Post history

History for Simon B

WPM R18 vs Brisbane Roar | Thu 6th Feb | 5:00pm | RoF - Kids Go Free!

Back to topic

Current version

Posted February 06, 2025 22:44 · last edited February 06, 2025 22:52

I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.

The relevant part of the Laws of the Game seems to be:

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
[...]
  • tackles or challenges
[...]
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
[...]
  • impedes an opponent with contact

Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?

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.

So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.

It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?

Again, not asking if the call was correct but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited February 06, 2025 22:52
I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.

The relevant part of the Laws of the Game seems to be:

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
[...]
  • tackles or challenges
[...]
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
[...]
  • impedes an opponent with contact

Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?

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.

So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.

It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?

Again, not asking about the facts but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).