deliberate vs. intentional

[DoctorK]

In the MetroStars forum, in a thread devoted initially to the brilliance of MLS referee Michael Kennedy, the issue of making a distinction between "deliberate" and "intentional" emerged.

Apparently, despite both words being synonymous, and the fact that the Laws of the Game Q&A (2004) doesn't make such a distinction, the USSF does insist on a difference. Namely, that a referee should judge if something is done deliberately, but not if something is done intentionally.

Have any (all?) regular posters to this referee forum been trained in this distinction? How many agree with this and/or how many find it absurd?

I can't tell you how many thousands of times I've heard players appeal for a handling the ball call, only to have a referee say, "unintentional, play on!" Do any of you think this statement incorrect?

[IASocFan]

I don't care about training on this issue. The words are interchangeable to me.

Did the player do anything to cause the ball to be played by his hands or arms or did he do nothing and the ball played his hand or arms. Clues can be obtained from the movements and reactions of the player.

[Craig P]

I think the main issue is the case of the player sticking his hand up in the wall prior to a free kick while facing in the opposite direction, or things of that nature. It's entirely possible that he will not intentionally handle the ball, in the sense that he knew that the ball was about to strike his hand, but still took a deliberate action that led to the ball striking his hand.

Kinda semantics, really... I may be making a distinction without difference...

[PirateJohn]

deliberate -- v., what the mailman does with your letter

[Grizzlierbear]

If you are fooling around with deliberate and intentional then best add in accidental to complete the threesome. It is entirely possible to treat a deliberate handling as unintentional. in fact many deliberately handled balls are unintentional in that that was not what the player thought he was going to do! We cannot read minds so we interpret ACTION on the part of the player. A wind swept ball on a curving arc hard into the area a player tries to chest it and it hits the outer edge of his arm as he misjudges the line of flight. That player had no intent to use his arm but the ball accidently hit his arm yet we could see he was deliberately trying to play that ball. I think we fought through this a while back semantics aside you can not know what a player is thinking you can, however, see what he is doing! I quess in my opinion intention is the thought of what he wants to do , "I am going to chest this ball down!" deliberate is the action of what he ends up doing, "oops it hit my arm!" , sometimes they are the same some times not. Here we interpret the action of the player unfavourably.

Think on how an attacking player with his back to the ball deliberately turns back into the play swinging his arms the ball hits his elbow and goes into goal. Was it accidental? Was there NO deliberate play on the ball ? Was it not unintentional thus should it not be a goal? If the ball hit a body part like the bum or back of the head we have no issue yet here we could see reaction and complaint.. Here we interpret the action in favour of the player

[Ref Flunkie]

I don't care about training on this issue. The words are interchangeable to me.

Did the player do anything to cause the ball to be played by his hands or arms or did he do nothing and the ball played his hand or arms. Clues can be obtained from the movements and reactions of the player.

Same here.


LOL at PirateJohn though :D.

[Statesman]

Deliberate refers to the act. Intentional refers to the result. The player may deliberately hold his hands over his head, but unintentionally handle the ball as a result. This is still a foul regardless of what the intended result was.

[whitehound]

I don't care about training on this issue. The words are interchangeable to me.

Did the player do anything to cause the ball to be played by his hands or arms or did he do nothing and the ball played his hand or arms. Clues can be obtained from the movements and reactions of the player.Surprising to hear you say this...........The USSF advice to referees is the official USSF interpretation of the LOTG and adherance to it by all referees would reduce the WILDLY differing interpretations that our poor customers have to deal with. In order to decide if an act was intentional a referee must be able to read minds........somthing I missed in training.....So instead we have to judge whether a handling (no such thing as handball) was DELIBERATE meaning the player.....oh well just read the ATR.

[ur_land]

Crossposted from that previosly mentioned metros forum:

Perhaps this will help. It's from the 2004 USSF Advice to referees:
Quote:
12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.
Under the terms of Law 12, the word "deliberate" in the sense of deliberately committing a foul does not mean that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul his opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player's mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he sees a player actually do — the result of the player’s action — not upon what he thinks is in the player's mind.


