two footed challenges
- Thread starter spider-Neil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=48212.msg1460511#msg1460511 date=1326121328]
I'll be in the minority here, but I agree with the law as it stands. You get a two footed tackle wrong, by a fraction of a second, and you could be ending a players season. Therefore removing the idea that they are acceptable in the game is fine by me.
I will concede that if a player does win the ball he shouldn't be banned for 3 matches automatically.
[/quote]
Except in this case.
I'll be in the minority here, but I agree with the law as it stands. You get a two footed tackle wrong, by a fraction of a second, and you could be ending a players season. Therefore removing the idea that they are acceptable in the game is fine by me.
I will concede that if a player does win the ball he shouldn't be banned for 3 matches automatically.
[/quote]
Except in this case.
Is the "won the ball" thing actually part of the rules? People always go to it, I'm no so sure it is part of the rules, but somebody else may be able to clarify. For that matter, is "studs showing" in the rules? Or just something we say?
Also as they most likely going to appeal, I assume his ban won't kick in before our game? That may well be a reason they wouldn't appeal, as I'm guessing they'll prioritise the league.
Also as they most likely going to appeal, I assume his ban won't kick in before our game? That may well be a reason they wouldn't appeal, as I'm guessing they'll prioritise the league.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48212.msg1460515#msg1460515 date=1326121648]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=48212.msg1460511#msg1460511 date=1326121328]
I'll be in the minority here, but I agree with the law as it stands. You get a two footed tackle wrong, by a fraction of a second, and you could be ending a players season. Therefore removing the idea that they are acceptable in the game is fine by me.
I will concede that if a player does win the ball he shouldn't be banned for 3 matches automatically.
[/quote]
Except in this case.
[/quote]
Ha, definitely.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=48212.msg1460511#msg1460511 date=1326121328]
I'll be in the minority here, but I agree with the law as it stands. You get a two footed tackle wrong, by a fraction of a second, and you could be ending a players season. Therefore removing the idea that they are acceptable in the game is fine by me.
I will concede that if a player does win the ball he shouldn't be banned for 3 matches automatically.
[/quote]
Except in this case.
[/quote]
Ha, definitely.
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48212.msg1460516#msg1460516 date=1326121660]
Is the "won the ball" thing actually part of the rules? People always go to it, I'm no so sure it is part of the rules, but somebody else may be able to clarify.
Also as they most likely going to appeal, I assume his ban won't kick in before our game? That may well be a reason they wouldn't appeal, as I'm guessing they'll prioritise the league.
[/quote]
I've read the rules, there definately does not have to be contact.
Is the "won the ball" thing actually part of the rules? People always go to it, I'm no so sure it is part of the rules, but somebody else may be able to clarify.
Also as they most likely going to appeal, I assume his ban won't kick in before our game? That may well be a reason they wouldn't appeal, as I'm guessing they'll prioritise the league.
[/quote]
I've read the rules, there definately does not have to be contact.
I think that if you clearly show the studs/go in with a straight foot it is much more dangerous than what Kompany does here. The one at Henderson when we played city or i.e. Cabaye at Spearing was much worse than this one. Kompany is in full control of the situation and doesnt do anything but win the ball.
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
They had an ex ref on the radio this morning who said cos his feet were off the floor he wasnt in complete control.
What bollocks that is.
So no kung fu pro, or cantona, have control over their feet when doing a flying kick? It's nonsense.
I appreciate what some people are saying about it being a deterrent but i think it spoils the game, tackles like that are what make football, judge each case individually, not as a one rule fits all scenario.
What bollocks that is.
So no kung fu pro, or cantona, have control over their feet when doing a flying kick? It's nonsense.
I appreciate what some people are saying about it being a deterrent but i think it spoils the game, tackles like that are what make football, judge each case individually, not as a one rule fits all scenario.
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=48212.msg1460531#msg1460531 date=1326123150]
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
[/quote]
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a sheep to a populist view.
