Intent has absolutely no mention in the law of play except from handball, studs to face = red card its non negotiable
Everton vs Arsenal
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Not sure that is entirely correct. If ready the definitions for CRUEF, some level of intent is implicit. "Shows lack of attention", "acts with disregard", "using...". And don't for get about "attempt" to kick, strike, trip. Or attempt to playe the ball for DOGSO
I have not seen any mention in law about "studs to face" either. You see the point I guess, it's all about how you interpret things.
Last edited:
My view on the no red:
Studs to face means we begin with red and work backwards.
What may save him is that it seems he has removed as much of the force as possible. In fact, it seems that the force was relatively minor. It was the toe and balls of the foot only and he didn't follow through.
Having said that, I would send him off if I had seen it live, because I would not have had a replay to assist me in seeing what he had done to mitigate the damage.
Studs to face means we begin with red and work backwards.
What may save him is that it seems he has removed as much of the force as possible. In fact, it seems that the force was relatively minor. It was the toe and balls of the foot only and he didn't follow through.
Having said that, I would send him off if I had seen it live, because I would not have had a replay to assist me in seeing what he had done to mitigate the damage.
If the player is on the floor, the foot isn't unnatural or dangerous so it can't be start with red.
This incident didn't seem to be intentional from the footage, the Everton player looks away as the Arsenal players momentum takes him furhter round for me. Certainly nowhere near the Tyrone Mings on Oliveira from a few seasons ago.
Saully you come across as an Arsenal fan, are you?
Last edited:
I agree with you in principle. The game is a mess because Match Officials have never applied the Law as they should. That said, this Goal Celebration thing is not the best example of Referees not doing their job. Of course, in our games, we'd definitely not be sending off because what we see on TV dictates what's expected of usThis annoys me though, rules are rules and the fact they arent enforced renders them useless, may aswell not have them
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Just seen the Godfrey incident on Sky Sports page, struggling to see how it's anything other than a red for endangering the safety of an opponent. 
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
This is a bit misleading. Intent is there or implicit in various laws. An "attempt" to do something implies intent, and several attempts are fouls. Intent is also at play in determining if a defender deliberately played the ball so as to clear OS restrictions. (Until a couple of years ago, intent was also part of SPAA, which then required a foul "for the purpose of" interfering with the PA.) While it is not an explicit part of SFP or even VC, it is certainly not irrelevant--but not in the way commentators often use it. Not being intentional is far from the get-out-of-jail-free card that sometimes comes from those on TV. But the when it is intentional, it can be a pretty good indicator that excessive force was used, as the appropriate amount of force was none. That said, we have to be careful about intent/deliberate, as we aren't reading minds--we are looking at the actual actions that take place.
You are correct that intent shouldn't be judged in certain situations. For example if a player kicks an opponent in the head when it is 6" off the ground it doesn't matter if he meant it or not. Likewise if a player stretches for the ball and catches the opponent full on the shin, he probably didn't mean to do it but that is irrelevant and it is still SFP.
Can you really take the same approach though when two players challenge, one falls to the ground and the other accidentally lands on him? I don't think so, and rather you need to look for some kind of intent to send off for that. Otherwise we would have to say that you can't challenge for headers, as if you do and you land on the opponent you will be sent off. I do personally think Godfrey knew what he was doing, although I'm not sure I would have been confident enough of that to send him off in a Premier League game.
In the particular case of VC I really think intent is mandatory. If it's an accident it's not violence.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Sending a player off who is celebrating a goal using the excuse that there were two separate parts to the same excessive celebration is, as far as I'm concerned, a classic example of "gotcha" refereeing.This annoys me though, rules are rules and the fact they arent enforced renders them useless, may aswell not have them
For me, it's doing something simply because you're technically allowed to, rather than because you believe it's the best decision in the overall context of the game.
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm sorry but that's incorrect. Not only is it there for handball, but various other places as well. In fact, the words "deliberate" or "deliberately" occur 24 separate times in the main body of the laws.
The only place intent was actually removed from the law, was for the wording on physical contact fouls (though as some have said, it may be implicit in some of the wording even there).
Actually it is in part of the law on VC, the bit where it says that it's VC if a player deliberately strikes an opponent on the head or face with the hand or arm (unless with negligible force).
This means that if a player's arm happens to contact an opponent in the face and you decide it wasn't intentional, it isn't necessarily VC.