Decision on challenge - how would you have handled this?

[socal lurker]

Completely disagree. The law is clear that a reckless DFK offence is USB which is different to what you state.

Huh? What is unclear in Law 12 list of DFKs?

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:​

• …​

• tackles or challenges​

If it is both a DFK offense and an IFK it is the more serious that is to be punished.

 

[one]

Huh? What is unclear in Law 12 list of DFKs?

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:​

• …​

• tackles or challenges​

If it is both a DFK offense and an IFK it is the more serious that is to be punished.

It's not DFK and IFK at the same time unless the referee deems it that way. And if you choose to do that then there is nothing stopping you to do the same if it was only careless in which case PIADM would become redundant. Every challenge becomes DFK.

We just have to disagree on this one.

 

[Kes]

If the challenge is reckless, it is a DFK.

If the opponent isn't within playing distance then it's not a "challenge" and so can fall outside the "cruef" bracket (IMO).
This scenario is clearly one of those "you had to be there" ones and if observing I'd likely accept whatever explanation the referee gave.

 

[socal lurker]

there is nothing stopping you to do the same if it was only careless in which case PIADM would become redundant. Every challenge becomes DFK.

I actually raised this when they first added “challenge” to “tackle” if defining the DFK. I thought it was a mistake to do that without any guidance, as classic forms of PIADM seem to slot quite easily into a careless challenge—isn’t a “high kick” a careless challenge if it is dangerously to an opponent?

I can’t justify it be the language of the Laws, but I think the intent of the Laws has always (well, in the CREF era) been that a reckless tackle, with or without contact is intended as a DFK not as PIADM. I don’t recall ever seeing an example of PIADM involving a tackle.

As always appreciate the discussion.

 

[RefIADad]

I'm glad I was able to spur some discussion on this topic. Trying to summarize everything, it appears I should have given a caution for USB-reckless challenge. However, at least I called the foul and indicated that this type of challenge doesn't have a place in the game. This gives me some additional support for when I see the coach next time.