The fear of Suarez or Gerrard being on the receiving an ankle-breaker governs my viewpoint.
No need to be a twat.
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
[/quote]
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a sheep to a populist view.
The fear of Suarez or Gerrard being on the receiving an ankle-breaker governs my viewpoint.
No need to be a twat.
FA: What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany: 1 + 1 = 1
FA: Wrong! You failed. Looks like it's a 3 match ban for you son.
Kompany: Fair play, I'll hold my hands up to that one.
FA: What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany: 1 + 1 = 2 🙂
FA: You just got lucky you little son of a bitch. A fraction either side and you would have been wrong! 3 match ban.
Kompany: Really? Are you fucking serious?
FA: What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany:
FA: We can't hear you. What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany:
(ten years pass before Vincent Kompany retires)
Kompany: ....THERE...ARE....FOUR....LIGHTS!!!!!
Kompany: 1 + 1 = 1
FA: Wrong! You failed. Looks like it's a 3 match ban for you son.
Kompany: Fair play, I'll hold my hands up to that one.
FA: What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany: 1 + 1 = 2 🙂
FA: You just got lucky you little son of a bitch. A fraction either side and you would have been wrong! 3 match ban.
Kompany: Really? Are you fucking serious?
FA: What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany:
FA: We can't hear you. What does 1 + 1 equal?
Kompany:
(ten years pass before Vincent Kompany retires)
Kompany: ....THERE...ARE....FOUR....LIGHTS!!!!!
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=48212.msg1460531#msg1460531 date=1326123150]
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
If you've spent 4 months on crutches cos of a shit tackle you might have a different view
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
If you've spent 4 months on crutches cos of a shit tackle you might have a different view
[quote author=Markeh link=topic=48212.msg1460542#msg1460542 date=1326124235]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=48212.msg1460531#msg1460531 date=1326123150]
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
If you've spent 4 months on crutches cos of a shit tackle you might have a different view
[/quote]
Or conversely, if you broke someone's leg because the opponent shit out of a tackle you could hold a different view too. We are being polarised. A broken leg or any other serious injury does not imediately equate to a "bad" tackle.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=48212.msg1460531#msg1460531 date=1326123150]
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
If you've spent 4 months on crutches cos of a shit tackle you might have a different view
[/quote]
Or conversely, if you broke someone's leg because the opponent shit out of a tackle you could hold a different view too. We are being polarised. A broken leg or any other serious injury does not imediately equate to a "bad" tackle.
No, but a tackle likely to break a players leg, should be discouraged.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460528#msg1460528 date=1326122680]
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=48212.msg1460531#msg1460531 date=1326123150]
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
spearing's tackle (giggity) is more like gigg's (giggity) than kompany's (giggity).
A few on here were banging how Spearing deserved his red card. This would be no different on the same token. For what it's worth...i don't think this should be a red card.
I find it a bit strange that a lot of people are just too willing to follow the popular view on the tabloids with a herd mentality.
Edit: I must add that i'm not too arsed what happens to this appeal/red card. But to expect the FA to have a look at their rules again is a little too much to expect. It is very clear to everyone that the FA prefer to have different interpretation of straight forward rules as they see fit...only FIFA and the FIA rival them in that stake.
[/quote]
spearing's tackle (giggity) is more like gigg's (giggity) than kompany's (giggity).
I'm struggling to think of actual instance of where someone suffered a broken bone from shitting out of a tackle, but I'd say 2 footed tackles have a higher injury rate than most other challenge. It's up there along with leading with elbows for a header, that's why both are frowned upon and rightly so imo.
I agree, injuries also come from great tackles but not so in my case and that's why my view is what it is. Some of us don't get paid 120,000 a week or are insured for millions and literally don't get paid if we get hurt playing a sport we enjoy. So yea it's a mans game but it's a game for every man not just the top boys who end up millionaires.
