There seem to be fairly well-accepted definitions these days of these terms from Law 12 - careless, reckless, excessive force: careless = foul reckless = caution (yellow card) excessive force = send off (red card). I think these definitions are inaccurate and do more harm than good. As just one example, there are many, many actions by players that are performed using excessive force (force which exceeds what is necessary) that are not deserving of a send off. Any illegal shoulder-to-shoulder charge which knocks the possessor off the ball is excessive force. But we wouldn't send off players in all of those instances. I think someone, perhaps trying to simplify the instruction of the Laws of the Game, came up with these explanations of the three terms. And I think that is not what the writers meant when they chose those three words. I don't think they meant those terms to define increasing levels of seriousness. I think they meant just what they wrote: that actions which are careless, reckless or use excessive force can all be simply fouls. And, by extension, that an action involving excessive force may, at times, be less serious than one that is reckless (and other combinations of the terms). Is there any way to find out what was originally intended?
Well, you have to remember that this applies only to SFP. "Careless" in my opinion means an "oops". Generally little to no intent, just got a little carried away or attempted a half-hearted tackle that really had little chance of succeeding. Also negligent, indifferent, and frustration tackles fit this category. I take "reckless" to mean the player knew what they were doing, i.e. professional foul, or the player just made a stupid challenge. Also could be translated as lack of restraint or caution, or irresponsible. I think the word "excessive" in this context is not meant to be interpreted as "excessive", but rather "EXCESSIVE", as in "force needed to win ball multiplied by 10". As with any attempt to define anything, there will always be some interpretation or example that doesn't quite fit the rule. I used the "violent" philosophy for awhile, but many SFP fouls are not "violent" per se, but rather extremely hard, unnecessary, and a danger to the player's safety. Basically if a player fouls another player with force well above and beyond anything considered safe, you should be thinking SFP. Sprinting for 10-15 yards before bowling over an opponent could fit this. If you see a foul, and the adjectives "annihilate", "decimate", "clobber", or "knock the crap out of" enter your mind, chances are you're reaching for your back pocket.
Since you're asking a factual question and I don't know the answer off-hand, I can't really answer. I will point out, though, that "excessive force" used to be "disproportionate force." That fact should be taken into consideration if anyone does actual research into this because the word "excessive" will not be present at the origins.
Nashvillian...the explaination/clarification you seek cannot be provided by this e-board. Please seek out your SRA or SDI so they can get you in contact with someone who can explain the game to you and the criteria for cautions and send offs
Fouls, cautions and send-offs are like porn. You can’t explain it but you know it when you see it. The words of “careless, reckless and excess force” are the words used when talking to coaches and when writing up your report. Simple as that!
I'm afraid you missed the point. This is not about the criteria for cautions and send offs. I'm a Grade 7 instructor. I'm well aware of the 7+7. This is about the original intent of the writers of the phrase "carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force." When did this phrase enter the Laws of the Game? Was the interpretation that they represent increasing levels of severity present at that time? Or did the interpretation (definition) come along later? Do any documents exist which illuminate the intent of the writers of that phrase?
