Shield vs charge?

[Sheffields Finest]

Lost me after talking about Johan Cruyff I think???

 

[bloovee]

I think you're being a tad literal-minded here. We all know that when the law talks about offences being committed in a manner that meets the CRUEF criteria, it means they are only offences if they meet the criteria and are not offences if they don't. I don't think for a moment that anyone is confused by that.

"We all know..." That's not good enough. The rules of any game should be clear and not rely on stuff like "we all know..". (This forum would be dead if the laws were clear!) Is it really an offence to "tackle or challenge" an opponent?


A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

The following actions are offences (fouls) if committed against an opponent, and are punished by a direct free kick (or penalty kick if committed by a player in his own penalty area):

•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•trips or attempts to trip
•tackles or challenges in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force

It needs some tweaking as some of the offences are VC offences anyway, but that seems a lot simpler.

On the second point, you seem to be being drawn into a logical fallacy - just because all offences involving contact have to be direct free kick offences, it doesn't mean that offences that don't involve contact can't be DFK offences - that doesn't logically follow.

So offences involving contact are DFK offences, but offences not involving contact are also DFK offences - so all offences in the list (apart from some "tackles and challenges") are DFK offences. Nothing to do with logical fallacy - just a pointless distinction in the first place.

 

[AlexF]

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

No, you're, again, confusing this. If the offence isn't committed in at least a careless manner, it's NOT an offence. There are situations where someone happens to kick an opponent as they're both kicking the ball. It isn't aways an offence, as you well know.

It needs some tweaking as some of the offences are VC offences anyway, but that seems a lot simpler.

Untrue.

All of them CAN be considered VC. But by their very existence, they are not automatically VC.

 

[bloovee]

No, you're, again, confusing this. If the offence isn't committed in at least a careless manner, it's NOT an offence. There are situations where someone happens to kick an opponent as they're both kicking the ball. It isn't always an offence, as you well know.


Untrue.

All of them CAN be considered VC. But by their very existence, they are not automatically VC.

I don't want to go round in circles on this, but basically you're saying that the law says the following offences are sometimes not offences.

And (on the second point) I really can't see how an attempted trip is going to be VC. You're just helping make my case that it's awful drafting. (For those who don't recall, the "careless, reckless, or excessive force" wording came in and the disciplinary sanctions aspect - FK, yellow, red - was an afterthought.) This list is of offences (or sometimes not offences) of which some may be judged SFP, some VC, but that's a secondary issue to the basic nonsense of the principal wording.

 

[AlexF]

I don't want to go round in circles on this, but basically you're saying that the law says the following offences are sometimes not offences.

Precisely.

Because they may not be done carelessly. The Law used to have wording about "trifling" offences not actually being offences. That principle still holds. Players can be tripped, but it not be an offence. Take for instance the situation where a GK gathers the ball, then the opponent trips over them. In your wording, that would still always be an offence, whereas in reality, that is NOT an offence.

The wording for that part of the Laws is actually VERY well written, and there's a reason that it has not changed in a long time.

And (on the second point) I really can't see how an attempted trip is going to be VC. You're just helping make my case that it's awful drafting.

The offence that could (in theory) be VC is tripping (the "or attempted parts" may be somewhat poorly worded), whereas the language is trying to portray that an attempted trip could also be an offence (though it is rarely penalized as such).

 

[GraemeS]

"Trifling" non-offences I actually understand and am on board with as a concept. But to drag things back to the first page of this thread, someone posted a video of a charge in the back that actually sent the victim flying, with no intent to actually make contact with the ball. Some people then argued that to be a fair charge - and I still don't really get how that can be worked out?

It was an entirely deliberate action, with the desired effect being to knock the opponent over - so that means it can't be careless?
Dictionary definition or reckless is "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless" - which doesn't really help us as it sounds like simply a blend of the other two.
And excessive force/endangering can't apply because althugh it was forceful, it wasn't really dangerous in any way.

So we're allowing that charge by process of elimination? And my understanding of careless must be flawed - because therefore if he'd gone for the ball, missed and knocked the opponent over by mistake, that could be considered careless, but it can't be because that's what he was trying to do? I'm really struggling to understand the thought process here.

As I said earlier, I've always penalised charges and allowed shoulder-to-shoulder use of strength - and that makes perfect sense to me. But it's been argued that this is a wrong interpretation, but no clear alternative has been put forward as far as I can tell.

 

[AlexF]

It was an entirely deliberate action, with the desired effect being to knock the opponent over - so that means it can't be careless?

Uh, no.

Dictionary definition or reckless is "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless" - which doesn't really help us as it sounds like simply a blend of the other two.