I agree, injuries also come from great tackles but not so in my case and that's why my view is what it is. Some of us don't get paid 120,000 a week or are insured for millions and literally don't get paid if we get hurt playing a sport we enjoy. So yea it's a mans game but it's a game for every man not just the top boys who end up millionaires.
The "won the ball" thing is dubious. I remember Didi intentionally getting wiped out by someone who "won the ball". Poor.
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48212.msg1460561#msg1460561 date=1326125616]
No, but a tackle likely to break a players leg, should be discouraged.
[/quote]
Of course they should, but the rules clearly allow for some interpretation.
Any tackle can break a players leg - look at David Buust or Luc Nilis, both were innoccuous challenges. I'm not favour of people kicking lumps out of people but the art of tackling is dying because referees are under too much pressure from the authorities and players to brandish a card.
That's why my first post in this thread said that the referee should be able to review the challenge on a monitor and come to a decision with the 4th official. Then we would have less of these cases where a) the ref gets it wrong because of the angle he sees it from and b) having been influenced by the likes of Rooney spitting vitriol in his ear.
No, but a tackle likely to break a players leg, should be discouraged.
[/quote]
Of course they should, but the rules clearly allow for some interpretation.
Any tackle can break a players leg - look at David Buust or Luc Nilis, both were innoccuous challenges. I'm not favour of people kicking lumps out of people but the art of tackling is dying because referees are under too much pressure from the authorities and players to brandish a card.
That's why my first post in this thread said that the referee should be able to review the challenge on a monitor and come to a decision with the 4th official. Then we would have less of these cases where a) the ref gets it wrong because of the angle he sees it from and b) having been influenced by the likes of Rooney spitting vitriol in his ear.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=48212.msg1460566#msg1460566 date=1326125968]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460528#msg1460528 date=1326122680]
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
[/quote]
that's the way a professor rolls. problem? deal with it
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460528#msg1460528 date=1326122680]
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
[/quote]
that's the way a professor rolls. problem? deal with it
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460582#msg1460582 date=1326127165]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=48212.msg1460566#msg1460566 date=1326125968]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460528#msg1460528 date=1326122680]
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
[/quote]
that's the way a professor rolls. problem? deal with it
[/quote]
ha ha you guys are the masters of the search engine.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=48212.msg1460566#msg1460566 date=1326125968]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48212.msg1460528#msg1460528 date=1326122680]
There's nothing in the rules about studs up, two footed, or anything like that. It's purely that if you go in with two feet, the referee might consider that to be reckless, careless or excessive. Given he has never played the game professionally, he might not be correct half the time about how bad a tackle is. But that is irrelevant. As we now know the FA rules are about strict liability. So whether Kompany was controlled, careful and as soft as tissue paper in that tackle, so long as the referee gets the opposite impression then it's a red card. Why? Because Kompany is strictly liable even if he intentionally causes the referee to be mistaken.
There should be a disclaimer in the tunnel which states "You dare to breath oxygen on a football pitch at your own risk"
[/quote]
hey! that's my post! I do the research and then you repost my findings! I'm going to sue!
[/quote]
that's the way a professor rolls. problem? deal with it
[/quote]
ha ha you guys are the masters of the search engine.
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=48212.msg1460585#msg1460585 date=1326127320]
That's never a red card. It's clean as a f$%!ing whistle...
Anybody who moaned about Jay's red card at Fulham should vehemently disagree with this red card too - Jay's tackle was worse than this one.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt it was kosher. Kompany was "in control" throughout. Punish that and you may as well say football is no longer a contact sport. I hope they win the appeal.
I watched the game with a Manc and even he admitted the decision was a harsh one.
That's never a red card. It's clean as a f$%!ing whistle...
Anybody who moaned about Jay's red card at Fulham should vehemently disagree with this red card too - Jay's tackle was worse than this one.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt it was kosher. Kompany was "in control" throughout. Punish that and you may as well say football is no longer a contact sport. I hope they win the appeal.
I watched the game with a Manc and even he admitted the decision was a harsh one.
His appeal has been thrown out I heard. Got 4 matches
Yes, well, what else can one expect from that joke outfit?
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=48212.msg1460711#msg1460711 date=1326137541]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=48212.msg1460585#msg1460585 date=1326127320]
That's never a red card. It's clean as a f$%!ing whistle...
Anybody who moaned about Jay's red card at Fulham should vehemently disagree with this red card too - Jay's tackle was worse than this one.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt it was kosher. Kompany was "in control" throughout. Punish that and you may as well say football is no longer a contact sport. I hope they win the appeal.
I watched the game with a Manc and even he admitted the decision was a harsh one.
[/quote]
Definitely.
As I keep saying, it's a perfect fucking tackle.Spearing's wasn't by any means, he looked out of control & was way higher.
Kompany got both feet around the ball exactly as everyone used to try to do. If tackles like that are outlawed the game is worse off for it.
The argument that lesser players cant do it is nonsense, if they cant time it right or arent capable of doing it then shouldn't attempt it, if they do, sending off. You shouldn't ban the slide tackle, which is essentially what this rule being enforced like this does.
Personally I also think tackling from behind being banned is fucking stupid too, who decides at what angle it becomes 'behind', some of the best tackles I've ever seen have come from Steven Gerrard, Sami & Mascherano & were technically behind the player cos they were chasing them.
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=48212.msg1460585#msg1460585 date=1326127320]
That's never a red card. It's clean as a f$%!ing whistle...
Anybody who moaned about Jay's red card at Fulham should vehemently disagree with this red card too - Jay's tackle was worse than this one.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt it was kosher. Kompany was "in control" throughout. Punish that and you may as well say football is no longer a contact sport. I hope they win the appeal.
I watched the game with a Manc and even he admitted the decision was a harsh one.
[/quote]
Definitely.
As I keep saying, it's a perfect fucking tackle.Spearing's wasn't by any means, he looked out of control & was way higher.
Kompany got both feet around the ball exactly as everyone used to try to do. If tackles like that are outlawed the game is worse off for it.
The argument that lesser players cant do it is nonsense, if they cant time it right or arent capable of doing it then shouldn't attempt it, if they do, sending off. You shouldn't ban the slide tackle, which is essentially what this rule being enforced like this does.
Personally I also think tackling from behind being banned is fucking stupid too, who decides at what angle it becomes 'behind', some of the best tackles I've ever seen have come from Steven Gerrard, Sami & Mascherano & were technically behind the player cos they were chasing them.
S
Squiggles
Guest
The slide tackle isn't being outlawed. Hundreds take place every weekend across the country so there's no need to start chatting shite.
The simple idea is if one of these tackles is mistimed, or they roll over the ball, then the opposing player is in significant danger of an injury. That risk will always be there in competitive sports, but anything within reason should be done to lower the chances of it happening should be done. Governing bodies have an interest in enforcing rules which looks after the protection of player at all levels, from the kids at grass-roots to professional footballers.
Rugby has introduced many automatic sin-bins or red-cards for dangerous play over the years and I for one welcome it. Six years ago I was and ended up with a fractured sternum and 6 broken ribs from being took out mid-air. Now I can jump pretty confidently knowing nobody is going to do it, because the idea of it being 'part of the game' or acceptable just isn't there any more. And frankly I'm glad it is.
There's far more to consider than just the entertainment of the spectator. The idea that they're ruining football just doesn't stack-up, because we'll all tune in next week and love it.
I do agree about the tackles from behind aspect though. There was a period last season when every tackle from behind was getting a yellow card and that really was a mockery, because they can be controlled and aren't any more dangerous than a tackle from another angle. They appear to have been a bit more lenient this season with that. Lucas won a beauty against City if I remember rightly.
