ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Law 12 defines "Careless"
Brazil Vs South Korea
- Thread starter Mooseybaby
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Risk of injury to any degree takes it into at least reckless or likely excessive force territory. I suggest you read the definitions of careless, reckless and excessive force in law 12.
Yeh, I know the definitions.
Recklessness is not about injury, but about consequences. We assume injury is the most relevant consequence, but it is not written. The most important bit is the state of mind of the offender - that he was reckless as to the consequence we have in mind.
When we think about lack of attention or precaution, we have to also be thinking about what we want to offender to be avoiding.
Simply wanting them to avoid kicking is not right, otherwise they also wouldn't be allowed to tackle or challenge or push or charge etc. I daresay we all have in mind that we want the offender to be careful as to avoiding some particular unfairness to their opponent, such as pain or unfairly losing their position on the field or being unfairly prevented from playing the ball
Recklessness is not about injury, but about consequences. We assume injury is the most relevant consequence, but it is not written. The most important bit is the state of mind of the offender - that he was reckless as to the consequence we have in mind.
When we think about lack of attention or precaution, we have to also be thinking about what we want to offender to be avoiding.
Simply wanting them to avoid kicking is not right, otherwise they also wouldn't be allowed to tackle or challenge or push or charge etc. I daresay we all have in mind that we want the offender to be careful as to avoiding some particular unfairness to their opponent, such as pain or unfairly losing their position on the field or being unfairly prevented from playing the ball
You are correct that the offender's state of mind is relevant but you are mistaken in the way you have equated kicking an opponent with challenging an opponent. This is because kicking an opponent is usually unintentional and challenging an opponent is usually intentional.
The way I see it is that there are two ways in which a player can be "careless".
The first is inadvertence. This is when a player does something without intending to do it. For example, a player attempts to kick the ball but instead unintentionally kicks an opponent; the player has kicked an opponent 'carelessly'. A real life example would be a person who accidentally drops their phone on the floor; they are careless.
The second way is when a player does something intentionally but the way they do it is careless. For example, a player intentionally challenges an opponent for the ball but uses too much force in making that challenge. If the force used "shows a lack of attention or consideration", the player is by definition careless. A real life example would be a person who intentionally throws their phone onto a sofa but throws with too much force damaging the screen; they are careless.
This is the most subjective part of the laws and the referee's opinion is key. Indeed, law 12 states explicitly that these types of offences are only committed if they are done "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless..." (emphasis added). Opinions will differ between referees.
Anyway, the analysis I've just done of Law 12 is completely pointless because we referees know how to apply the laws in accordance with what football expects. We make decisions about 'carelessness' naturally without even considering the exact wording of the law. We know what it means instinctively from years of playing, refereeing and watching football.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
For those who haven't been reffing as long, some history might be useful. C/R/EF came from the first great re-write of the Laws in the modern era. Until then, all penal (now DFK) fouls were only fouls if "intentional." But that word never meant what a literal reading would mean. The explanation was that the "intentional" flowed to the underlying action, but it never really fit well. So C/R/EF brought the text of the Laws much closer to the reality of how the game is played and how fouls are called. But it still isn't a perfect match, and overly parsing words in the LOTG only helps so much as IFAB are pretty poor wordsmiths. The best refs are the refs with the best feel for the game. (This is also why VAR is such a challenge: fouls are inherently subjective at some level, and the pretense that we can always get them right if we just have enough angles for the VAR is just that--a pretense. While most qualified referees at a particular level will agree on most foul calls, there are always going to be those in the gray zone. And parsing the text of Law 12 doesn't solve them.)
Was 14 when I went on the course. This always made me laugh.
- - -
There's just some challenges you KNOW what the correct response is given the nature of the challenge, heat of the game, previous between those opponents etc over the 90, actually having eyes AND EARS, etc.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Slight correction. The removal of the element of intent from physical contact fouls and the addition of wording requiring such fouls to be committed, "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or involving disproportionate force," came in 1995.
In the "great re-write" of 1997 they changed the last part of the phrase to "using excessive force," but that was just a cosmetic change. The substantive amendment removing the element of intent and establishing what became the CRUEF requirement took place two years earlier, not as part of the 1997 re-write.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Thanks. I did not know that. ( I was in a 20 year break from reffing at the time and always heard it discussed as part part of the great re-write.)