Yeah, but you get told your opinions are totally incorrect in law and then carry on saying you are right. Some things are open to interpretation, most aren't and are black and white.
Brazil Vs South Korea
- Thread starter Mooseybaby
- Start date
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
I’ve never once argued I was right in law against what you guys on here say. I clearly know that people on here have a lot more experience than I do and thats why I joined. I ask questions and offering differing opinions to learn and at least I take the time to engage.
Macca
Active Member
At the time, I thought I almost certainly wouldn't give a penalty for that in one of my games, and I probably still think the same. My rationale was that Richarlison came in from behind and the defender was already playing the ball. The defenders actions were not careless, as they had no idea that Richarlison was there. Nothing the defender could have really done about it.
If Richarlison was coming in from an angle where the defender had a chance of seeing him, it would be different.
Its similar to a player jumping between the player and ball with little room and then gets pushed over because the defender was in mid-flight.
If Richarlison was coming in from an angle where the defender had a chance of seeing him, it would be different.
Its similar to a player jumping between the player and ball with little room and then gets pushed over because the defender was in mid-flight.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That is an interesting and articulate take. However, I think the common interpretation here is that the defender is exactly acting carelessly in not realising he is going to be second to a ball - to an opponent he kicks.
I think this is also what football expects. No doubt the attacker’s reaction ‘helps’ as it highlights the contact and makes the decision easier for the referee.
In a grassroots game I am telling the players it’s a basic simple foul, and I’m telling the attacker to also calm down and avoid overreacting.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
. 
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Guys, with respect, I think you should consider again what it means for the defender to be acting carelessly.
one
RefChat Addict
Defenders have been sent off for kicking someone in face obviously not knowing they were there. Not knowing someone is coming from behind is not a reason to make kicking them in the foot a fair kick (in opposed to careless).
On a seperate note IFAB / FIFA have to do something to get rid of gamesmanship in the game. Almost every careless foul in the game now is reacted like the fouled player was shot by a sniper.
On a seperate note IFAB / FIFA have to do something to get rid of gamesmanship in the game. Almost every careless foul in the game now is reacted like the fouled player was shot by a sniper.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
Seems A lot would not agree
do we not deem kicking in the face totally different than the foot. I just don’t know what the defender was supposed to do in that situation. Are you saying he just has to leave the ball. He was caught in the action of just clearing the ball. Like you say about gamesmanship, The law has gone too far in one direction. It needs to be brought back a little in most of these Penalty calls, as some are just absurd and fans don’t want to see them given.
one
RefChat Addict
He needs to be aware of his surrounding and the possibilities which way play and players can go, as most players have this awareness most times. This allows them to be 'carefull'. Had he been aware of Richardson as a better defender would have been, he would have shielded the ball and drawn a foul rather than fouling him by taking a swing.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
So think of it this way:
Just because he is in the process of clearing the ball, does not mean he cannot be challenged. Being challenged fairly from a blind spot does no negate a foul being committed..
Was he challenged fairly, imo the answer is yes.
Did he take enough care not to kick his opponent who was challenging him, imo the answer is no.
• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Not knowing the attacker is there would for me fit in with showing a lack of attention.
This is where I get confused with ambiguity in the LOTG. The defender can touch the ball before the player they're tackling, but a foul can still be given against them if it is deemed that the tackle was without care. In this case Richarlison, comes from behind the defender, he gets to the ball first, but his studs are in a position that could cause injury to the player trying to clear the ball.
Why is this not a free kick to the SK defender? Is this not endangering a player or careless? Richarlison does know what the defender is trying to do.
Players may not do the following acts against an opponent "carelessly":
- charges
- jumps at
- kicks or attempts to kick
- pushes
- strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
- tackles or challenges
- trips or attempts to trip
"Careless" means "shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." (Law 12)
If the referee thinks that the attacker's tackle was careless, the attacker commits a foul. Imo, the attacker was not careless (according to the above definition) because he played the ball and did not initiate any contact with the defender; tackling is part of football and players are entitled to tackle opponents.
As a matter of fact, the defender did kick the attacker. The only subjective part is whether the kick was careless. Imo, the defender acts without precaution; accordingly, the defender was careless according to the above definition, and commits a foul.
If the referee thinks that the attacker and defender both commit an offence at the same time, he punishes the most serious offence which I believe to be the kick (note: I don't consider the attacker to have committed any offence at all).
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It is appreciated.
Problem is, it's not a foul because someone kicked an opponent having not tried hard enough not to kick them. If that was the case then players ought to do more not to tackle or challenge.
They need to be careless as to a particular end. In my view, a foul is when they are careless as to risk of injuring the opponent (to any minor degree) or careless as to compromising an opponent's position on the field.
I haven't seen the footage, but a kick on the bottom of the foot may not tick either box for me, depending on force. At anything other than very high force it is unlikely to cause pain and it is also unlikely to cause someone to fall over or to delay them in any way.
They need to be careless as to a particular end. In my view, a foul is when they are careless as to risk of injuring the opponent (to any minor degree) or careless as to compromising an opponent's position on the field.
I haven't seen the footage, but a kick on the bottom of the foot may not tick either box for me, depending on force. At anything other than very high force it is unlikely to cause pain and it is also unlikely to cause someone to fall over or to delay them in any way.
Risk of injury or force is irrelevant here, and you probably need to watch it. The defender has gone to properly welly it clear, during that time Richarlison has stepped in front of him and he has kicked the bottom of his foot with pretty much full force. It was a very, very clear penalty, and any other decision would have had people in football baffled.
It is one of those that only referees will debate. There wasn't a peep of complaint from the defenders, the commentators and pundits all said it was a correct decision, any referee not giving a penalty here would just be confusing everyone.