What unnecessary pompousness exists in "it would have been serious foul play; violent conduct is off-the-ball incidents" but doesn't exist in "It would have been for serious foul play; violent conduct is head banging, punching etc."?
Yes, but you also wrote that violent conduct was head banging and punching. It can be, but it's about whether the action takes place while challenging for the ball, not what the action itself is.
That just seems like such an odd overstating of things. I don't think I've ever heard anyone in football say "it has to be a red, he's gone in with excessive force, which encompasses recklessness and/or carelessness".
You're not getting the red for the carelessness or the recklessness. You're...
Yes, that's where I got my definitions from. This is really confusing me.
You: You get a straight red for careless, reckless and excessive force
me: actually, you only get straight red for excessive force
You: you get a free kick for careless challenge, yellow for reckless, red for excessive...
Yes, but in the post of yours I quoted you said straight reds are given for careless, reckless and excessive force. They are three different things, only one of which gets red.
"Careless”
means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he...
I'm feeling tired and am wondering if I'm missing something here. Fouls are given for challenges that are careless, reckless or use excessive force. Straight reds are given for use of excessive force, but shouldn't be given for careless or reckless challenges.
Actually...
Serious foul play is when the incident occurs while challenging for the ball, violent conduct is for off-the-ball incidents. An elbow to the ribs while both jockeying for the ball is serious foul play, an elbow to the ribs while stood in the box waiting for the corner to be taken is...