But less semantics that it used to be.
Before CREF, all penal fouls (now DFK offenses) were only fouls if "intentionally committ[ed]." And what we now call a reckless foul would have been cautioned under the rubric of "ungentlemanly conduct"--but that wasn't said explicitly in the magic book.*
Back then "intentionally commits" was pretty well tortured in meaning, trying to refer to an underlying action being voluntary rather than any intent to, say, trip an opponent. So what CREF really did--albeit imperfectly--was to bring the language of the Laws closer to their actual meaning. (I have sympathy for reporting that says cautions were given for a "bad foul"--hmm, maybe that should be the language: caution for "bad foul" and send off for "really bad foul" . . . .)
__________
*Indeed, I recall listening to a blowhard with no feel for the game argue that for a single foul players could only be sent off for serious foul play, not cautioned because the only caution relating to fouls was persistent infringement. But in his defense, from just reading the text of the LOTG, it was not obvious that a single bad foul could be considered USB (err, then, "ungentlemanly conduct").