Cancello v Trent

[socal lurker]

Then they are an abject failure!

Obstruction was defined as (when not playing the ball) "running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent", but with an IFAB decision that if a player "covers the ball" (within playing distance) so it cannot be played by an opponent "he obstructs but does not infringe law 12" - "in fact, he is actually playing the ball" - so even 60 years ago IFAB could come up with gobbledegook.

The Decisions of the International Board in the decision I have handy (From the 70's) says "If a player deliberately turns his back to an opponent when he is about to be tackled, he may be charged but not it a dangerous manner."

 

[Pmalinski83]

I thought it was fine in the new system of allowing more contact to go. But it has to be consistent, and it seems they have now reigned back in on that a bit. I honestly think if that Haaland challenge had happened last weekend it would have been penalised, and that is why I say it is difficult for the officials as they are being given ever changing guidelines.

I think they just have to follow the basic laws of the game. A push with your hands is a foul - simple. Trent - foul, Cancelo - foul, Haaland - foul. Nothing separates those incidents but referees give conflicting decisions because they just don't want to go back to basics.

 

[Therealcjhill]

The Trent one, that gets given at grassroots level. It’s a push plain and simple. However those sort of forearm nudges are creeping into the game and being allowed at the top level under the ‘higher tolerance level’ caveat

Funny you say that, as I don’t think I would have given that as I don’t like seeing players go down easy and I didn’t think contact was enough. I think there’s loads of fouls given in PL that I wouldn’t even think of giving on a weekend.

 

[one]

I think they just have to follow the basic laws of the game. A push with your hands is a foul

I have been learning and teaching the laws of the game for long while but I must have missed this one. Is it in the same section that has "hands in the back"?

 

[RustyRef]

I think they just have to follow the basic laws of the game. A push with your hands is a foul - simple. Trent - foul, Cancelo - foul, Haaland - foul. Nothing separates those incidents but referees give conflicting decisions because they just don't want to go back to basics.

They are doing what their bosses have instructed them to do. Going against your manager's instructions generally doesn't end well in any job.

 

[Pmalinski83]

I have been learning and teaching the laws of the game for long while but I must have missed this one. Is it in the same section that has "hands in the back"?

Law 12.
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:

charges

jumps at

kicks or attempts to kick

pushes

strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

tackles or challenges

trips or attempts to trip

 

[one]

Law 12.
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:

charges

jumps at

kicks or attempts to kick

pushes

strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

tackles or challenges

trips or attempts to trip

Ok then. The law you quoted says pushing an opponent is only a foul if done in a careless, reckless or excessive force manner (no mention of hand). You said a push with your hand is a foul (with no other conditions included). It's important that we, as referees, make that distinction. Otherwise we will be no different to players on the field who shout "hands on the back ref" and expect a foul without the knowledge of the lotg.

 

[bloovee]

Ok then. The law you quoted says pushing an opponent is only a foul if done in a careless, reckless or excessive force manner (no mention of hand). You said a push with your hand is a foul (with no other conditions included). It's important that we, as referees, make that distinction. Otherwise we will be no different to players on the field who shout "hands on the back ref" and expect a foul without the knowledge of the lotg.

This just reinforces the nonsense that you could attempt to head butt an opponent so long as it's not done carelessly.

 

[one]

This just reinforces the nonsense that you could attempt to head butt an opponent so long as it's not done carelessly.

Not really. Have you read the definitions for CRUEF?

Its all in the definitions. As an analogy, just as you can't swim without getting wet, you can't attempt to head butt an opponent without being CRUEF.

 

[bloovee]

Not really. Have you read the definitions for CRUEF?

Its all in the definitions. As an analogy, just as you can't swim without getting wet, you can't attempt to head butt an opponent without being CRUEF.

Well, in my definitions, a push is a push. If you think a push in the back while running can be done carefully I can't help further. "I really wasn't careless ref, I only meant to nudge him carefully in the back."

 

[Redster]

Well, in my definitions, a push is a push. If you think a push in the back while running can be done carefully I can't help further. "I really wasn't careless ref, I only meant to nudge him carefully in the back."

But a push in the chest while jostling may well not be careless. It's still a push.

 

[one]

Well, in my definitions, a push is a push. If you think a push in the back while running can be done carefully I can't help further. "I really wasn't careless ref, I only meant to nudge him carefully in the back."

Keep in mind we are talking generic push here not specific to OP. Another example when a push may not be a foul is when a defender is shielding the ball with his back to the opponent's chest. They would both be pushing here but 9 out of 10 it's not careless. There is a reason we have CRUEF.

 

[Mooseybaby]

I think the invisible bar for what is and isn't a foul for pushes/barges in the back whilst making no attempt to play the ball has been set soo high, referees are no longer able to see it and appears to have given defenders a green light to just flatten attackers from behind without the risk of giving away a foul. The standard current interpretation seems to have started with the Man Utd Vs Brighton game. Another similar incident in the Wolves Vs Arsenal game, attacker shoved by defender from behind, offside flagged, replays showed attacker was behind the ball when it was played, but the referee stuck with the offside decision.