Ref4Me

Reckless challenge that breaks up a promising attack

David F

New Member
This is in the context of Chiellini yesterday - I’m right in thinking that both in practice and in law, a tackle meeting both of these criteria is just a yellow? Or is it just in practice, and could technically be two yellows in theory?

It’s not obvious to me just by reading Law 12, but am sure there’s guidance somewhere that makes it explicit.
 
The Referee Store

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
For simultaneous offences you must punish the most serious.
Only sequential offences can carry the 3 card trick
The offence you describe is Simultaneous as it is one action that commits two types of offence. So only a yellow card.
Also, technically in law 12 a hold cannot be reckless it is not listed as a CRUEF offence. It can only be USB.
 

David F

New Member
Ah thanks for the quick reply, that’s great and makes sense. Assuming a hold can still be SFP if it endangers the safety of an opponent though? Not saying that was the case with Chiellini and aware we don’t just borrow laws from rugby, but if Saka had landed on his head I’d say that’s a red.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Ah thanks for the quick reply, that’s great and makes sense. Assuming a hold can still be SFP if it endangers the safety of an opponent though? Not saying that was the case with Chiellini and aware we don’t just borrow laws from rugby, but if Saka had landed on his head I’d say that’s a red.
Technically speaking, it should be evaluated as VC rather than SFP as the miscreant was not challenging for the ball. (Though I am not entirely sure IFAB really means that as quite as bright of a line as the words express, I think that is the right analysis where the offense is not a soccer play of any sort.
Also, technically in law 12 a hold cannot be reckless it is not listed as a CRUEF offence. It can only be USB.
Not exactly right as I read it if we want to get into technicalities. Reckless isn't a separate cautionable offense, but is one of the examples of USB--so any reckless foul is USB. While a hold as a foul is not evaluated as CRUEF, the USB explanation of a reckless caution is not limited to the CRUEF fouls, but more broadly "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence." So a reckless hold is cautionable.

(Hmmmm. . . . is it possible to have a reckless handball???)
 

Redster

Active Member
Technically speaking, it should be evaluated as VC rather than SFP as the miscreant was not challenging for the ball. (Though I am not entirely sure IFAB really means that as quite as bright of a line as the words express, I think that is the right analysis where the offense is not a soccer play of any sort.

Not exactly right as I read it if we want to get into technicalities. Reckless isn't a separate cautionable offense, but is one of the examples of USB--so any reckless foul is USB. While a hold as a foul is not evaluated as CRUEF, the USB explanation of a reckless caution is not limited to the CRUEF fouls, but more broadly "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence." So a reckless hold is cautionable.

(Hmmmm. . . . is it possible to have a reckless handball???)
For instance, recklessly throwing a ball at an opponent - although that is expressly catered for in the Laws
 

ChasObserverRefDeveloper

Regular Contributor
Technically speaking, it should be evaluated as VC rather than SFP as the miscreant was not challenging for the ball. (Though I am not entirely sure IFAB really means that as quite as bright of a line as the words express, I think that is the right analysis where the offense is not a soccer play of any sort.

Not exactly right as I read it if we want to get into technicalities. Reckless isn't a separate cautionable offense, but is one of the examples of USB--so any reckless foul is USB. While a hold as a foul is not evaluated as CRUEF, the USB explanation of a reckless caution is not limited to the CRUEF fouls, but more broadly "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence." So a reckless hold is cautionable.

(Hmmmm. . . . is it possible to have a reckless handball???)
Your final teaser question, to which we know the answer from Law 12, gives those reading this the chance to get Brownie points if they can (without reference materials being used) list the 12 direct free kick offences in Law 12, and then a sub-list showing which need to be careless/reckless/excessive force;):(
 

Redster

Active Member
CRUEF
Kicks or attempts
Strikes or attempts
Jumps at
Lunges
Pushes
Charges

NOT CRUEF
Holds
Handball
Spits at
VC
Impedes w/ contact


Something feels wrong about this list, but I don't know what
 

Alex Rush-Fear

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
CRUEF
Kicks or attempts
Strikes or attempts
Jumps at
Lunges Trips/attempts to trip an opponent
Pushes
Charges
Tackles/challenges an opponent

NOT CRUEF
Holds
Handball
Spits at/bites
VC Throws object at ball/opponent/official
Impedes w/ contact


Something feels wrong about this list, but I don't know what
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The +one not in the 'obvious' list and missed by most quizzes is interference by bench which was changed from IFK a few years ago.
 

ChasObserverRefDeveloper

Regular Contributor
The +one not in the 'obvious' list and missed by most quizzes is interference by bench which was changed from IFK a few years ago.
Quite so - that's why I specified Law 12. In Law 12 there is a cross-reference to the additional dfk's in Law 3, including as you say those which often get missed.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Does anyone know why holding is not in the top list with pushing?

It means any holding should be a FK but it seems semi-official that a bit of holding is fine.

I can't recall any official explanation of why holding was not treated the same as pushing.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Does anyone know why holding is not in the top list with pushing?

It means any holding should be a FK but it seems semi-official that a bit of holding is fine.

I can't recall any official explanation of why holding was not treated the same as pushing.
Technically, A bit of holding is fine. Holding offences only occur when a players movement is impeded by it.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Does anyone know why holding is not in the top list with pushing?

It means any holding should be a FK but it seems semi-official that a bit of holding is fine.

I can't recall any official explanation of why holding was not treated the same as pushing.
Holding, like the other non CREF fouls isn't really something that is well described by CREF. As @Alex Rush-Fear posted, the laws recently added a clarification that it impedes an opponent. But that has always been implicit, not just for holding, but for all fouls, as "trifling" offenses of any type are not called. (I still think it was a mistake by IFAB to remove that language, but it is still implicit.)
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Glossary definition of holding. Was put in last year
And is a push allowed if it doesn't impede the opponent's progress, or a kick?

It's just playing advantage...

And if it's only holding if it impedes an opponent's progress, how come it's holding even if the ball is not in play and no one's moving?

" with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play"

It's no wonder the laws are twice as long as they used to be.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
And is a push allowed if it doesn't impede the opponent's progress, or a kick?

It's just playing advantage...

And if it's only holding if it impedes an opponent's progress, how come it's holding even if the ball is not in play and no one's moving?

" with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play"

It's no wonder the laws are twice as long as they used to be.
Well they are two different types of offences, designed to do different things to the victim.
A players movement can be impeded before the ball is in play. Most runs start before the ball is played and in play so there isnt really a contradiction.
 
Top