Nibor Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 There was nothing excessive or dangerous about that tackle. It was the perfect tackle - if that's a red, they might aswell ban tackling! I'll try repetition. There are two simple questions: Did it far exceed the necessary force? Did it endanger the opponent? If the ref answers yes to those two questions, red card. The answers are subjective of course. What is not subjective is: - that all that other shit people keep harping on about e.g. two footed, from behind, off the ground, winning the ball, is completely and utterly irrelevant. - that the punishment having answered yes to those questions is a red card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Feet on the ground, any impact would have caught the foot and tripped nani up... That's the worst case scenario. Not high enough or enough force to break anything... If that's a red, they need to ban tackling, because that was a perfect tackle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'll try repetition. There are two simple questions: Did it far exceed the necessary force? Did it endanger the opponent? If the ref answers yes to those two questions, red card. The answers are subjective of course. What is not subjective is: - that all that other shit people keep harping on about e.g. two footed, from behind, off the ground, winning the ball, is completely and utterly irrelevant. - that the punishment having answered yes to those questions is a red card. Like I said in my previous post. There was no excessive force and it wasn't dangerous... It was against man utd though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted January 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'm not actually criticising the ref, just saying tht I disagree, my point us the law is open to s lot of interpretation and one person's view may be diff to.another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 i meant how hard city worked and how well they did on the counter, 11 v 11 city would of won 4-1 Agree - Foy (aka Fergie's Bitch) did ruin the game. BaconFace Ferguson was as biased as usual in his post match interview. Gigg's tackle from behind warranted a red card. Rooney was a disgrace as usual - he thought he was the ref's assistant and influenced Feeble Foy to send Kompany off. What a Bl**dy ugly Pugsley! Keep your hair (transplant) on! ABU !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsobigfatdave Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Was a tough one, from a certain angle I can imagine it looked like a dangerous challenge, whereas he won the ball cleanly. A split second earlier or later and it's a potential leg breaker The art of tackling is dying out, everything is a foul nowadays - one of the reasons I don't watch anything like as much football as I once did, it's not the same game anymore. The powers that be are killing it Yes and no.... I agree to some extent..but you never saw players like Moore, Beckenbauer,Wilson, Edwards etc etc etc making tackles using 2 feet straight ahead...even the hardest defnders in the country at the time, Dicks and Pearce never resorted to 2 footed lunges to get the ball. It appears to be a thing of the noughties where Players seem to want to throw themselves suicidally into every tackle regardless of the outcome. Its not the powers that be killing it its the supporters almost demanding that their defenders systematically nail the opposition in order to reduce their effectiveness in the game..Whether Kompany's tackle was innocuous, whether he made contact with Nani or not is completey irrelevent...TV footage ( which the referee doesnt have ) clearly shows a 2 footed lunge for the ball...and that tackle is outlawed... The Ref, in his defence, has a split second view to make a decision...maybe he got it wrong in applying the appropriate punishment, but he has interpreted the Rule to the incident he has seen and made the decision accordingly...Luckily Nani was agile enough to get out of the way but imagine that tackle on a young un or a slower old un could have been catestrophic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BITW Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Never a red card for me. This games going soft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pederho ll Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Just saw the tackle for the first time, I can see why that's a red card. The players body goes right through Nani at pace, a very dangerous tackle to attempt. The fact he got the ball is irrelevant. I too have just watched it for first time and l think it was a brilliant tackle on every level. So good Nani stepped aside. Awful decision, just awful. Football has become weak, verging on pathetic and certainly heading towards a non-contact sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antman Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 there's better replays on the tube now, the lower angle replay clearly shows him get the ball first with his right foot, (in fact a really good tackle in my book) even if Nani had gone down, which he didn't, Kompany got the ball first, his reight foot wasn't off the ground & i would like to know what else he could do with his left leg exactly! it was not a red - a very poor, weak decision, by a ref who likes the spotlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 For me it's not the laws that annoy me it's the inconsistency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 If you want an explanation as to how the ref might've come to his decision, watch this one: Note that the second close up replay is probably close to the ref's view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 there's better replays on the tube now, the lower angle replay clearly shows him get the ball first with his right foot, (in fact a really good tackle in my book) even if Nani had gone down, which he didn't, Kompany got the ball first, his reight foot wasn't off the ground & i would like to know what else he could do with his left leg exactly! it was not a red - a very poor, weak decision, by a ref who likes the spotlight. What does getting the ball first or feet being off the ground have to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugger Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's excessive and in times gone by would have been allowed but seriously if Kompany can't stay on his feet to beat Nani in a 50/50 then that's the biggest crime here. Someone should post that link (if it exists) where Bryan Robson and Vinnie jones (if memory serves me well) go for a 50/50 and the ball bursts. 