event which cannot be avoided.

But we are not working with general definition of careless/reckless/Excessive force. We have specific defintions and considerations and we have to judge incidents based on those.

I am not trying to make you change your mind, simply helping you understand the point of "its a foul" camp.

 

[Peter Grove]

There is no generally accepted definition of the word careless which can be applied to an event which cannot be avoided. That includes the definition in the laws.

Of course there is. Careless simply means (OED definition), "Not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors." There's nothing whatsoever in that definition that precludes it leading to a situation where, because of carelessness, something becomes unavoidable (such as a collision between players).

The definition in the Laws is: "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." Again, there's nothing there that means it can't lead a player, through carelessness, into a situation with an inevitable outcome.

 

[Trip]

Of course there is. Careless simply means (OED definition), "Not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors." There's nothing whatsoever in that definition that precludes it leading to a situation where, because of carelessness, something becomes unavoidable (such as a collision between players).

Come on Peter, that's a deliberate reinvention of the question. If something becomes unavoidable due to a lack of care then it was avoidable before the care was lacking.

 

[one]

Since he made contact with the ball before the man the inevitable contact, given it wasn't dangerous or reckless, is allowed, surely?

That's not possible. If he made contact with the ball and then made contact with the player that he could not avoid then by definition it's not careless.

If something becomes unavoidable due to a lack of care then it was avoidable before the care was lacking.

If unavoidable makes it not careless then it certainly is not reckless. I don't see how you can use your logic of 'unavoidable' only for careless fouls but not use it for reckless fouls.

 

[Trip]

The top two quotes are about different things. The first is about the actual tackle, the second is a response to your hypothetical question which used the phrase "inevitable contact". It can't be careless if it's inevitable because inevitable events cannot be avoided by exercising care.

With regard to the actual tackle the term careless implies that an action had consequences which were not necessarily intended but which could have been avoided if more care had been applied. In this case I don't think that particular contact could reasonably have been predicted prior to the challenge. If he'd tripped him with his leading foot that might be different.

If you think that was a penalty I think you'd have to conclude that any contact with an attacker which causes the attacker to fall must be a foul because short of not making the challenge at all I can't see how he could have done it in a more legal way.

 

[one]

any contact with an attacker which causes the attacker to fall must be a foul

Contact requires a player and an opponent. For it to be a foul, it must be initiated by the offender and must me careless or worse (and it is categorised in one of the 8 DFK offences. trip, kick...). I am not making this up. Its all in the good book.

short of not making the challenge at all I can't see how he could have done it in a more legal way.

You can say the same thing about a slide tackle with studs which contacts the ball first and then (unavoidable) cleans the opponent with studs. So yes, if you cant make the "unavoidable" contact with opponent legal, don't make the challenge.

This is not to b confused with when you connect with the ball and then the opponent "trips himself" over your legs. That contact is initiated by the opponent.

 

[cwyeary]

On the bright side, the awarding of a PK that most people think was a PK is the most controversial referee decision through 9 matches. That's a good thing compared to past World Cups.

 

[Trip]

You can say the same thing about a slide tackle with studs which contacts the ball first and then (unavoidable) cleans the opponent with studs.

That's just being silly. A studs-up challenge is dangerous if there is any chance of contact with an opponent. You could argue it's careless (at least) even if contact isn't made, for example if the attacker jumps out of the way.

But this challenge was not studs-up and the contact which eventually resulted was not inevitable or even very likely when the challenge went in.

 

[Peter Grove]

That's just being silly. A studs-up challenge is dangerous if there is any chance of contact with an opponent. You could argue it's careless (at least) even if contact isn't made, for example if the attacker jumps out of the way.

But this challenge was not studs-up and the contact which eventually resulted was not inevitable or even very likely when the challenge went in.

But that still seems to be missing the point. The basic question for me is, how did the player get into a situation where the contact was unavoidable? If it was by doing something careless, then clearly careless and unavoidable are not mutually exclusive properties.

So in the challenge in question, was the initial challenge careless and was it that carelessness that led to the contact? I'm a bit on the fence on this one, I don't think the challenge was particularly careless - but in the end it did lead to contact. However, not all contact is necessarily a foul. So was this careless enough to make it a "clear and obvious error" not to give the foul? I'm not 100% convinced.

 

[Trip]

Well, we seem to be in violent agreement. For a challenge to be careless it has to result in contact which affects the opponent in a way that was reasonably predictable before the challenge. If the defender had tripped the attacker with his front foot - the one that actually made contact with the ball - you might regard that as predictable contact. But if contact becomes unavoidable in a way which was not reasonably predictable at the time the decision to challenge was made it's not careless.

When I initially asked this question I wondered if there was something in official guidance about challenges from behind that I didn't know about. That's really the answer I was expecting. Apparently there isn't.

 

[AlexF]

When I initially asked this question I wondered if there was something in official guidance about challenges from behind that I didn't know about. That's really the answer I was expecting. Apparently there isn't.

Directly in the Laws, there isn't (anymore).

There used to be.

Now it's in the considerations. In summary, they kinda work like:
* If this challenge comes in from the front , then there's very likely no offence there
* If this challenge comes in from the side, then there's a decent chance that there's no offence here
* If this challenge comes in from behind, then there's a likely chance that this is an offence.

The logic behind that is:
* From the front, the player can almost certainly see the challenge coming in
* From the side, the player can likely see the challenge coming in (peripheral vision)
* From behind, the player can almost certainly NOT see the challenge coming in

 

[Trip]

Hmm, I wonder why the ability of the attacker to see the challenge is a factor? I would have assumed that it's because the attacker is normally between the defender and the ball when the challenge comes from behind.