Well, to show my obsessive and perhaps pathetic side---the actual minutes of the IAFB meetings are online. They are kind of cute--years of discussing four steps and so on (makes them sound like the high school association). On this point, near as I can tell, there is a proposal in 1993 to clarify the direct kick offenses. Doesn't get acted on, but discussed. Then the British FA in 1995 proposes a similar discussion of the DFK offenses, with the language about "careless, reckless, or with disproportionate force" embedded in it. The Scots propose an amendment moving the language up to the start of the section. It gets incorporated into the LOTG in the big rewrite of 1996, accepted in 1997. But the minutes don't give any sense of where the idea or language comes from. Anyway, that's the timing. And if all of you have nothing better to do, you can look at the minutes all the way back to the 1930s, posted by a California referees association, at http://ssbra.org/html/laws/ifab.html
This is a valid question. My suspicion is that the three words were inserted only in an attempt to distinguish fair play from foul. That is, one might kick/trip/jump/charge/strike/push an opponent in a fair manner, either because 1) the offense was trifling, 2) the ball was played before contact was made, or 3) the player was coerced into the contact. Previously, only "intentional" kicks/trips/jumps/charges/strikes/pushes were to be called. However, referees understandably felt a lot of contact should and was being called even when there was little intent, and this probably led to a large degree of inconsistency between referees. This is on the www.corshamref.net (I believe it was also on a KenAston.org Q&A but that site may be permanently down): Question 1: How is a Referee supposed to decide what is a foul under the auspices of Law 12, and what is not a foul. He would have to be a mind reader to know the intentions going through a player's mind before he makes each tackle - and whether a tackle was done deliberately or not? Answer 1: The word 'intention' was deleted from the Laws in 1996/1997. It was thought inappropriate since the introduction of the terms "Careless and Reckless" into the Laws in 1995/1996. The use of the words 'careless and 'reckless' in Law 12 were included to allow Referees to interpret situations easier - but some Referees had problems with specific incidents involving deliberate acts that were not initially considered dangerous, but could have been considered reckless or careless. (For example, when a player commits a scissors kick when there are no other players near, but then a swiftly advancing opponent very nearly gets kicked in the head). Weather conditions may also produce a dangerous situation where a player is neither careless nor reckless. Law 12 now includes the terms 'careless, reckless or using excessive force' when players commit an offence. Apart from acts of simulation and handball, the word 'intention' is no longer used in the Laws to gauge whether a foul is a foul or not! In other words, Referees [are] no longer asked to consider intention - it is either a foul or it is not a foul. .... The word 'deliberate' (in the sense of deliberately committing a foul) also no longer features in the wording of Law 12. It is impossible for a Referee to judge whether a player commits a foul deliberately or whether a player intentionally sets out to kick, charge, push, trip, hold or impeded an opponent. The new wording 'careless, reckless or using excessive force' makes it much easier for a Referee to make a judgment based upon what the player actually does (and not whether it was done deliberately or intentionally). The Referee can then make his decision based upon the player's action, and not upon what the Referee thinks was in the player's mind. I am not sure where I got this tidbit: 1995 several minor changes including offside on penalty kick rewrite of laws 11 & 12 - intended for clarity, not substantial change · seeking to gain advantage -> gaining an advantage · intentionally obstructs -> impedes · intentionally handles -> deliberately handles · intentionally -> in a manner...careless, reckless or involving disproportionate force So what was... A player who intentionally commits any of the following nine offences...shall be penalized by the award of a direct free-kick... became... A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: I think Julian Carosi is wrong about careless, etc. not being added until 1996. This is from the 1995 USSF Memorandum: USSF Advice to Referees [regarding major changes to the language of the first part of Law XII dealing with major fouls]: Through these changes to Law XII, the International Board has removed the previous requirement of the referee to decide on the "intent" of the player in committing a particular act. This revision of the Law brings the text of the Law into conformity with the reality of what USSF and FIFA instructors have been teaching for many years. In the case of direct free kick offenses, it is still the responsibility of the referee to judge the result of an unfair challenge (first six being careless, reckless or involving disproportionate force -- last four strictly on result observed) and to penalize the offending player/team accordingly. An Amendments to the Laws of the Game published by FIFA barely gives mention to the change: Laws XII - re-editing of offences Decisions 6, 7, 10 and 13 to punish various offences The careless = foul, reckless = caution, and excessive force = send-off also have a long history, but it is unclear if the relationship was intended in 1995: Question 3: As you know, it is nearly impossible to slide tackle someone without having your studs facing