A&H

Brighton v United

JamesL said:
PIADM is not a mandatory caution, as mad as that sounds unless it SPA or is a red card if DOGSO.
Click to expand...
Not 100% accurate so I made some adjustments. I can caution a non-SPA PIADM and I won't be wrong in law. It doesn't happen very often but if IMO it is USB (reckless if you like though not in law) then I'd be cautioning it.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
one said:
Not 100% accurate so I made some adjustments. I can caution a non-SPA PIADM and I won't be wrong in law. It doesn't happen very often but if IMO it is USB (reckless if you like though not in law) then I'd be cautioning it.
Click to expand...
If it's reckless though it's a DFK and you aren't punishing PIADM at that point. They may be also playing in a dangerous manner but the more serious offence is reckless.
 
JamesL said:
If it's reckless though it's a DFK and you aren't punishing PIADM at that point. They may be also playing in a dangerous manner but the more serious offence is reckless.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being picky again. But reckless doesn't make it DFK, contact does. And reckless for IFK offences is not in law as pointed out by @socal lurker hence why I used brackets. So if I consider a (reckless) PIADAM where there is no contact, and no SPA, USB I am entitle to caution and restart with IFK and I would be correct in law.
 
one said:
Sorry for being picky again. But reckless doesn't make it DFK, contact does. And reckless for IFK offences is not in law as pointed out by @socal lurker hence why I used brackets. So if I consider a (reckless) PIADAM where there is no contact, and no SPA, USB I am entitle to caution and restart with IFK and I would be correct in law.
Click to expand...
Don't think that is right.

The law clearly says that the following list are DFK.

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

Note the attempts to options. These will be with no contact but as they are committed carelessly, recklessly, it with excessive force they are DFK.

The way I view the contact statement is to say that any offence that involves contact becomes DFK, but not that contact and no contact are the differentiator for example impeding progress without contact is an idfk but with contact it becomes DFK.

I'm not saying you can't caution an offence of PIADM for unsporting behaviour, but if you're saying its reckless its a DFK, as reckless is the more serious offence and only the list above are offences that can be considered reckless.
 
While I misunderstood your previous post a little but we are still not on the same page.

JamesL said:
reckless is the more serious offence
Click to expand...
I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Reckless is not an offence. It's the manner (attribute) in which an offence (action) can be committed.

JamesL said:
only the list above are offences that can be considered reckless.
Click to expand...
I believe this is also wrong. There is nothing in law that supports the use of the word "only" in your statement. Just because those offences can be considered reckless, it doesn't mean nothing else can be considered reckless. I can consider PIADM reckless. I can consider a goal celebration reckless and neither of those will be against the laws. In fact the definition of reckless in law supports both of these.

What you have quoted in your last post is that there are offences that involve no contact but are DFK and can also be reckless. But it doesn't say everything that is reckless is DFK.

Note that we are not talking practical ways of selling something. We are talking strict application of the law. You can give it as reckless attempt to kick an opponent with caution and DFK and that is probably what I would do. But a referee giving PIADM, IFK with USB (reckless) caution will not be wrong. It comes down to the referee's opinion.
 
one said:
While I misunderstood your previous post a little but we are still not on the same page.


I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Reckless is not an offence. It's the manner (attribute) in which an offence (action) can be committed.


I believe this is also wrong. There is nothing in law that supports the use of the word "only" in your statement. Just because those offences can be considered reckless, it doesn't mean nothing else can be considered reckless. I can consider PIADM reckless. I can consider a goal celebration reckless and neither of those will be against the laws. In fact the definition of reckless in law supports both of these.

What you have quoted in your last post is that there are offences that involve no contact but are DFK and can also be reckless. But it doesn't say everything that is reckless is DFK.

Note that we are not talking practical ways of selling something. We are talking strict application of the law. You can give it as reckless attempt to kick an opponent with caution and DFK and that is probably what I would do. But a referee giving PIADM, IFK with USB (reckless) caution will not be wrong. It comes down to the referee's opinion.
Click to expand...

Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
[...]
- commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
Click to expand...
 
@ARF I don't get your point. Are you saying because a reckless DFK offence is USB then no others offence can be reckless? Or no other reckless offence can be USB? Or something else?

You have quoted my entire post so I assume there is something in there you disagree with but I don't understand what it is. My post does not contradict anything you quoted from Law12.
 
What might be helpful @one is if you provide an example of what could be committed in a reckless manner and playing in a dangerous manner that isn't also one of the listed DFK offences...
 
one said:
@ARF I don't get your point. Are you saying because a reckless DFK offence is USB then no others offence can be reckless? Or no other reckless offence can be USB? Or something else?

