Brighton v United

[one]

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 did mention this before as well, I am highly unlikely to go with a IFK and a USB caution in any scenario. All I am arguing about is doing so would not be wrong in law even if the explaination includes the word reckless.

As ever, a lot of things in law are clear as mud thanks to the way the wording have changed over the years in a specific area without consideration to impact to all other areas.

 

[socal lurker]

As ever, a lot of things in law are clear as mud thanks to the way the wording have changed over the years in a specific area without consideration to impact to all other areas.

absolutely!

 

[JamesL]

Apologies for taking this thread way off topic.

Humble pie alert

IFAB confirm:



We're all human after all. Well except @one. He is a number!

Still can't see a world where it could actually happen but there you go.

 

[one]

Credit to @JamesL I would have just said IFAB doesn't know what they are talking about

 

[socal lurker]

These kinds of Delphic statements without explanations drive me nuts. And they aren’t always consistent. I have trouble taking the response as gospel.