ECFC v Cambridge Official match day thread

[John William]

This is only true for hand ball. Otherwise you are not correct.

No, it is you who are completely wrong. Read the extract from the Laws of the Game I quoted. Whether you like it or not, these are the Laws. All the words are active, not passive - "kicks", "attempts", "pushes" etc.

It is what the player does or attempts to do that counts, not what happens to the opponent. You can break someone's leg by accident and it is not a foul. You can miss him completely but it be a red card offence.

Whether referees applies these laws correctly or consistently is a different issue (IMO they don't, especially the handball law). But the words are there in black and white.

 

[STURTZ]

That's fair enough- what I don't like is that when borderline penalties are given against us people are apoplectic with age, yet when we receive a soft penalty it barely gets a mention. I think people should try and be as neutral as possible when assessing referee decisions. Although from the replay I think we were quite lucky to be awarded the penalty, I accept that it was based on the views of people who were actually there.

What's all this soft penalty crap? The defender was obviously aware of the threat that is David Wheeler and punched the ball away, it was a cast iron penalty from the moment he did it, even if he didn't fist it away it should have been given as attempted handball, his hands were that far away from his body. Wheels would have got his head to the ball if it hadn't been deflected by a blatantly outstretched hand. Doubt we'd have got a goal out of it if Wheeler had got his head to it but that's by the by. Doubt we'll see a more deserved penalty all season.

 

[IndoMike]

And Noel Blake!

I wasn't around in that era, but I heard he could mix it.

 

[antman]

No, it is you who are completely wrong. #.

So if a rugby player, who has never played football before (and I have actually played with a few of these on summer camps when I was teaching in England) lunges at a player coming to him with the ball, thinking he'll get the ball but the player on the ball is just too tricky, avoids the challenge for the ball and the player just gets the man instead, this is a foul. Even on Hackney Marshes this is a foul. Intention counts for nothing (outside hand ball) when giving a foul or not, sometimes a ref will take it into consideration when giving a yellow or red card. I read the rules you posted and nowhere does it talk about intention, it talks about kicks but you can kick someone unintentionally and it doesn't have anything in that part you quoted about intention.

 

[LOG]

It seems to me that people want to have their cake and eat it. People complain about "soft" penalties but also complain about penalties not being given based on the argument that if the incident had happened outside of the box it would've been a free kick.

In my most humble, more "soft" penalties should be given as it'll mean a much more consistent enforcement of the laws.

 

[John William]

So if a rugby player, who has never played football before (and I have actually played with a few of these on summer camps when I was teaching in England) lunges at a player coming to him with the ball, thinking he'll get the ball but the player on the ball is just too tricky, avoids the challenge for the ball and the player just gets the man instead, this is a foul. Even on Hackney Marshes this is a foul. Intention counts for nothing (outside hand ball) when giving a foul or not, sometimes a ref will take it into consideration when giving a yellow or red card. I read the rules you posted and nowhere does it talk about intention, it talks about kicks but you can kick someone unintentionally and it doesn't have anything in that part you quoted about intention.

Heaven help us.

No, it should not be a foul if the player is attempting to win the ball cleanly, unless the referee considers him to be reckless, careless or using excessive force.

Do you really not understand that the words:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

means that it is what the referee considers the player is trying to do, not what the outcome is, that constitutes the offence? it says in terms "or attempts to" in two specific places in relation to kicking or tripping the opponent, right after "considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

Referees do generally interpret the Laws leniently and with discretion, taking into account the circumstances and skill levels of the player, and don't apply them to the letter, but that's a different issue.

We have all been penalised and whined "but ref, I was trying to play the ball!" if true, then it is not a foul and the player should not be penalised.

I appreciate that this may seem an idealistic and impracticable position, but that is what the Laws actually say.

Similarly, cautions (yellow cards) are generally issued for

• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

It is no accident that "unsporting behaviour" is the first on that list. Again, it's about intent. That's why players are cautioned for "diving" - it's the unsporting behaviour, attempting to gain an advantage by cheating, not the outcome, that's the cardinal sin.

 

[antman]

Heaven help us.

No, it should not be a foul if the player is attempting to win the ball cleanly, unless the referee considers him to be reckless, careless or using excessive force.

Do you really not understand that the words:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

means that it is what the referee considers the player is trying to do, not what the outcome is, that constitutes the offence? it says in terms "or attempts to" in two specific places in relation to kicking or tripping the opponent, right after "considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

Referees do generally interpret the Laws leniently and with discretion, taking into account the circumstances and skill levels of the player, and don't apply them to the letter, but that's a different issue.

We have all been penalised and whined "but ref, I was trying to play the ball!" if true, then it is not a foul and the player should not be penalised.

I appreciate that this may seem an idealistic and impracticable position, but that is what the Laws actually say.

Similarly, cautions (yellow cards) are generally issued for

• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

It is no accident that "unsporting behaviour" is the first on that list. Again, it's about intent. That's why players are cautioned for "diving" - it's the unsporting behaviour, attempting to gain an advantage by cheating, not the outcome, that's the cardinal sin.

You couldn't be more wrong. Intent is almost impossible for a non-psychic referee to interpret and that is why it is not mentioned in that list of kicks, jumps and charges that you so passionately protest prove your argument.

 

[Red Bill]

Intention is actually the key issue with fouls. It is never a foul if it is unintentional, though referees often seem to forget that bit. However, it can be a foul even if the player doesn't actually touch the opponent. From the Laws of the Game:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

Clearly Saturday's ref had forgotten "pushes an opponent" was an offence John!

 

[Red Bill]

This is only true for hand ball. Otherwise you are not correct.

I went to an EFL fans forum at Ashton Gate earlier in the year and there was quite a large chunk of that dedicated to refereeing decisions, new rules and interpretation, given by a member of the referees association or whatever they're called (may be possible to find out who exactly), and unless he wasn't telling the truth, I can confirm from his comments that John is right on this one Antman. I was particularly surprised to learn you could be penalised for intent where no contact had occurred!

 

[John William]

Clearly Saturday's ref had forgotten "pushes an opponent" was an offence John!

"careless, reckless or using excessive force", dear boy...

TBF, I though T. Kettle had a good game, he was a bit over-lenient to their rough handling of Wheeler but otherwise even-handed I thought.