So a careless foul then
City v Lyon
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
- Status
So a careless foul then
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
IMHO, the problem with the language of Law 11 is that it has been tweaked so many times over the years, yet there has been an effort to keep th language that was there before. “Gaining an advantage” is the best example: once upon a time th language was seek to gain an advantage, and it pretty much meant what it said—a very broad prohibition. But when it was streamlined, I believe through a few steps, the meaning no longer has any connection to the words at all, and the phrase causes lots of problems with new refs. They did a slight bit to fix it with tweaks to the timing language, but they really need to stop down Law 11 and completely restructure the language to say what it really means in clear English. Alas, IFAB has shown very little skil in the use of clear English.
You see, "careless" is another example of the laws mangling language, or at least misappropriating words. It's like the removal of "intentionally" from DFK offences and introducing the concepts of "careless, reckless or disproportionate force". How could you possibly head butt someone with proportionate force? Obviously the change meant the get-out of a mistimed tackle not being an "intentional" trip went out the window, but what was the magical dividing line between not careless and careless? Then someone had the bright idea of using these new words as keys to the sanctions of YC and RC (which was not the original intent), so "disproportionate / excessive force" became more serious than "reckless", coupled with nonsensical definitions. What does "without precaution" mean? How much force is necessary, and how much is more than necessary (to do what - head butt someone?).
(In this case, a defender runs across my path - if I clip his heel as he goes, did I act without precaution? Should I have altered my stride to avoid a collision? I didn't mean to bring him down, but "intention" went out of the law 25 years ago.)
(In this case, a defender runs across my path - if I clip his heel as he goes, did I act without precaution? Should I have altered my stride to avoid a collision? I didn't mean to bring him down, but "intention" went out of the law 25 years ago.)
I want to penalise a player when he accidentally trips another. Quite straightforward to explain
I'm not buying that, the duty of care is very much on the player chasing not to bring down the player in front of them.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
So to use a somewhat related analogy . . .
I'm driving down the road at the speed limit. I'm following all of the laws and scanning the road to see what is ahead of me. Suddenly, a driver just in front of me but in the adjacent lane suddenly veers into my lane, causing an accident.
By what you and es1 are saying, the accident is my fault because the duty of care is on me to not run into the car that wasn't watching where he was going and veered into my straight line. Am I understanding that correctly?
A nice analogy but I don't think it's right.
You've got players running in any direction they want at whatever speed they want to get to the ball.
I think this is an obvious careless trip. I don't see how it can be anything else.
Different situation, different laws. Not really sure how comparing driving a car to two footballers running one in front of each other is in any way relevant.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Not a foul, the city player suddenly changes direction and cuts across his opponent. The Lyon player doesn't change speed or direction.
There is no doubt City defenders thought the player was going to stop the ball and they were all focused on him. Is this not enough for
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"?
My first instinct was easy offside :/
There is no doubt City defenders thought the player was going to stop the ball and they were all focused on him. Is this not enough for
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"?
My first instinct was easy offside :/
Yes. But no. But yes.
Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path
to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not
within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way
of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
I'm on the @bloove warpath against the laws here. So, laporte does run across the attacker. That cannot be disputed imo. If he does this, successfully impedes the progress of Lyon attacker he concedes an idfk to Lyon.
However the same action, and careful to ensure contact results (should result) in him winning a direct free kick, despite him carrying out the action described in impeding progress of opponent without contact??
Now, for me, if you take without contact out of the heading and then look at the description you almost have a perfect description of Laportes action...
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
I don't see how you can say he's clearly attempted to play the ball - he dummed it!
I'm also not sure there was really any impact on the opponents.
I would personally say it’s a foul for the trip, but it was never offside
Had Laporte been in possession of the ball we would have all given a foul, why any different without it?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I haven’t seen the play, but as i’ve seen it described, he was avoiding the ball, not attempting to play it. That takes you to a separate provision about an obvious action (a dummy qualifies) that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. This provision is looking for blatant effects, not a generic players paid attention to it. We’re looking for an impact on a specific player who otherwise had a chance to play the ball. For example, dummying a cross at the 6 yard box right in front of the GK is going to clearly impact the ability of the GK to stop the shot from your teammate 4 yards further across the goal. But a dummy away from opponents, not so much. Keep in mind that IFAB has been deliberately narrowing the meaning of interference over the past decade or two.
No, that just cannot be offside. You can't take defenders into account unless his movement prevented them from playing the ball, and it clearly didn't as they were miles away from it.
Offside. Nah
Foul?Maybe Saturday it’s a collision, it happens, get on with it. Maybe Sunday it’s a foul.
Different days, different folks, different strokes. Can’t give an unequivocal answer either way.
I can see merit on both arguments but don’t feel strongly in favour of either. If it happened in my game however I’d be definitive whatever I called. That is the ultimate learning point here. Stick to your guns and back yourself whatever you call.
Foul?Maybe Saturday it’s a collision, it happens, get on with it. Maybe Sunday it’s a foul.
Different days, different folks, different strokes. Can’t give an unequivocal answer either way.
I can see merit on both arguments but don’t feel strongly in favour of either. If it happened in my game however I’d be definitive whatever I called. That is the ultimate learning point here. Stick to your guns and back yourself whatever you call.
And chances are that without VAR the referee gives the FK. We're guessing because there's a UEFA omerta on communications between referee and VAR.
Especially if one was miles away because he'd been tripped and was on his back.
- Status