This is what we have to put up with in Australia (laughable VAR RC)

[kiwi villan]

To put this incident in context this was one of the most sportsmanlike A League games i have ever attended, there was barely a serious foul at all and no blow ups between players (and Andy Keogh was playing!) and yet this referee managed to find 8 yellows and this ridiculous red card. Lets not blame the VAR system when it is the fault of the individual referee, or in this case referees because the VAR called his attention to it; feeling unloved perhaps?

By the way the decision led to some serious booing from the fans as you would expect and some serious laughter from both benches; and the Perth coach left the field apologising to the Nix fans - says it all really.

 

[Peter Grove]

Not sure I agree. Whilst 'careless, reckless and excessive force' are the three amigos, they all imply intent to some degree

No, they absolutely don't. Here are the definitions given in the Laws of the Game:

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent [...]
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent [...]

There is no hint or suggestion of intent being a consideration in any of these definitions. It is very important to remember that intent used to be a requirement for a physical contact foul and the Laws stated as such up until 1995. However in that year, the word "intentionally" was taken out from the beginning of Law 12. By removing it and introducing the phrase, "careless, reckless or involving disproportionate force," the IFAB was clearly signalling to referees that intent was no longer a requirement for a foul and should be entirely removed from consideration.

Although I'd concede that the risk to the opponent's safety is the predominant factor; and we can't know what the offender is thinking with any certainty

It's precisely because it's too difficult to know what a player intended - and because players have, over the years, become increasingly adept at disguising their intentions, that we don't consider intent any more when judging physical contact fouls.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If it helps the A-League boss has come out and said it shouldn't have been a red card.

I kind of agree and disagree. I think it is definitely a red card, whether accidental or not for me he has clearly endangered the safety of his opponent and he is responsible for controlling his challenge. I'm not a VAR expert, but I guess where I probably do agree is whether it counts as a clear and obvious error.

Endangered the safety of the opponent? I don't see that at all. Force is very, very little.
Just to be picky, 'accidental' means completely unavoidable. Accidental is never a foul. A foul must be careless at minimum - that the player didn't act with due regard to the opponent. I don't see how he can be accused of that here. It's not like he went in with disproportionate force.

No, they absolutely don't. Here are the definitions given in the Laws of the Game:

There is no hint or suggestion of intent being a consideration in any of these definitions. It is very important to remember that intent used to be a requirement for a physical contact foul and the Laws stated as such up until 1995. However in that year, the word "intentionally" was taken out from the beginning of Law 12. By removing it and introducing the phrase, "careless, reckless or involving disproportionate force," the IFAB was clearly signalling to referees that intent was no longer a requirement for a foul and should be entirely removed from consideration.

It's precisely because it's too difficult to know what a player intended - and because players have, over the years, become increasingly adept at disguising their intentions, that we don't consider intent any more when judging physical contact fouls.

Ah, interesting you should say that. I remember the 'Additional Advice' in the back of the LOTG some years ago had a bit about why DOGSO is a red card, and it was about punishing the deliberate act of denying an opponent a goal by foul means.

Basically, the wording strongly implied that FIFA consider every foul, even careless ones, to have some element of 'deliberateness'.
I'm obfuscating though - you're right it's not intent we're looking at, but it is important that we know what the definition of careless is, and the difference between careless and accidental.

 

[one]

If it helps the A-League refereeing boss has come out and said it shouldn't have been a red card.

Slight correction there.

 

[JamesL]

Accidental is never a foul.

I disagree with this statement.

Accidents tend to happen due to carelessness. Not sure what dictionary you got you definition of accident from...

Accident according to Oxford dictionary
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

I like Wikipedias which better illustrates my point.
Undesirable, incidental, and an unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

There are obviously various meanings and definitions but accidents are rarely unavoidable, thus I think, accidents could meet any 1 of the CRUEF definitions. To say accidents are never fouls is misleading.