This is also one of those many things that needs to be seen, judged, viewed,
experienced, understood at the level at which play is happening. In a pro
match the skill level is much higher and the expectation of what a play can
do or should be able to do while attempting a tackle or challenge for a ball
is very different than the expectation of players at a youth match. Even the
difference international play and pro play is different. Officials at those
levels should consider these things when observing what may be a careless or
clumsy challenge as compared to a lesser skilled challenge that may be
"accidental" in nature but still takes the fair play for the ball out of the
play by tripping or knocking a player over.
There is some sort of disease that has entered the higher level matches
because of poor decisions or inconsistent instruction and or guidance at
professional and even international levels that in order for a player who
perceives that he was fouled that in order to hear the whistle for that
action in his favor must make the contact, no matter how small, more
dramatic. Some are very good at it and get that call.
What is need is a better educated official and more clear, simple, and
consistent instruction for officials so that players will in turn, be better
On 8/6/10 1:56 PM, "So Cal Lurker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At times one wonders how far we are from the pre-rewrite when fouls (or the
> underlying conduct)were required to be intentional . . . .
> I think it is definitely a subtle difference, that really is YHTBT and ITOOR
> of when one passes from inadvertent to careless, and very hard to define.
> Perhaps a practical definition is whether the referee thinks the conduct
> should reasonably have been avoided.
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:21:31 -0700, Burke, Rick A CIV OSD DMEA
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> "If I fall down, or am forced to adjust my gait to avoid falling down, why
> wouldn't this be a foul?"
>> I believe it would be a foul though as noted in a previous post, ATR 12.2
> seems to preclude that. My thinking is that the soccer definition of
> accidental and careless may be different than other definitions (dictionary,
> legal, etc). It may be a subtle difference.
>> Rick Burke
>> Advanced Referee Candidate/Advanced Coach
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Smith-White
>> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:14 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: CLB vs PHL (score implied)
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:36:30 -0700, Burke, Rick A CIV OSD DMEA
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> So a car tire blows out due to a defect and the car crashes as a result
>>> -- is it still carelessness on the part of the driver?
>>> Accidental -- I click the heel of your shoe while we're both charging
>>> down the field
>> If I fall down, or am forced to adjust my gait to avoid falling down, why
>> wouldn't this be a foul? Oh, it's Manly Man Rules 15.4a.44: In an event my
>> actions should leave the same impression as if I were to ask "Is that the
>> best you got today?".
>>> Careless -- I'm not looking where I'm going and run into you
>> How does a referee know you are not aware of my presence?
>>> Recklessness -- I'm looking where I'm going and run into you without
>>> bothering to play for the ball
>>> Excessive Force -- I try to hurt you. Deliberately. ITOOTR.
>>> Rick Burke
>>> Advanced Referee Candidate/Advanced Coach
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Stone
>>> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 8:01 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: CLB vs PHL (score implied)
>>> I realize that to some, accident and careless are different but to me
>>> (and to your auto insurance company), accident and careless are
>>> synonymous as accidents are the result of carelessness.
>>> -- Larry Stone
>>> [log in to unmask] (and others)
>>> (847) 275-9575
>>> Sent from my iPhone.
>>> On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:39, Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> It's the age old rhetorical question: When is a penalty a penalty?
>>>> I'm going to sweep up a couple of examples that have rooted in my mind
>>>> try to posit some scenarios, explanations - and more rhetoric.
>>>> 1. Isolated Incidents - are more likely to lead to a referee to
>>> calling a
>>>> penalty than cluster fouls. We need no better example than the US -
>>>> Slovenia game for a cluster of players committing multiple fouls - yet
>>>> none are called.
>>>> In situations where the transgression is out in the open: I wonder if
>>>> psyche of the referee is to feel pressure - is more compelled to give
>>>> penalty because the whole world sees the incident also. The CR cannot
>>>> possible say he/she didn't see it. (FWIW - I'm still not sure if
>>>> made contact - if he did it was extremely minor - and had it taken
>>>> outside the area - would it still have been called a foul?)
>>>> Interstingly, the night before - Galaxy vs PR Islanders - PK called
>>>> under the same circumstances in the same quadrant of the field.
>>>> 2. Incidental-Accidental-Careless-Reckless-EF - I view this as a
>>>> chromacromatic scale. As one slides from left to right you move from
>>>> clear, to muted/milky clear, to white. No foul, no foul, foul. Danny
>>>> Welbeck vs Jagielka in the FA CUP semi-final two years ago? Boring
>>> game -
>>>> went to kicks to decide. 70th minute Welbeck sweep down the left
>>>> cuts into the area, fakes Jagielka and pushes the ball by him.
>>>> turns to go with Welbeck, clips his heel, Welbeck goes down. No other
>>>> players around - total isolation. Mike Riley - no call.
>>>> I've watched this 100 times: 50 times I see it as an accident, 50 as
>>>> careless. As it was debated here and written about in the press, one
>>>> common thought was "it was not fair to the game, to have the game
>>>> on this single incidence of offense." (Interesting to me was the
>>>> Sir Alex made about Mike Riley in the week prior to the game - impact
>>>> Riley's psyche??? Only he knows.) So is "fitting the game" a
>>> criteria a
>>>> CR uses to decide if a penalty is called or not?
>>>> 3. Does "it" fit the game - I never considered this as much as I did
>>>> during this past WC. Spain vs Germany gives an example where the
>>>> world" seemed to agree that Ramos' take down of Ozul in the 43-44th
>>>> didn't fit the game. It was a foul; it is debatable whether the spot
>>>> just outside the area or in - let's assume it was in - to support the
>>>> point of fitting a game or not. In that game - it was considered by
>>>> not to be a foul or a penalty. It was against the run of play, it was
>>>> an "honest" attempt to tackle the ball - whatever rationale was
>>> applied -
>>>> it did not fit that game was used to dismiss giving a penalty.
>>>> But probably more frustrating to me, and the Crew Nation: Chad
>>>> and Schelotto have produced the most goals off corner kicks in the MLS
>>>> 3 years. This year he has one. As line judges in American football
>>> say -
>>>> "You could call offensive holding on almost every play" - now it is a
>>>> fact that Chad Marshall is held on every corner. Only once - last
>>>> against Chicago - was a penalty called. Once Marshall got a red card
>>>> retaliating against being held (KC). This is more the source of my
>>>> frustration with the call against Hejduk. (and I thought it was a
>>>> and it didn't fit the game. and it was called against my team).