RefSix

OOch!!

lincs22

Supply League Observer
Staff member
Observer/Tutor
#21
But 'deliberate' isn't in laws so strictly by LOTG - red is surely justified.

We NEVER know what is players' minds - hence law NOW wording avoids 'deliberate' and 'intentional'
They use to be there - that is why players/commentators still say it was unintentional, when they try and justify horror tackles
 

Kieran W

Well-Known Member
#31
@PinnerPaul you're right as ever

We NEVER know what is players' minds - hence law wording avoids 'deliberate' and 'intentional'
Taking the LOTG as a whole, I think the reason why the laws use deliberate rather than intentional is because as a referee we can observe a deliberate action but we can never judge a player's intent by doing that action
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#33
@PinnerPaul you're right as ever



Taking the LOTG as a whole, I think the reason why the laws use deliberate rather than intentional is because as a referee we can observe a deliberate action but we can never judge a player's intent by doing that action
To begin with - those on this board who have been out with me, will tell you that first line is nonsense for a start!:p

Back to the matter in hand! That's an interesting distinction - but isn't a deliberate act an intentional one?

I'm genuinely not sure if I agree with that or not!;)
 

Kieran W

Well-Known Member
#34
To begin with - those on this board who have been out with me, will tell you that first line is nonsense for a start!:p

Back to the matter in hand! That's an interesting distinction - but isn't a deliberate act an intentional one?

I'm genuinely not sure if I agree with that or not!;)
By definition, yes, but as said before it's impossible to judge someone's intent (unless you're a mind reader)
 

Kieran W

Well-Known Member
#35
On a side note:
If I take the example of a deliberate handling offence which stops a promising attack.

We give the free kick for a deliberate handball and caution for SPA. We can never be sure that the player's intent was to stop the attack but we judge the fact that it did and the action of deliberately handling together as a cautionable offence

Tell me I'm not talking rubbish here :D
 

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#36
On a side note:
If I take the example of a deliberate handling offence which stops a promising attack.

We give the free kick for a deliberate handball and caution for SPA. We can never be sure that the player's intent was to stop the attack but we judge the fact that it did and the action of deliberately handling together as a cautionable offence

Tell me I'm not talking rubbish here :D
Until the recent great re-write, SPA did require intent--the wording was "for the purpose of" or something like that.

Before the prior great re-write, all fouls had to be intentional. But the interpretation of a foul wasn't that different, as intentional had always been in reference to the act, not the result. In other words, the leg was intentionally stuck in and tripped the player was enough--we didn't ask "did he intend to trip the opponent." While there is an enormous amount of hand-wringing over the linguistic differences between deliberate and intentional, my view is that they simply used a different word (virtually a synonym) as a way of emphasizing the overall change more than any real difference between the words. (Indeed, in criminal law, deliberate considers higher degree of mental culpability (deliberate implies conscious intention). But neither deliberate nor intentional in the LOTG can be viewed from a dictionary--they are both used as terms of art.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#37
On a side note:
If I take the example of a deliberate handling offence which stops a promising attack.

We give the free kick for a deliberate handball and caution for SPA. We can never be sure that the player's intent was to stop the attack but we judge the fact that it did and the action of deliberately handling together as a cautionable offence

Tell me I'm not talking rubbish here :D
No you're not - that's a good example.
 
Top