I blame commentators for all the confusion regarding so many of these decisions. It's obvious most of them have little idea what the rules state even though most of them are former players/coaches.
This is very true. It often seems that even top coaches and experienced players only have a superficial grasp of the rules.
I believe Savant is correct. (...) "Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
I'm no physicist, but one might argue that without contact there is no "force" and with no force there can't be any danger. That is not my interpretation. It doesn't matter if you are successful hurting the opponent as long as you are "in danger of". All of the situations we are now discussing a player is putting another player in danger of injury (knowing basically any action on a football pitch can lead to injury).
The definition of "using excessive force" is from the Official
Interpretation of Law 12 of the Game. Therefore it is a definition that does not stand on its own. Its relevance is restricted to the application of Law 12. Since Law 12 does
not talk about every action on a football pitch but only about specific actions, the definition is
not suggesting
any actions that can lead to injury equal "using excessive force". Instead, Law 12 specifically points out
which actions are relevant:
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences
in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
- trips or attempts to trip an opponent
- jumps at an opponent
- charges an opponent
- strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
- pushes an opponent
- tackles an opponen
Only these offences can be classified as "careless", "reckless" or "excessive" for refereeing purposes. All of them require either contact (kicks/trips/jumps at/charges/strikes/pushes/tackles an opponent) or apparent intent to make contact (attempts to ...). The careless vs reckless vs excessive ("in danger of injuring the opponent") distinction does
not apply elsewhere:
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
- plays in a dangerous manner
- impedes the progress of an opponent
- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
No mention of careless/reckless/excessive here. Therefore, the Official Interpretion explaining these terms does not apply. What applies instead is the Official Interpretation of "Playing in a dangerous manner":
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. (...) Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. (...) If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a "normal" challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player.
An overview:
1) No contact (dangerous play)
1.1) No "obvious risk of injury" → indirect free-kick
1.1) "Obvious risk of injury" → indirect free-kick and yellow card
2) Contact
2.1) Careless ("lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge, acting without precaution") → direct free-kick
2.2) Reckless ("complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, the opponent") → direct free-kick and yellow card
2.3) Excessive ("far exceeding the necessary use of force, in danger of injuring the opponent") → direct free-kick and red card