| On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? 19:03 - Aug 14 with 5458 views | smuttsontour |
... |  | | |  |
| On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 20:22 - Aug 16 with 631 views | CiderwithRsie |
| On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 12:10 - Aug 16 by PinnerPaul |
Think those first two definitions work well.
'Intentional' not ,mentioned in the laws, but obviously careless and reckless DO imply some difference in intent.
Moncur's red a classic example of intent not being relevant - sure he didn't mean to hurt Dom Ball but the challenge DID endanger his safety, therefore a red. |
Yeah, I only included the "intentional" bit for completeness on the legal approach. It's a nightmare proving it in law where at least you get to cross-examine people, you don't want refs having to second guess wha's going on in a player's mind during a game.
I mean, if it was Joey Barton, where would you even start? | | | |
| On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 16:19 - Aug 17 with 505 views | PinnerPaul |
| On the train back with today’s ref - any questions for him? on 20:22 - Aug 16 by CiderwithRsie |
Yeah, I only included the "intentional" bit for completeness on the legal approach. It's a nightmare proving it in law where at least you get to cross-examine people, you don't want refs having to second guess wha's going on in a player's mind during a game.
I mean, if it was Joey Barton, where would you even start? |
Spot on - exactly why 'intentional' isn't in the laws and why the 'experts' on TV drive me mad when they trot out the lack of intention to criticise a referee's actions. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
