Jagielka's Red Card - has the game gone too far re tackles?

[The Batman]

Could not see a thread on this

Watched MOTD on Sunday morning and I cannot for the life of me believe that Shearer agreed that it was a red card. Bit rich coming from someone who would have given Hulk Hogan a run for his money with the amount of elbows he gave his opponents.

I thought it was an excellent recovery tackle - for those who have not seen it, Jagielka miss-controlled a pass and Jota pounced on the loose ball, which lead to Jagielka having to make the tackle.

Course then they slowed it down and expanded on the contact once Jagielka had won the ball to make it appear worse than it was.

Now I could be in a minority here because of the way the games rules have gone, but for those who did see it, what do you think, was it a justified red card? Should the game now just basically outlaw slide tackles? Was it a bad referring decision? I leave up to my fellow OTIBers to decide.

[Harry]

It wasn’t high, wasn’t over the top of the ball, wasn’t an out of control lunge and wasn’t intentionally trying to hurt an opponent. It was a genuine effort to play the ball and he missed. It’s a yellow card. Ridiculous red and I’m amazed that Shearer thought so. 

[BRISTOL86]

Short answer, yes. If that’s a red card there should be about 10 a game. 

[The Batman]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

It wasn’t high, wasn’t over the top of the ball, wasn’t an out of control lunge and wasn’t intentionally trying to hurt an opponent. It was a genuine effort to play the ball and he missed. It’s a yellow card. Ridiculous red and I’m amazed that Shearer thought so. 

 

I agreed with everything you wrote until this bit.... he won the ball, then the collision occurred. Hence why the ball ending up going forward instead of behind him.

Maybe now i've got to that point where i say "back in my day" when watching football matches.

[JoeAman08]

Thought it was spot on. The actual tackle was debatable imo with current rule. His leg was straight, studs up and went in hard and not in control. Was low and got ball as well. Similar to Baker tackle last season and Wolves tackle on Magnússon. Both got reds but did not look terrible. So I guess with current rules just about a red. 

What sealed it for me was the last man rule. Outside the box and he took him out as last man. Remember outside the box is still a red. Inside should be yellow if an attempt was genuine to get the ball. 

Combine both and think a definite red. Could have seriously injured Jota as well and no one wants to see that. Right call but I wish they’d take the same stance on diving. 

[Charlie BCFC]

Thought it was a red card purely because he put his studs up immediately putting the player in danger

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the fence about it.

The tackle thing in general. it was noticeable in the WC that refs let more go than in a while IMO. I don't recall many red cards, even in rather physical games (Argentina-Croatia springs to mind). Indeed. a quick Wikipedia check suggests only 2 straight red cards in 64 games- which is surely lower than anticipated in modern times IMO- it shows they can show leniency, but seems to be selective/inconsistent.

However as for this:

• Was he in control?
• Was he last man?
• Did he attempt to play the ball?
• Did it- with the last man rule- deny a clear goalscoring opportunity?
• Excessive force?
• Does it endanger safety of opponent?

Unsure, have I missed any criteria?

If he did get a touch on the ball- and I can't see it having slowed it down several times- it was miniscule and unsure a ref tell about that in realtime etc.

[Harry]

The tackle itself isn’t a red. But there is the fair argument that he’s last man. 

[JoeAman08]

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

The tackle itself isn’t a red. But there is the fair argument that he’s last man. 

Just think nowadays it will be red more often than not. It is the rule now and will always be open for debate. One of those one you can call an orange card. If not red on the cusp and if red can seem harsh. Just depends on the refs interpretation. I prefer that to VAR though. You don’t like it as an Everton fan but you win some you lose some

FWIW if on the halfway line I reckon a yellow with a strong talking to that anything even close will result in a dismissal

[fatchers]

I thought is was harsh. Soon you won't be able to make any physical contact at all. Which won't stop some players from diving anyway. 

 

[glynriley]

21 minutes ago, Harry said:

It wasn’t high, wasn’t over the top of the ball, wasn’t an out of control lunge and wasn’t intentionally trying to hurt an opponent. It was a genuine effort to play the ball and he missed. It’s a yellow card. Ridiculous red and I’m amazed that Shearer thought so. 

Yep.

Game's gone if players are getting reds for that.

[elhombrecito]

4 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

What sealed it for me was the last man rule. Outside the box and he took him out as last man. Remember outside the box is still a red. Inside should be yellow if an attempt was genuine to get the ball. 

There is no such rule. The applicable law in this instance would be:

"denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick"

I don't think it was either a obvious goal scoring opportunity or that his overall movement was towards goal.

Therefore the challenge would have to be either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct".

Personally, I don't think it would be covered by either of those offences, but an argument could be made that it falls under the following, which is classed as serious foul play:

"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play"

So, in conclusion: It might have been the correct decision, or it might not 

[The Batman]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On the fence about it.

The tackle thing in general. it was noticeable in the WC that refs let more go than in a while IMO. I don't recall many red cards, even in rather physical games (Argentina-Croatia springs to mind). Indeed. a quick Wikipedia check suggests only 2 straight red cards in 64 games- which is surely lower than anticipated in modern times IMO- it shows they can show leniency, but seems to be selective/inconsistent.

However as for this:

• Was he in control?
• Was he last man?
• Did he attempt to play the ball?
• Did it- with the last man rule- deny a clear goalscoring opportunity?

Unsure, have I missed any criteria?

Mr P - The only one you have missed, as daft as it sounds which starts the chain reaction, is

 - Was it a foul?

