A&H

Off the ball incidents

He may not have intended to trip him is my whole point in this issue. He may only have intended to run alongside him but he carelessly trips him.
 
The Referee Store
In which case surely the purpose of his trip is not to break up a promising attack. Breaking up the attack may be the result of the trip but not what the player did on purpose i.e. intentionally.
 
The breaking up of the promising attack is not necessarily the purpose but it is the outcome and it is the outcome that the referee must adjudge. If he adjudged it breaks up a promising attach then he cautions
 
In away I've had a on ball and off ball happen in same league and in same week and few days between
 
In practice the law seems to be applied as "commits a foul that breaks up a promising attack" (unless it's in the first 25 minutes if it's in the EPL)
 
I'm with McTavish here, the specific way that the Law is currently written - "for the purpose of" - suggests that a careless, inadvertent foul that breaks up a promising attack should not be carded. Which means that the referee does need to form an opinion regarding the intent of the defender in these situations.

However in practice, any foul that breaks up a promising attack seems to be carded ...
 
Brian Hamilton said:
The breaking up of the promising attack is not necessarily the purpose but it is the outcome and it is the outcome that the referee must adjudge. If he adjudged it breaks up a promising attach then he cautions
Click to expand...
If that were the case then the law would just say that there is a mandatory caution for breaking up a promising attack but it doesn't, it specifically includes the word purpose and thus the ref has to adjudge intent. If you are carding for the outcome of the foul rather than the purpose (the intent) you are not following the law.

And then we have handball which must be deliberate and thus intentional...
 
Russell Jones said:
I'm with McTavish here, the specific way that the Law is currently written - "for the purpose of" - suggests that a careless, inadvertent foul that breaks up a promising attack should not be carded. Which means that the referee does need to form an opinion regarding the intent of the defender in these situations.

However in practice, any foul that breaks up a promising attack seems to be carded ...
Click to expand...

I think FIFA believe there's no such thing as a completely unintentional foul (and for the most part, I agree with them). Otherwise, DOGSO wouldn't include careless fouls - and the justification for DOGSO used to be written into the additional advice as the sinister intent of foully denying the goal, which suggests that even a careless foul has an element of intent to it.
 
WOW this thread has it all, some great points made here and i personally agree with both arguments. The one thing we can take from this is a new acronym CRUEF.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I think FIFA believe there's no such thing as a completely unintentional foul (and for the most part, I agree with them). Otherwise, DOGSO wouldn't include careless fouls - and the justification for DOGSO used to be written into the additional advice as the sinister intent of foully denying the goal, which suggests that even a careless foul has an element of intent to it.
Click to expand...
DOGSO is a different situation. There you wouldn't take intent into consideration as the OGSO has either been denied or it hasn't but in the mandatory caution for commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack what is the word purpose doing there if not to indicate that t6he card is for intentionally breaking up an attack. What is the purpose of "purpose"?

Two scenarios:
Attacker through on goal with a defender beside him. Defender clearly slips accidentally and in doing so falls into the attacker, tripping him and denying an OGSO. Here I would reluctantly dismiss the defender for DOGSO - according to the laws the defenders intention is irrelevant, he has tripped the attacker and that is a foul.

Similar situation but this time on the wing, the attacker, if not tripped would be able to cross the ball and thus the defender slipping would break up a promising attack. In this instance I would give the foul as there has been a trip but I would not caution as in my opinion the defender did not slip with the purpose of breaking up the attack.
 
Well, my point remains. The wording behind how FIFA justify DOGSO even for careless fouls suggests they think any careless foul carries an element of intent. Thus, any careless foul in a tactical situation is done 'for the purpose of'.
Although the words 'for the purpose of' is example #4487 of how the LOTG clearly have never been proofread; the statement is completely at odds with outcome based refereeing. Why is it that FIFA keep saying we don't judge intent on fouls, yet keep talking about intent?
I think the outcome of it being a tactical foul is what they're trying to convey.

Regardless, you always have more discretion over the tactical foul caution than you do over DOGSO.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Although the words 'for the purpose of' is example #4487 of how the LOTG clearly have never been proofread; the statement is completely at odds with outcome based refereeing
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the laws should be enforced as you think they should have been written rather than as they actually are;)?
 
McTavish said:
So are you saying that the laws should be enforced as you think they should have been written rather than as they actually are;)?
Click to expand...
The laws are horrendously vague and ambiguous. As the laws are written it's actually close to impossible to commit an offside offence.
As I said, the wording conflicts with all other advice. So, given the wording here is only in the advice anyway, we need to try and figure out what they mean. I've already explained why I believe my justification IS applying the laws as written, using other parts of law to find definitions for ambiguous terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top