the ball. I know that this isn't normally a foul when slide-tackling from one side. But what happens if an attacker is running towards a defender who in turn is running towards the attacker, the defender slide tackles (with 1 foot), taking the ball, but sending the attacker flying. In my view if you touch the ball it shouldn't be a foul, what is your view? Answer 3: Firstly, you CAN slide tackle with your knee. A slide tackle does not necessarily have to involve the studs facing the ball. For example, you can also slide tackle with the toes pointed downwards, with the studs facing down towards the grass. Referees should always penalise slide tackles when they are done in such a way that they jeopardise the safety of the opponent (it does not matter whether the ball is touched first or not). On 26 March 2001 in the English Nationwide Div. 1 game West Bromwich Albion v Tranmere Rovers, the Referee penalised two such slide tackles, neither, of which made contact with the opponent – but both made in a reckless way using excessive force (Law 12). It does not matter whether the defender touches the ball first or not. If slide tackle was careless, reckless, or made with excess force, the Referee should penalise the defender. If two opposing players are running towards each other, and one of them decides to make a slide tackle from the front – then this is most certainly reckless and may on some occasions involve excess force. If a Referee decides NOT to immediately penalise such action, then he will give the 'Green light' for players to make reckless tackles during the rest of the game. And this cannot be allowed to happen. Normally, no foul occurs when a player makes contact with the ball, before he makes contact with the opponent during a tackle. Conversely, the Referee SHOULD award a foul, if the tackle is done in such a way that the tackling player - although in Law making a clean tackle - undoubtedly aims to inflict some damage to the opponent by making the challenge in a rash manner. The strength and outcome of the tackle will gauge what action the Referee will take. (a) A strong talking to (for a 'careless' tackle): (b) A caution for Unsporting Behaviour (if a tackle is made in a 'reckless' way): (c) A sending-off (Serious Foul Play - even if the ball was touched first) if the tackle is done 'using excessive force', and in such a way that the ball is a secondary consideration, and inflicting injury to the opponent is the first. These types of rash tackles are very easy to recognise, and should be penalised accordingly. Just because a tackling player makes contact with the ball first, this does not mean that every tackle is legal. For example: A player who makes a reckless tackle and touched the ball before he touched the opponent - should be penalised. Touching the ball first does not necessarily give the tackling player a 'get out of jail card'. The often heard shout of "But I played the ball Ref." does not necessarily mean free immunity for the perpetrator! 26 March 2001 - Great question from Tommy...........................many thanks Tommy. The language in the ATR hasn't changed since at least 1998: 12.3 CARELESS, RECKLESS, INVOLVING EXCESSIVE FORCE · "Careless" indicates that the player has not exercised due caution in making his play. · "Reckless" means that the player has made unnatural movements designed to intimidate an opponent or to gain an unfair advantage · "Involving excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the use of force necessary to make a fair play for the ball and has placed his opponent in considerable danger of bodily harm. If the foul was careless, simply a miscalculation of strength or a stretch of judgment by the player who committed it, then it is a normal foul, requiring only a direct free kick (and possibly a stern talking-to). If the foul was reckless, clearly outside the norm for fair play, then the referee must award the direct free kick and also caution the player for unsporting behavior, showing the yellow card. If the foul involved the use of excessive force, totally beyond the bounds of normal play, then the referee must send off the player for serious foul play, show the red card, and award the direct free kick to the opposing team. The definition given for reckless is quite strange. In fact, all three definitions are simplifications that probably do more harm than good. "Is there any way to find out what was originally intended?" Hopefully someone knows. As for the ATR, the principal authors were Jim Allen and Dan Heldman. Alfred Kleinaitis and Julie Ilacqua may also have a good idea about how the wording originated. Jim Allen's Ask a Soccer Referee uses the same language, but isn't indexed (it is an incredibly large source of material, and I'd love to go back to 1995).
Also, note that Ilacqua and Kleinaitis use the word "reckless" to describe fouls that should be cautioned in the 7 + 7 Offenses. 1. is guilty of unsporting behavior (UB) a. Commits a direct free kick foul in a reckless manner (for example, charging, pushing, tripping) b. Commits a direct free kick foul in a reckless manner while tackling for the ball from any direction The English sites I look at don't use this list and don't use the word "reckless" in their lists of unsporting behavior. Ian Blanchard's English FA's "Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game" has a very short list of items it considers to be unsporting behavior and hard fouls are not even mentioned. However, it does say "Serious foul play can only occur when the ball is in play and when a player unfairly challenges for the ball against an opponent using excessive force." It is the only time "excessive force" is used in the document.