Intent means what a player wanted to do.

Deliberate means what a player did.

If a player trips/pushes/jumps at/kicks an opponent accidentally, it's still a foul.

Here's more on "deliberate handling" from the advice to referees:

Quote:
12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).
12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR "HANDLING"
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) strikes or propels the ball with his hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).


Bottom line, parsing of words doesn't matter. This whole distinction between "intention" and "deliberate", afaik, was to stop refs from trying to guess what a player meant to do and to emphasize that even if an action is an accident it still can be a foul.

Handling is a judgment call. I have not seen the play, so I have no idea what the ref called, but MLS refs have to work really really hard to get to that level, so I'll trust Kennedy's judgment. That said, officiating mistakes are a part of the game. I have never had a perfect game in the five years I've reffed, and I probably never will. then again, no player or coach has ever had a perfect game either. Refs are human. Deal with it.

[Grizzlierbear]

Crossposted from that previosly mentioned metros forum:

Perhaps this will help. It's from the 2004 USSF Advice to referees:
Quote:
12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.
Under the terms of Law 12, the word "deliberate" in the sense of deliberately committing a foul does not mean that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul his opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player's mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he sees a player actually do — the result of the player’s action — not upon what he thinks is in the player's mind.


Intent means what a player wanted to do.

Deliberate means what a player did.

If a player trips/pushes/jumps at/kicks an opponent accidentally, it's still a foul.

Here's more on "deliberate handling" from the advice to referees:

Quote:
12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).
12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR "HANDLING"
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) strikes or propels the ball with his hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).


Bottom line, phrasing of words doesn't matter. This whole distinction between "intention" and "deliberate", afaik, was to stop refs from trying to guess what a player meant to do and to emphasize that even if an action is an accident it still can be a foul.

Handling is a judgment call. I have not seen the play, so I have no idea what the ref called, but MLS refs have to work really really hard to get to that level, so I'll trust Kennedy's judgment. That said, officiating mistakes are a part of the game. I have never had a perfect game in the five years I've reffed, and I probably never will. then again, no player or coach has ever had a perfect game either. Refs are human. Deal with it.

That is as clear as it can be stated good post!

[whitehound]

Crossposted from that previosly mentioned metros forum:

Perhaps this will help. It's from the 2004 USSF Advice to referees:
Quote:
12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.
Under the terms of Law 12, the word "deliberate" in the sense of deliberately committing a foul does not mean that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul his opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player's mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he sees a player actually do — the result of the player’s action — not upon what he thinks is in the player's mind.


Intent means what a player wanted to do.

Deliberate means what a player did.

If a player trips/pushes/jumps at/kicks an opponent accidentally, it's still a foul.

Here's more on "deliberate handling" from the advice to referees:

Quote:
12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).
12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR "HANDLING"
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) strikes or propels the ball with his hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).


Bottom line, parsing of words doesn't matter. This whole distinction between "intention" and "deliberate", afaik, was to stop refs from trying to guess what a player meant to do and to emphasize that even if an action is an accident it still can be a foul.

Handling is a judgment call. I have not seen the play, so I have no idea what the ref called, but MLS refs have to work really really hard to get to that level, so I'll trust Kennedy's judgment. That said, officiating mistakes are a part of the game. I have never had a perfect game in the five years I've reffed, and I probably never will. then again, no player or coach has ever had a perfect game either. Refs are human. Deal with it.If everyone would just read the ATR and reff by it referees would all be standardized and 75% of the drama we all suffer would be eliminated.

[DoctorK]

Okay, fine, but does this distinction the USSF insists upon make any sense? Your arm can move toward the ball without it being deliberate. As I've said elsewhere, the International F.A. Board don't make this distinction between "deliberate" and "intentional," and it violates both common sense and parlance. The psycho-physiology of this distinction is to me even more problematic. When one distinguishes between an action that merits just a foul or a card, and if a card whether yellow or red, one must attempt to determine intent. You won't red card someone for a twitch, or any other involuntary muscle contraction, surely.