You have quoted my entire post so I assume there is something in there you disagree with but I don't understand what it is. My post does not contradict anything you quoted from Law12.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, if an indirect free kick offence could be deemed reckless, and therefore a caution, the Laws would say so. But it specifically says direct free kick offences.

Unlike direct offences, which the LotG breaks down into careless/reckless/excessive force, there is no such classification for indirect offences, which to my mind implies that they are not cautionable offences.
 
JamesL said:
What might be helpful @one is if you provide an example of what could be committed in a reckless manner and playing in a dangerous manner that isn't also one of the listed DFK offences...
Click to expand...
Remembering some of this is about opinion and we are not debating opinion.

A player is about to kick the ball. An opponent deliberately places his head in the path of the knee of the kicker. The kicker pulls out of the kick at the last moment with no contact. IMO this is not only disregard to danger to himself but also to the opponent. If you put this as one of the 'attempts to' DFK offences, it's just shoehorning it into something that isn't there. IMO this is reckless PIADM by the defender.
 
ARF said:
The way I see it, if an indirect free kick offence could be deemed reckless, and therefore a caution, the Laws would say so. But it specifically says direct free kick offences.

Unlike direct offences, which the LotG breaks down into careless/reckless/excessive force, there is no such classification for indirect offences, which to my mind implies that they are not cautionable offences.
Click to expand...
This argument doesn't hold by logic of the simple reference to the quote you made from law 12.

"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:"...

This quote says we are not giving you everything that is a USB caution. You are saying if it was a caution it would be there.

I have already mentioned PIADM being reckless is uncommon. Even less for the ones that can't be adapted to one of the DFK offences. My point here is not that you shouldn't give a DFK and caution. It is that IFK and caution is not incorrect in law.
 
one said:
This argument doesn't hold by logic of the simple reference to the quote you made from law 12.

"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:"...

This quote says we are not giving you everything that is a USB caution. You are saying if it was a caution it would be there.

I have already mentioned PIADM being reckless is uncommon. Even less for the ones that can't be adapted to one of the DFK offences. My point here is not that you shouldn't give a DFK and caution. It is that IFK and caution is not incorrect in law.
Click to expand...
Conversely they could have been less specific and just said "a free kick offence"
 
one said:
Remembering some of this is about opinion and we are not debating opinion.

A player is about to kick the ball. An opponent deliberately places his head in the path of the knee of the kicker. The kicker pulls out of the kick at the last moment with no contact. IMO this is not only disregard to danger to himself but also to the opponent. If you put this as one of the 'attempts to' DFK offences, it's just shoehorning it into something that isn't there. IMO this is reckless PIADM by the defender.
Click to expand...
So the player in this case is challenging his opponent in a reckless manner.

DFK.
 
one said:
I believe I have already replied to that but a couple of words, opinion and shoehorn 😊
Click to expand...
Oh yes. When you said we weren't debating opinion and then said in my opinion twice 🤔😏

Challenge
An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball

It's not really shoe horning. It's literally the definition of challenging.
 
JamesL said:
Oh yes. When you said we weren't debating opinion and then said in my opinion twice 🤔😏

Challenge
An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball

It's not really shoe horning. It's literally the definition of challenging.
Click to expand...
I had ths in an edit but a seperate post now.

So by your logic one should never award an indirect free kick for PIADM and that PIADM is a redundant offence because it must always be superseded with the more serious DFK CRUEF offence of challenging an opponent.

Given I don't believe in above then I still believe calling my example reckless challenge is shoehorning.
 
one said:
I had ths in an edit but a seperate post now.

So by your logic one should never award an indirect free kick for PIADM and that PIADM is a redundant offence because it must always be superseded with the more serious DFK CRUEF offence of challenging an opponent.

Given I don't believe in above then I still believe calling my example reckless challenge is shoehorning.
Click to expand...
Adding “challenge” to ”tackle” a few years ago does make the line between PIADM and a CREF challenge without contact a lot messier than it used to be. IMHO, any challenge that rises to the level of reckless is more appropriately addressed as a reckless challenge warranting a DFK than “merely” PIADM. The Laws say that offenses with contact are DFKs; it does not say the opposite. Nothing in the laws says that a CREF tackle or challenge must include contact.

I can’t think of any situation in which I‘d caution and give an IFK. But I am also aware of absolutely no guidance that addresses this. In anything realistic akin to one’s scenario, I don’t see myself cautioning the p,Ayer, just giving the IFK (unless it is SPA). If I did, it wouldn’t be based on the reckless bullet point in Law 12, but for general USB, as I do agree with @one that the list is examples, not exclusive.
 
I had a grassroots player complaining I sent them off today because Antony wasn't sent off, and it was pretty much a carbon copy of that incident. So as usual thanks PGMOL for the help :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top