He may not have intended to trip him is my whole point in this issue. He may only have intended to run alongside him but he carelessly trips him.
If that were the case then the law would just say that there is a mandatory caution for breaking up a promising attack but it doesn't, it specifically includes the word purpose and thus the ref has to adjudge intent. If you are carding for the outcome of the foul rather than the purpose (the intent) you are not following the law.The breaking up of the promising attack is not necessarily the purpose but it is the outcome and it is the outcome that the referee must adjudge. If he adjudged it breaks up a promising attach then he cautions
I'm with McTavish here, the specific way that the Law is currently written - "for the purpose of" - suggests that a careless, inadvertent foul that breaks up a promising attack should not be carded. Which means that the referee does need to form an opinion regarding the intent of the defender in these situations.
However in practice, any foul that breaks up a promising attack seems to be carded ...
DOGSO is a different situation. There you wouldn't take intent into consideration as the OGSO has either been denied or it hasn't but in the mandatory caution for commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack what is the word purpose doing there if not to indicate that t6he card is for intentionally breaking up an attack. What is the purpose of "purpose"?I think FIFA believe there's no such thing as a completely unintentional foul (and for the most part, I agree with them). Otherwise, DOGSO wouldn't include careless fouls - and the justification for DOGSO used to be written into the additional advice as the sinister intent of foully denying the goal, which suggests that even a careless foul has an element of intent to it.
So are you saying that the laws should be enforced as you think they should have been written rather than as they actually are?Although the words 'for the purpose of' is example #4487 of how the LOTG clearly have never been proofread; the statement is completely at odds with outcome based refereeing
So are you saying that the laws should be enforced as you think they should have been written rather than as they actually are?
The laws are horrendously vague and ambiguous. As the laws are written it's actually close to impossible to commit an offside offence.So are you saying that the laws should be enforced as you think they should have been written rather than as they actually are?