This seems to me a linguistic mistake someone made in the officiating hierarchy of USSF, in an effort to eliminate subjectivity. Why should Americans alone deny that they determine intent when the rest of the world has no problem with understanding it as synonymous with deliberate (see my initial post in this thread, where I cite the ROTG Q&A's use of "intentional")?

The ATR shouldn't be regarded as Gospel Truth if they conflict with expert opinion in psychology and physiology.

I don't think a ref in error if they deny a handling the ball call and justify their decision in saying, "unintentional, play on!" What the ref is saying in that instance is linguistically no different from "that wasn't deliberate." What is gained in insisting upon the difference. It seems absurd that refs aren't ever to judge whether or not a player meant to do something. Can you truly eliminate psychology if your responsibility is to maintain fair play?

[ur_land]

Dr. K., as a psychophysiologist who is a month away from defending my dissertation, I'd like to invite you to stop getting hung up on the words used, and think about the concepts. The words just illustrate that the determination of the referee is based on what he or she sees a player do and not on any guess about what the player was thinking and planning. We look at actions, not thoughts. That's all this is saying.

We would not give someone a card for a twitch, no. But we would give them a yellow card for a reckless tackle, even if their intent was to only get the ball. If (in the referee's opinion), a player's action results in a foul or misconduct, then the ref should whistle for the foul and or caution or send off the player as appropriate. It doesn't matter what the player was going for the ball, all that matters is what the player did.

The follwing is also crossposted from the metros forum:

Finally, Doctor K, it's good to see someone with a passion for soccer and the Laws of the game. Soccer needs more committed referees, esp. at the youth levels. I'd encourage you to take the entry-level clinic and get certified as a referee. You can find the next clinic offered by the Westchester Youth Soccer League at this website: http://www.wsroref.com/main.htm?page=gsentry

[DoctorK]

[QUOTE=ur_land]Dr. K., as a psychophysiologist who is a month away from defending my dissertation, I'd like to invite you to stop getting hung up on the words used, and think about the concepts. The words just illustrate that the determination of the referee is based on what he or she sees a player do and not on any guess about what the player was thinking and planning. We look at actions, not thoughts. That's all this is saying.[end quote]

Fair enough, good point. I totally agree with the concept. My involvement in the other thread, and the thought behind starting this thread, was because others were more hung up on the word, not the concept. I've been arguing that the signifier is arbitrary. So, yes, I agree, we should be more concerned with the concept than trying to make a distinction between synonyms.

P.S. I refereed one year of high school soccer over a decade ago. Being uncomfortable with the need for objectivity, I've stuck with playing and coaching since. However, having received AYSO regional cert recently, I've been re-thinking it, have indeed had my eyes on that website already, and do desire the learning experience of a USSF ref course.

[whitehound]

[QUOTE=ur_land]Dr. K., as a psychophysiologist who is a month away from defending my dissertation, I'd like to invite you to stop getting hung up on the words used, and think about the concepts. The words just illustrate that the determination of the referee is based on what he or she sees a player do and not on any guess about what the player was thinking and planning. We look at actions, not thoughts. That's all this is saying.[end quote]

Fair enough, good point. I totally agree with the concept. My involvement in the other thread, and the thought behind starting this thread, was because others were more hung up on the word, not the concept. I've been arguing that the signifier is arbitrary. So, yes, I agree, we should be more concerned with the concept than trying to make a distinction between synonyms.

P.S. I refereed one year of high school soccer over a decade ago. Being uncomfortable with the need for objectivity, I've stuck with playing and coaching since. However, having received AYSO regional cert recently, I've been re-thinking it, have indeed had my eyes on that website already, and do desire the learning experience of a USSF ref course.As a recent graduate of the MBTI qual course I understand why you think that I am overly worried about language. Our professor above has a way to explain this that appeals to you more then my way.......regardless we should keep talking and remember that we judge actions not intent.