Actually there is a very good reason for there to be two lists, and push and hold to be on different ones: list one are the offences that have to be performed carelessly (simple free kick or penalty), recklessly (same, but with yellow card) or with excessive force (same, plus red card) before they are treated as fouls; list two are fouls REGARDLESS of how they are performed, the simple act of performing them is enough. Hence a push has to be at least careless before a foul is called, holding is ALWAYS a foul.
BBC Website article on "new laws"
- Thread starter OIREF!
- Start date
RefJef
RefChat Addict
Thanks - that has really (I think!) helped clear something up in my mind.
Take this scenario, goal kick (or free kick, say) is being taken by reds. Red centre forward is on half way line, a pace behind him is blue centre back, marking him, as they both wait for the ball to drop.
Bit of movement from both players, red forward takes half a pace back. Blue defender gently pushes red forward in back - more a natural reaction to the closing of personal space (the sort of thing you might do in a crowd)
It is a push, but not careless, reckless or with excessive force, so no foul?
I've discussed this with a very experienced ref who says as soon as the hands go on a player in this scenario you should blow for a free kick - either against blue for the push or against red for backing into his opponent (but what offence is this? Impedes the progress of an opponent (and hence IDFK)?)
Technically if the contact is less than careless it can be considered no foul. However your experienced ref is (possibly) right in saying it could be wise to give something. It can't be impedes the progress of an opponent as that offence requires there is no actual contact. If the push is a natural reaction to the forward backing in, then give DFK to defence (impedes with contact). If not, penalise defender for pushing. Really it's a "you have to be there" situation.
The point is that they've missed an opportunity to clarify this stuff. Are you saying that because striking an opponent is in the first list, it's OK to strike an opponent so long as it's not done carelessly? Why wouldn't that be in the second list?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I know a very experienced referee who thinks saying 'mine' is an indirect free kick....There's no foul by any stretch of the imagination in the situation you've described (at least not how I'm picturing it) - you'll let them have a bit, but it's fairly reasonable to have some hands in the back that isn't really doing any 'pushing' - not a foul until it's clearly having an impact on the player/play. Simply placing hands on the back isn't a foul, and sometimes the hands go up in protection.
Last edited:
Personally, I actually agree with CapnBloodbeard about not calling a foul (which is why I said the experienced ref was only "possibly" right). But as I have seen at our referee coaching nights, the difference of opinion between referees on calling fouls can be considerable.
As to Bloovee's comment, yes, striking an opponent less than carelessly is no foul. Remember though that the definition of careless is not what you read in the dictionary but what IFAB gives us: "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution" But if (say) a player was to turn and in doing so their arm lightly brushed across the chest of their opponent, but in a manner that did not impinge on the play, although technically still striking this is no foul, and that's why striking is on list one. But holding, spitting, deliberate handling, impeding with contact, cannot be performed in any fair way, and that's why they are on list two.
As to Bloovee's comment, yes, striking an opponent less than carelessly is no foul. Remember though that the definition of careless is not what you read in the dictionary but what IFAB gives us: "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution" But if (say) a player was to turn and in doing so their arm lightly brushed across the chest of their opponent, but in a manner that did not impinge on the play, although technically still striking this is no foul, and that's why striking is on list one. But holding, spitting, deliberate handling, impeding with contact, cannot be performed in any fair way, and that's why they are on list two.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
But don't forget that the spirit of the laws is that we're to let go trifling or inconsequential infringements (indeed, this was written into the additional advice until a few years ago). A player may have a hold of an opponent's shirt or arm without affecting their progress. Or perhaps that's just a question on whether 'holding' means what people think it means 
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Ganajin said: ↑
(impedes with contact).
1. impeding with no contact = indirect free kick
2. impeding with contact = direct free kick.
In the glossary, the following definition is given:
(impedes with contact).
Not any more, apparently. It used to be, under the old laws, that impeding was generally considered to involve no contact and if what started as impeding then changed to involve contact, it became a holding offence. That is no longer the case. There are now two kinds of impeding:
1. impeding with no contact = indirect free kick
2. impeding with contact = direct free kick.
In the glossary, the following definition is given: