I want to talk, and incidentally open a debate, about reckless conduct set forth in IFAB Rule 12. It is probably the most complicated and the one that provokes the most debate. Everything comes to account of why the field referee was not warned from the VAR in the action of Sergio Ramos on Raúl García and if in that of Dani García on Marcelo. Two stomps.
Rule in Spanish and English regulations.
The term voluntariness was long ago removed from the rules and now what counts, let's say it, for the whole world to understand, is the way in which an opponent is entered. Today, the referees in Spain and their technical management consider the ball dispute to be essential in this type of actions, so, returning to the game, the ball was being disputed in one and not in the other.
But this is where the misconception lies, in my humble opinion. The original regulation (and its philosophy) is always written in English and then the translations of the text come. It is almost impossible to faithfully translate the concepts and philosophy of the rule from the original language.
Here are the two texts, the original and its translation. As you can see, in Spanish, the lack of attention, consideration and non-precaution follows, and stay with the phrase, which is the key to everything, disputing a ball to an opponent. If we go to the original version in English, we see that difference 'making a challenge', that this expression refers to an entry disputing the ball, from the phrase 'acts without precaution'. In the English version, in this second sentence it only talks about acts without precaution and at no time does it refer to it having to be a ball dispute.
Summing up, in Spanish the reckless conduct is in dispute of the ball, while in the original version establishes a clear difference between 'making a challenge' and 'acts without precaution'. Many times a bad translation can lead to a misconception and alter the philosophy of the rule.