What's a "trick"?

[ProbablyRubbish]

I'll be brief. You are choosing what you think the "spirit of the law" is and limiting it to time wasting. That's where you're wrong. That is a part of the spirit of the law, but it is also that players can't just kick the ball to the GK to take the ball out of play. By ignoring that aspect of the spirit of the law, you lose the thread.

Fair. That makes total sense. In my post at 1.38 pm (#20 in this thread) I suggested that perhaps the reason posters in here would blow the whistle is because they define the spirit of the law differently.

But, just by way of observation, you are now at odds with the majority of posters in here, who feel the "spirit of the law" aspect shouldn't come into it at all (incidentally @JamesL at 3.20 pm (#26 in this thread) has also persuaded me that's correct).

 

[Redster]

Well you should if they relate to current law! Same as court judgements from decades ago! It's still applicable.

Not football related but worth noting.

Judgments from decades ago, made in relation to old statutes, are not binding in relation to new statutes, though they may be persuasive.

Circulars, made decades ago, not incorporated into new LOTG, should be treated with caution.

 

[ProbablyRubbish]

Judgments from decades ago, made in relation to old statutes, are not binding in relation to new statutes, though they may be persuasive.

That's just not true.

As a general matter, there's no rule which sets out which decisions are and are not binding. A deputy District Judge in the County Court is entitled to ignore the Supreme Court if he can distinguish the case on the facts.

That caveat aside, historic decisions in relation to superseded statutes can be binding where a newer statute covers the same subject matter in the same language. Jurisprudence around directors duties in the Companies Act is one example. Codified in 2006 but arising from a fragmented statutory framework dating back 100 years. Historic cases relating to the older statutes are relied on to this day to define the meaning of the 2006 Act, and they are as binding as any case can be.

 

[Redster]

They would be persuasive until determined to be binding. Provisions, construed purposively, are construed against the object of the particular statute. Difficult for old judgments to be binding when they relate to a statute which may have different objects.

But we are off track.

IFABs laws are very very different to laws made by Parliament in a common law system. They are really a code with explanatory (read: confusing) circulars. I maintain that to rely on old circulars for anything other than assistance is a fraught task.

In relation to 'trick', my suggestion would be to stop trying to separate the word from the phrase.

 

[ProbablyRubbish]

They would be persuasive until determined to be binding.

That doesn't make sense my guy. A judge determines the weight to give the historic judgment when the matter comes before them. They determine, at that time, whether the judgment is persuasive or binding (or whatever) . It's not a two stage process where every historic judgment begins as persuasive and then certain judgments become binding. It is absolutely correct to say that historic judgments in relation to superseded statutes can be (and often are) binding from the moment the statute is superseded, with their binding status being confirmed the first time the issue comes before a court.

Provisions, construed purposively, are construed against the object of the particular statute. Difficult for old judgments to be binding when they relate to a statute which may have different objects.

We don't disagree here, but there are plainly many, many statutes which are intended to have the same effect as superseded statutes. It is in no way uncommon. It frequently happens where Parliament is providing an updated code or drawing together diffuse statutes on similar topics, or where secondary legislation is being made and revised under delegated powers.

It happens all the time.

 

[ProbablyRubbish]

In relation to 'trick', my suggestion would be to stop trying to separate the word from the phrase

Other people have said this but it's also not logical. If there's a word in a rule and you don't know what that word is then you need to define it some how. You couldn't possibly apply the rule if you didn't have some definition or other in your mind. You might define it as widely as possible, to mean "any method", but that's still a definition of that specific word. There's nothing in the rest of the rule which provides context as to how the word "trick" should be defined, it merely says that one shouldn't use a "trick". Arguably the use of that specific word rather than a more general word is context suggesting a specific definition rather than the general definition of "any method", but you don't accept that interpretation, and that aside there's literally no context offered in the rest of the phrase.

 

[socal lurker]

Mercy. Some things don’t really need to be overthought. Here in the real world, as opposed to the world of “but what if,” the only time a ref should even start thinking about the “trick“ provisions is if it reaches out, grabs your, and jumps up and down screaming “I’m a trick! I’m so clever! I’m a trick!” This just isn’t an important issue.

 

[Tim - 2013]

I am in the US and part of a class I attended, the instructor showed different clips of the trick.

Most of the tricks consisted of the defender not being under pressure or the opponent was simply nearby and there really wasn't a need and it was all for show.

What changed it in the alternative was the extreme pressure, like you see in a shoulder charge in progress- its a challenge for the ball.

I was instructed, and I agree, that the defender's action is more a trick when free to choose compared to under pressure and relates more to the ball being on the ground.

A ball already in the air being headed, chested, kneed to the keeper seems normal. The ball on the ground requires the player "to get down".

The only time our instructor really allowed it was a defender diving head first at ground level to hit the ball. It was the more direct approach than trying to slide.

By his interpretation as a referee, it could have failed miserably leaving the attacker upon the keeper 1v1. It was an astonishing attempt to defend and head it.

I have never officiated a game that tried it, but I think if it happens under pressure and spontaneous, it probably will be more luck than skill.