Should "intent" be considered regards fouls

Should “intent” be considered regards fouls and subsequent disciplinary actions


In what way?

Free against a player for intending to foul but didnt foul?

Not for me if it is the above.

More so,

Player X intentionally injured player Y…

It is considered is it not? . Like if a lad swings like a lunatic at a player but misses because the player ducked, he can be sent off.

1 Like

Maybe it should be considered in the disciplinary process, but I don’t think a ref should have to decide intent while on the pitch. Like I’ve mentioned else where, in situations where there’s contact with the head I don’t think intent should be considered and a red card should always be given.

When a player intentionally injured some one, I would imagine 999 out of 1000 their act is already covered under the rules.

Remarkably the only mention of intent in the rules is to “intentionally” drop the Hurley.

Would that not be covered by the red card infraction?

  • Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.

I’d argue it’s not.

Disc committee decide “you intentionally injured player X”

Player Y
“I didnt intentionally mean to injure him, just rough him up a bit”. By the way show me where intentionally is mentioned in the rules.

Disc committee- dropped the hurl intentionally.

Player Y - it was a football match

As the charge is “intentionally” and the player basically says prove it, they cant and case is overturned.

As much as intent should or people would like it to be included, it’s so open ended that all the cases where it would mentioned would be thrown out.

Intent is also covered in the black card rule for a trip, no?

Strike or attempted strike (which signifies intent to me) are both a red

Beat me to it, intent is already covered here. But also saying “I didn’t mean to break someones leg” should not be a defense where significant damage is done through recklessness, and whether or not explicitly stated in the rules of the association the law of the land will automatically apply a duty of care on the participants in a sporting event.
Where intent should be considered in in the application of suspensions, deliberate violent actions should be treated more harshly than cases of poorly executed tackles etc.

1 Like

Black cards are all about cynical play, intent is never mentioned although the sentiments are very similar.

Were into drink driving territory here.
How many times have we read of someone locked behind a wheel and kill someone. Defence argues they didnt intentionally go to kill someone, they get off.

On the above Anyone who’s caught drink driving should be banned for min 5 years, if they injure someone 10years and so on.

It’s not up the referee to stop a foul after it’s happened. Hes there to uphold the rules. Whilst I absolutely agree regards duty of care, but by whom?

I’d have to say nope.
Hurling fella accidentally clips the helmet of a player, it’s still a red for dangerous, was it intentional - likely not.

Football - fella clatters into opposition and receives a red for dangerous, accidental again but still a red.

Can people see the long dark hole we would be going down by introducing intentional?

Are we getting muddled between intention to foul compared with intention to foul and cause injury?

Ref reports for intentional etc etc
Player gets off for whatever reason
Decides to sue referee for defamation. You may laugh, but it could easily happen.

Perhaps the soccer fans could elaborate, is there an ‘intentional’ piece in the soccer rules and if so, how is it interpreted.

I’m starting to struggle to see what point you’re trying to make here?

1 Like

My point is bringing in the word intentional into the rule book is so frought with anomalies that is shouldn’t be brought in.

For red cards, refs quote what is in the rule book and nothing else, stops lads trying to get off on technicalities

1 Like

Ah ok, I think I’m actually on the same page as you mostly.

Intention doesn’t matter, dangerous play is dangerous play whether it’s an accident or not.

Where I differ is at the highest level (because I’m not sure it could work at club) much like rugby, players could be cited for more serious issues. Let the referee just put down his red card for dangerous play, let the disciplinary panel then decide on severity.

1 Like

The Black card rule says “deliberately”…we are into synonyms here bro. Intentionally/Deliberately…same thing

1 Like

Which is why refs should only quote the rule broken, as were always been told and mentioned a few posts ago.

Bringing in ‘intentionally’ into the rule book leaves the whole thing up in the air.

Sure have an elbow tap, I’ll high five you intentionally when this all blows over :rofl:

1 Like

Refs job tough enough as it is , typical club game 50 odd supporters screaming intent when they take a break from screaming steps every five minutes
To say nothing of the field day TSG would have with it ,

Can anyone remember what ban Roy Keane got for the tackle on Haaland at the time. He also got a big fine & another long ban after his book for saying it was intentional.

It doesn’t have to though, you can very easily bring in the word intentional in regards to the disciplinary process rather than the onfield decision making process.

The disciplinary process of the GAA urgently needs a massive overhaul in my view and I honestly wouldn’t be against the whole rewriting of the rule book.

1 Like