Which is ultimately down to the interpretation of the referee. Once you establish that, then you can move on to your questions.

Using you questions, i believe the following.

 - Yes, he was in control when the tackle was made

 - Yes, I do not believe Coleman or the other CB would have got back had Jota got through so the last man argument is valid

 - Yes, he won the ball before the collision so I dont think it was a foul at all. 

 - Yes - Jota is clean through one on one with the goalkeeper.

Looking at the replies to this already, looks like a split group so far.

[bengalcub]

Never a red genuine attempt to go for the ball , 

[The Batman]

2 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said:

So, in conclusion: It might have been the correct decision, or it might not 

[bengalcub]

Sheared playing the bad cop for tv time the way he played he knew that wasn't a red card offence 

[elhombrecito]

2 minutes ago, bengalcub said:

Never a red genuine attempt to go for the ball , 

Whether it's a genuine attempt or not is entirely irrelevant to whether it's a red card or not. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Mr P - The only one you have missed, as daft as it sounds which starts the chain reaction, is

 - Was it a foul?

Which is ultimately down to the interpretation of the referee. Once you establish that, then you can move on to your questions.

Using you questions, i believe the following.

 - Yes, he was in control when the tackle was made

  - Yes, I do not believe Coleman or the other CB would have got back had Jota got through so the last man argument is valid

 - Yes, he won the ball before the collision so I dont think it was a foul at all. 

 - Yes - Jota is clean through one on one with the goalkeeper.

 Looking at the replies to this already, looks like a split group so far.

Ha yeah, I missed the most important bit didn't I!

Watched it several times, slowed right down- and still can't make my mind up. Some refs give it, some don't I guess. If it was on one of our players, wouldn't a lot of people be shouting for a red card?

As for my WC point, on a general note- do wonder if refs were under instruction a bit there not to get out a red unless absolutely blatant/unavoidable for ruining the game. Saw it Saturday though (don't have Sky but have BT) and wouldn't say it ruined the game at least which is something. One that sticks out for me is as I said Argentina-Croatia 2, 3 red cards would have been quite plausible. Odd times when International tournament seems to let more go than club football IMO.

[Lrrr]

Thought there was actually a worse challenge from Cech on (I think it was) Laporte, overlooked for being a gk perhaps but Cech lunges towards the ball to block it with his body and his foot with studs up goes straight into Laporte's shin but nothing's made of it. Wonder if it would have been different if it were an outfield player. 

[Robbored]

14 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said:

Whether it's a genuine attempt or not is entirely irrelevant to whether it's a red card or not. 

Quite right. An stonewall sending off.

Jagielka lost control of ball and lunged in recklessly to try and disposse Jota and got his timing wrong. It was dangerous and that alone is a red. Add to that the fact Jota was through on goal and that’s another red......

[Leveller]

Unintentionally or not, he clearly endangered the player and studded him nastily in the ankle. Could have been a leg breaker. Under the rules it seems to be a red, though harsh in some ways. A bit like Freeman’s a few years ago where he kicked a bloke in the head, though unaware he was actually there at the time.

[wendyredredrobin]

Yellow card for me. Reds are being dished out a bit willy nilly these days.  So are yellows at times.

For me, a mistimed tackle is just that. Difficult to judge, I know.  However, I would like to see more blatent cheating punished, like the so called professional fouling, shirt pulling, holding, etc that goes on all the time.

Anything deliberate should be punished, but a geniune attempt to get the ball should not require a red as the norm.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Yellow card for me. Reds are being dished out a bit willy nilly these days.  So are yellows at times.

For me, a mistimed tackle is just that. Difficult to judge, I know.  However, I would like to see more blatent cheating punished, like the so called professional fouling, shirt pulling, holding, etc that goes on all the time.

Anything deliberate should be punished, but a geniune attempt to get the ball should not require a red as the norm.

Read Leveller’s  post!

[Midred]

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Quite right. An stonewall sending off.

Jagielka lost control of ball and lunged in recklessly to try and disposse Jota and got his timing wrong. It was dangerous and that alone is a red. Add to that the fact Jota was through on goal and that’s another red......

6 game ban then, RR?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looked at in this pic...surely looks dangerous/pretty bad (not saying intentionally)? Fine line though.

[Leveller]

9 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Yellow card for me. Reds are being dished out a bit willy nilly these days.  So are yellows at times.

For me, a mistimed tackle is just that. Difficult to judge, I know.  However, I would like to see more blatent cheating punished, like the so called professional fouling, shirt pulling, holding, etc that goes on all the time.

Anything deliberate should be punished, but a geniune attempt to get the ball should not require a red as the norm.

If the ball is two feet off the ground you could genuinely stretch for it with studs up and hit someone hard in the knee. Intent can’t be the key issue, sadly.

[wendyredredrobin]

1 minute ago, Midred said:

6 game ban then, RR?

Nah, you only get that for alleged spitting with no physical evidence.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Nah, you only get that for alleged spitting with no physical evidence.

Or video etc...

[joenaldo]

looks worse in slow mo as well !! Yellow at best

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

The tackle itself isn’t a red. But there is the fair argument that he’s last man. 

I think I'm right in saying that being the last man has no bearing. It's whether the defender prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity and pundits still make the same mistake.

As for the tackle itself, not surprised a red was given as in the current climate that seems to be the norm. One thing that I found surprising was the relative lack of red cards in the world cup, and how the referees seemed happy to let far more go than referees in the premier league.

Was it that FIFA wanted to ensure their world cup spectacle was not spoiled by games being abbreviated by fouls, bookings and red cards?