The simple idea is if one of these tackles is mistimed, or they roll over the ball, then the opposing player is in significant danger of an injury. That risk will always be there in competitive sports, but anything within reason should be done to lower the chances of it happening should be done. Governing bodies have an interest in enforcing rules which looks after the protection of player at all levels, from the kids at grass-roots to professional footballers.
Rugby has introduced many automatic sin-bins or red-cards for dangerous play over the years and I for one welcome it. Six years ago I was and ended up with a fractured sternum and 6 broken ribs from being took out mid-air. Now I can jump pretty confidently knowing nobody is going to do it, because the idea of it being 'part of the game' or acceptable just isn't there any more. And frankly I'm glad it is.
There's far more to consider than just the entertainment of the spectator. The idea that they're ruining football just doesn't stack-up, because we'll all tune in next week and love it.
I do agree about the tackles from behind aspect though. There was a period last season when every tackle from behind was getting a yellow card and that really was a mockery, because they can be controlled and aren't any more dangerous than a tackle from another angle. They appear to have been a bit more lenient this season with that. Lucas won a beauty against City if I remember rightly.
Foxy wasn't saying the slide tackle is being banned. He said - and I agree with him - that that would be the effect of penalising tackles like Kompany's.
Good point well made, but I disagree with the reasoning behind it.
It's essentially saying two footed tackles are dangerous, I don't think the fact you're using two feet is by necessity dangerous, & think referees should be able to use discretion not a black & white rule, one footed good, two foot bad.
There's a huge difference between a tackle in the air playing rugby (which I've been on the end of myself at school level) & a two footed slide tackle. Those type of tackles happen countless times every weekend & only in the oh so sensitive premiership are they pulled up.
We've all moaned for years how restrictive European footy is as they enforce it as almost no contact, I fear the Premiership will end up the same way.
It's essentially saying two footed tackles are dangerous, I don't think the fact you're using two feet is by necessity dangerous, & think referees should be able to use discretion not a black & white rule, one footed good, two foot bad.
There's a huge difference between a tackle in the air playing rugby (which I've been on the end of myself at school level) & a two footed slide tackle. Those type of tackles happen countless times every weekend & only in the oh so sensitive premiership are they pulled up.
We've all moaned for years how restrictive European footy is as they enforce it as almost no contact, I fear the Premiership will end up the same way.
S
Squiggles
Guest
It's not really the two-footedness that's the problem.
Consider the movement you have to make to get both feet going flying forwards towards the ball whilst running. It's similar to that of a long-jumper - it requires an initial upward lunge. In football terms this means the player will be coming in from a higher angle than the traditional tackle, with studs showing. They are also coming in at greater pace, due to the lack of friction with the ground, meaning a greater force or impact on whatever you impact upon. There is no doubt a lot of skill in hitting your target in all of this, but there is also a greater amount of chance at play here with some serious consequences at risk. None of which face the player making the tackle.
Kompany should feel a little hard done by, but if it helps implant the idea that these sort of tackles are dangerous, which I believe they are, then the game as a whole will be safer and I don't think that's a bad thing at all really. The sounds and sights of bones breaking is especially haunting.
Consider the movement you have to make to get both feet going flying forwards towards the ball whilst running. It's similar to that of a long-jumper - it requires an initial upward lunge. In football terms this means the player will be coming in from a higher angle than the traditional tackle, with studs showing. They are also coming in at greater pace, due to the lack of friction with the ground, meaning a greater force or impact on whatever you impact upon. There is no doubt a lot of skill in hitting your target in all of this, but there is also a greater amount of chance at play here with some serious consequences at risk. None of which face the player making the tackle.
Kompany should feel a little hard done by, but if it helps implant the idea that these sort of tackles are dangerous, which I believe they are, then the game as a whole will be safer and I don't think that's a bad thing at all really. The sounds and sights of bones breaking is especially haunting.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