And what's the LotG definition? Not the same as that.

The questions to think about are:

• Was it a fair charge?
• The classic definition of such is as follows:
  • Was it a charge to challenge for a playable ball?
  • Did each player have at least one foot on the ground at the time of contact?
  • Was it (approximately) shoulder to shoulder?
  • Was it made with a reasonable amount of force? (This is where the CREF comes into play)

From the description in the first posting, that sounds like an unfair charge (thus a foul).

For the first video, it's right on the edge of legal, but for me, that one is legal. The player is clearly challenging for the ball as the charge is made, and while it is forceful, it is still reasonable -- the other play goes flying because of the side difference and angle of the charge.

For the second, video, the first is relatively fair -- at that level it would not expect that to be called, at younger youth levels, I wouldn't be surprised to see it called. The second is a charge in the back, and an easy foul to call.

 

[Peter Grove]

It was an entirely deliberate action, with the desired effect being to knock the opponent over - so that means it can't be careless?
Dictionary definition or reckless is "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless" - which doesn't really help us as it sounds like simply a blend of the other two.

When the laws give us a definition for a term, we have to use that definition, not the one you might find in a dictionary (classic example being the definitions used in the offside law). When it comes to the definition of 'careless' the laws say:

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.

So the challenge you refer to from the video on the first page certainly could be judged by a referee as careless, according to the definition found in the laws, notwithstanding the fact some contributors have said they think it was a fair charge.

For reckless, the laws definition is:

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent

Once again, this is the definition we have to go by in a game of football and the fact that a dictionary definition conflates the two terms is not relevant.

 

[GraemeS]

Uh, no.


And what's the LotG definition? Not the same as that.

The questions to think about are:

• Was it a fair charge?
• The classic definition of such is as follows:
  • Was it a charge to challenge for a playable ball?
  • Did each player have at least one foot on the ground at the time of contact?
  • Was it (approximately) shoulder to shoulder?
  • Was it made with a reasonable amount of force? (This is where the CREF comes into play)

From the description in the first posting, that sounds like an unfair charge (thus a foul).

For the first video, it's right on the edge of legal, but for me, that one is legal. The player is clearly challenging for the ball as the charge is made, and while it is forceful, it is still reasonable -- the other play goes flying because of the side difference and angle of the charge.

For the second, video, the first is relatively fair -- at that level it would not expect that to be called, at younger youth levels, I wouldn't be surprised to see it called. The second is a charge in the back, and an easy foul to call.

I think what I'm struggling with on those two videos is that I always assumed a legal challenge had to at least attempt to make some contact with the ball at some point. For me on the first video, he runs into the opponent, send him flying and only then goes on to control the ball as a consequence of the fact the opponent is on the floor 5 meters away. The intent is to knock the opponent away using momentum, not to directly challenge for the ball, which is why I'd not hesitate to call that as a foul - and might even be considering yellow, give that could injure him if he's not expecting the contact.

 

[AlexF]

I think what I'm struggling with on those two videos is that I always assumed a legal challenge had to at least attempt to make some contact with the ball at some point.

Sometimes you have to move your opponent to get the ball.

For me on the first video, he runs into the opponent, send him flying and only then goes on to control the ball as a consequence of the fact the opponent is on the floor 5 meters away. The intent is to knock the opponent away using momentum, not to directly challenge for the ball, which is why I'd not hesitate to call that as a foul

That's a completely fair assessment, and I'd support you on that one if you were the match official. As I noted above, for me, that challenge is right on the edge, and I lean (ever so slightly) to the legal side of it.

For this particular challenge, the ball is about a metre away (so easily playing distance), and the only questionable bit is the amount of force used.

 

[one]

@bloovee I am one of the biggest critics of the good book when it comes to use of the English language. The book is full of confusing and ambiguous statements and they know it. The latest version as made some attempt to fix them but there are many left in it. You would think with the money they make they can hire a decent technical writer and a linguist to fix them. Some are obvious like the one you pointed out so there shouldn't be an issue with understanding it.

I understand your reference to 12. YOU cant say "an offence is an offence if so and so". Once you refer to it as an offence then it is always an offence. you can not then put some conditions on it. So law 12 would have simply better worded if it said:
"Any of the following actions against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force is an offence and a direct free kick is awarded:"
Even though its currently wrongly worded, everyone understands what it means.

However I disagree with your point about contact. Any offence with contact is DFK. Some offences without contact are also DFK. That makes sense to me. The clause "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick" may be redundant but necessary to clarify impeding or PIADM which are normally IFK become DFK if contact is involved. A common misunderstanding by many referees.