A&H

Reckless challenge that breaks up a promising attack

The problem with the word 'foul' is that it is used frequently in law but never properly defined. One could assumes it's a subset of offences punishable by direct (or indirect?) free kick committed by a player against an opponent. But the law must have a clear definition of it.
 
The Referee Store
The problem with the word 'foul' is that it is used frequently in law but never properly defined. One could assumes it's a subset of offences punishable by direct (or indirect?) free kick committed by a player against an opponent. But the law must have a clear definition of it.
Agree on this. As I recall when I checked some time back, the only place the word "foul" is used is in the title of law 12 and in SFP. So we only know what a "foul" is from history or from the process of elimination: Law 12 is F & M, so that which is not misconduct must be a foul. IMO "foul" is much too convenient of a concept to be dropped for this obsession with just calling everything "offenses."
 
Probably just as well, as half the time I think we agree, but then (e.g.) you say something about "a play" by a GK in the 60s/70s ... but then accuse me of trying to impose current wording onto that period.

It all goes back to badly worded laws now. E.g. "fouls are defined as fouls only if they are CREF". But law 12 calls everything in that first list not fouls but "offences" - but only penalised with a DFK if in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. They might have meant they were not offences unless in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, but that's not what it says.

Well, we fully agree that IFAB would benefit from much, much better drafting!

(FWIW, my reference to the GK in the 70s was not based on current interpretation of "play"; it was based on guidance from the 70s.)
 
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?
It's not "progress", it's "movement" and of course there is movement before the ball is in play - the players are constantly moving around, jockeying for position, before the ball is in play. Also, even if a player is not moving, that could be precisely because that movement is being impeded by them being held.
 
It's not "progress", it's "movement" and of course there is movement before the ball is in play - the players are constantly moving around, jockeying for position, before the ball is in play. Also, even if a player is not moving, that could be precisely because that movement is being impeded by them being held.
Yeah, I took "progress" from impeding. I used to know what "obstruction" meant, but changing to "impeding", then distinguishing between with or without contact, and wondering whether any one of 20 players running round a penalty area before a corner is holding or impeding (and therefore stopping "movement" or "progress") does I think rather prove my point. For instance, it's obvious that one tactical aim at a corner (using the bit about players being entitled to their space) is to impede the progress / movement of the GK.

The expansion of the laws has given us "angels on the head of a pin" arguments about wording, to the extent that we're not even sure now when to use the word "foul".
 
Agree on this. As I recall when I checked some time back, the only place the word "foul" is used is in the title of law 12 and in SFP. So we only know what a "foul" is from history or from the process of elimination: Law 12 is F & M, so that which is not misconduct must be a foul. IMO "foul" is much too convenient of a concept to be dropped for this obsession with just calling everything "offenses."
Belatedly, for the record, in the French version, the word for foul in the title of law 12 is the same as for "offences" in the text. Fautes.
 
I am surprised that the UEFA (?) concept of blatant holding YC USB offences has not been mentioned in this thread.

I thought this was very much actively part of guidance. Interested if anyone has the source/text from a few years ago?
 
Back
Top