Thanks to PVancouver for the great, detailed post. At one point he says That's right, but Julian is only off by one year. The change, as reflected in the IAFB minutes, shows the change being made in 1995, which then tees up the USSF memo. The Law XII section had been consolidated and edited in 1993, but "intentionally" was still there. The change in 1995 on the DFK fouls removes "intentionally" and puts in "careless, reckless, or with excessive force" in the manner we now see, and the big rewrite a few years later drops virtually all of the "intentional" language throughout the LOTG. There is a mention of "reckless challenges" in the 1994 IAFB minutes, but it is a discussion item from the English F.A., unclear what it is linked to, or how it influenced these changes in the next year.
Jim Allen's statements concerning careless, reckless, and excessive force are apparently spelled out in the German version of the Laws: German LOTG: Fahrlässigkeit, Rücksichtslosigkeit, übermässige Härte „Fahrlässigkeit“ liegt vor, wenn ein Spieler unachtsam, unbesonnen oder unvorsichtig in einen Zweikampf geht. • „Fahrlässige“ Fouls ziehen keine disziplinarische Massnahme nach sich. “Rücksichtslosigkeit” liegt vor, wenn ein Spieler ohne Rücksicht auf die Gefahr oder die Folgen seines Einsteigens für seinen Gegner vorgeht. • „Rücksichtlose“ Fouls ziehen eine Verwarnung nach sich. „Übermässige Härte“ liegt vor, wenn ein Spieler brutal in einen Zweikampf geht und die Verletzung des Gegners in Kauf nimmt. • „Übermässige Härte“ zieht einen Platzverweis nach sich. Machine translations of the above aren't very clear, it would be terrific if someone who knows German could translate the above. I believe it upholds the ATR viewpoint. The Spanish and French versions closely mimic the English version, but there do appear to be slight differences. According to an online Spanish-English dictionary careless should translate as descuidado or sin cuidado, but the Spanish LOTG prefer imprudent. Spanish LOTG: Se concederá un tiro libre al equipo adversario si un jugador comete una de las siguientes infracciones de una manera que el árbitro considere imprudente, temeraria o con el uso de una fuerza excesiva: According to an online French-English dictionary careless should translate as négligent, and reckless should translate as désespéré or insouciant; but the French LOTG prefer inadvertent and imprudent, which admittedly are very close. French LOTG: Un coup franc direct est accordé à l’équipe adverse du joueur qui, de l’avis de l’arbitre, commet, par inadvertance, par imprudence ou par excès de combativité, l’une des six fautes suivantes :
Instead of careless, reckless, and excessive force, I think I would choose: avoidable (not coerced, and possibly not accidental, although this second topic needs further exploration) excessive (either excessively late or excessively forceful or both) dangerously severe (aka serious foul play) English = German = French = Spanish avoidable = vermeidbar = évitable = evitable excessive = übermäßig = excessif = excesivo dangerously severe = gefährlich streng = dangereusement grave = peligroso severo. Careless and reckless are too pejorative to me, and excessive force could be used to describe many cautionable tackles. Jim Allen even used "excessive force" to describe an illegal charge on Ask a Soccer Referee, although presumably the foul did not even merit a yellow card.
In the dictionary, "Fahrlässigkeit" is translated as either careless or negligent. Carelessness means that a player is unthoughtful, imprudent or incautious going into a tackle. Careless fouls don't result in disciplinary measures. Recklessness is the case, when a player takes actions against an opponent without consideration of the danger or the consequences this might have. Reckless fouls are punished with a warning (=yellow card). Excessive force means that a player brutally goes into a tackle, being aware of and accepting the risk of injuring the opponent. Excessive force leads to a sending-off.
Whoops. English definitions are in the new "ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES", appended to the Laws of the Game. Careless, reckless, using excessive force “Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. • No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent • A player who plays in a reckless manner shall be cautioned. “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. • A player who uses excessive force shall be sent off. These definitions are much better than the ATR's.