A&H

Amiens v Lyon

Why would it be accidental when the defender has crossed behind the attacker? You don't think the defender has responsibility?
Why is it the defender's fault that the attacker crossed the defender's path?
In this instance, there was clear separation and the contact was accidental. I'm quite sure of that, although most referees are programmed to give a foul in such circumstances (for reasons I know not)
 
The Referee Store
Why is it the defender's fault that the attacker crossed the defender's path?
In this instance, there was clear separation and the contact was accidental. I'm quite sure of that, although most referees are programmed to give a foul in such circumstances (for reasons I know not)
okay, NOW we're getting to your argument :)

So yours is who is at fault here. personally I thought the defender was more at fault, but given they sort of both crossed I can now hear where you're coming from
 
most referees are programmed to give a foul in such circumstances (for reasons I know not)
I think most referees give a foul in most of these situations because it's usually merited. In the majority of cases, the defender has carelessly caused contact with the attacker. The law says that it is careless when a player "shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." If the defender wanted to, they could easily choose to exercise care and act with precaution so as not to make any contact with the player in front of them, by slowing down slightly or altering course slightly away from them in the other direction, instead of crossing behind them. By continuing on at the same speed and/or crossing behind the opponent in such a way as to cause contact, the defender has, at least in most instances as far as I'm concerned, acted carelessly - as that is defined in the Laws of the Game.

As I said, they often do this while using a totally natural running action but believe me, it's the easiest thing in the world for professional athletes who are in full control of all their bodily movements, to just slightly clip the heel of a player running in front of them while making it look like a complete accident.
 
I think most referees give a foul in most of these situations because it's usually merited. In the majority of cases, the defender has carelessly caused contact with the attacker. The law says that it is careless when a player "shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." If the defender wanted to, they could easily choose to exercise care and act with precaution so as not to make any contact with the player in front of them, by slowing down slightly or altering course slightly away from them in the other direction, instead of crossing behind them. By continuing on at the same speed and/or crossing behind the opponent in such a way as to cause contact, the defender has, at least in most instances as far as I'm concerned, acted carelessly - as that is defined in the Laws of the Game.

As I said, they often do this while using a totally natural running action but believe me, it's the easiest thing in the world for professional athletes who are in full control of all their bodily movements, to just slightly clip the heel of a player running in front of them while making it look like a complete accident.
Where's there's a claim, there's blame!
Whilst there are lots of incidents as you describe, I'm asserting that there also lots of situations whereby it's the attacker who (without precaution) suddenly cuts across the defender. Referees in general, do not recognize this and the defender gets the blame every time. That's what 'football expects', but I don't fully agree with it
 
Back
Top