Reckless Tackles

[Coventry Cardshark]

I had one incident in my game today, towards the end of the game. A player slid in recklessly to try and tackle his opponent, with one foot studs showing. Although the player missed both the ball and the opponent, I blew for a foul and cautioned the player because I believed he had intended to make contact with either the ball or the opponent. The player had no complaints about the tackle which made a change!

Can anyone clarify if I made the correct decision here, and if not, what to do in the future? Thanks.

 

[Ross]

Think id have done the exact same to be honest.

 

[Andi Keats]

Any reckless tackle/foul is a caution so spot on and as the law states to trip or attemp to trip your also correct.
I had one of those today also an I did exactly the same as you

 

[Martyn Cannon]

Yes i say that you were correct

 

[Coventry Cardshark]

Thanks guys, much appreciated.

 

[coventryref]

100% correct mate

 

[Coventry Cardshark]

Cheers Paul

 

[jmow75]

correct i had a spell in one game the other week were one team lost the plot for 5 mins had 4 in the book for reckless tackles that soon solved the problem. Along with a word with captain that if the tackles keep going the cards keep coming.

 

[Ryan Owens]

Correct decision if the tackle was, indeed, reckless. Of course, you had to be there to gage that, but the "intent" of the player should not factor in to whether or not it is considered careless, wreckless or using excessive force. In fact, when IFAB created the three-tiered system, they deliberately removed intent from the law.