2 very hard men wanting the ball more than the other tackling in a fair way - legendary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 If you want an explanation as to how the ref might've come to his decision, watch this one: Note that the second close up replay is probably close to the ref's view. Interesting collage. Previous to this I'd only seen the tackle from behind and thought it was perfectly legal (even using the criteria you have posted). Having seen this video it does look as if Kompany jumps in with two feet which should be red card for excessive force and endangering the opponent. Having said that, it was ManUre so I believe the rules should allow for two-footed lunges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Having said that, it was ManUre so I believe the rules should allow for two-footed lunges. Three feet would be fine with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Three feet would be fine with me That would require Kompany and Heather Mills ! Or Jake the Peg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Three feet would be fine with me A little over the top Roberto. Shall we settle for two feet and a punch in the Salfords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Lewis Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 In my opinion he jumped into the tackle because he didn't have the bottle to go in with a fair challenge. He was afraid he might get hurt but didn't care about hurting his opponent. He was sent off so fair result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 If you want an explanation as to how the ref might've come to his decision, watch this one: Note that the second close up replay is probably close to the ref's view. As someone who thought it was a red when he first saw the replays, from those angles it looks worse. Definite red and what a player of Kompany's quality tackling like that I do not know. Perhaps the biggest disgrace though is Rooney trying to get him sent off- when I watched the game I thought the ref had blown his whistle first but having seen a few YouTube clips I don't think he had. Unfortunately I suspect Rooney's reaction would have been copied by most professionals if the shoe were on the other foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpin Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 For me it's not the laws that annoy me it's the inconsistency But how are you ever going to get consistency? We are taking human judgement. A one time snap decision from one angle. Consistency is never going to happen. FIFA have made it clear that this kind of tackle can be deemed worthy of a red card. But yet, you can see from this thread alone that people don't get this as some are even saying that it is not even a free kick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 I think this whole situation sums up the problem with modern day refereing in general. All to often they are looking for a foul to give or pre-empting that something could have been dangerous had something else happened. In my view the referee should be there to adminster fair play and get involved once there is a need to do so. They should not be the centre of attention or be looking for fouls that are not/hardly there. Also, the other problem, imo, is that 30odd years ago you would have to break someone in half with a tackle to get a booking, now you regularly see them picked up for nothing more than a slight tug on the shirt. If this is the case to make the game safer, then fair enough - but surely it is time to review the "2 Yellows = Red card" rule and perhaps make it 3, where the offence has been a simple foul and not classed as dangerous play....? In the 70's (before my time, but im sure it's the case from what I have heard/seen) the majority of games would have been abandoned due to lack of players left on the pitch, if refereed by modern standards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 FIFA have made it clear that this kind of tackle can be deemed worthy of a red card. But yet, you can see from this thread alone that people don't get this as some are even saying that it is not even a free kick! If that was a red card - why not make it easier for eveyone and ban tackling altogether? Because you wont see a better tackle than that one. I think this whole situation sums up the problem with modern day refereing in general. All to often they are looking for a foul to give or pre-empting that something could have been dangerous had something else happened. In my view the referee should be there to adminster fair play and get involved once there is a need to do so. They should not be the centre of attention or be looking for fouls that are not/hardly there. Also, the other problem, imo, is that 30odd years ago you would have to break someone in half with a tackle to get a booking, now you regularly see them picked up for nothing more than a slight tug on the shirt. If this is the case to make the game safer, then fair enough - but surely it is time to review the "2 Yellows = Red card" rule and perhaps make it 3, where the offence has been a simple foul and not classed as dangerous play....? In the 70's (before my time, but im sure it's the case from what I have heard/seen) the majority of games would have been abandoned due to lack of players left on the pitch, if refereed by modern standards! Excellent post. Yellow cards are dished out far too much for minor offences. Take a simple thing like tripping a player over... anyone who has played at any level will know how easy it is to trip someone - particularly quick players - It infuriates me when a players gets a yellow for a trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 If that was a red card - why not make it easier for eveyone and ban tackling altogether? Because you wont see a better tackle than that one. Did you watch the other clip linked from the ref's point of view? It was a very dangerous tackle that I think used far more force than needed and endangered the player because if he'd missed by a couple of inches he'd have broken Nani's leg. It doesn't matter that he was accurate, according to the laws the end does not justify the means. I don't see how watching it from the reverse angle that the ref saw anybody could condone it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Did you watch the other clip linked from the ref's point of view? It was a very dangerous tackle that I think used far more force than needed and endangered the player because if he'd missed by a couple of inches he'd have broken Nani's leg. It doesn't matter that he was accurate, according to the laws the end does not justify the means. I don't see how watching it from the reverse angle that the ref saw anybody could condone it. You talk about all ifs and buts.... You could argue, that every tackle is dangerous, if you are going to say that one is dangerous. In that case ban tackling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 You talk about all ifs and buts.... Nope, I talk about the laws of the game. You seem to just keep on repeating that it was fine, but you haven't really explained why you think so considering the laws. You could argue, that every tackle is dangerous, if you are going to say that one is dangerous. In that case ban tackling. So did you watch the other clip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Nope, I talk about the laws of the game. You seem to just keep on repeating that it was fine, but you haven't really explained why you think so considering the laws. So did you watch the other clip? No I havent watched it. Nothing will convince me that tackle was dangerous. Any law that say that tackle is dangerous or deserves a red, to me, says that tackling isnt allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifelong Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 You talk about all ifs and buts.... You could argue, that every tackle is dangerous, if you are going to say that one is dangerous. In that case ban tackling. Nani only escaped serious injury by leaping out the way, if he had stayed on the ground it was a leg breaker. I agree that tackling has all but disappeared from the modern game which makes the likes of Best, Worthington, Marsh, Le Tissier even more exceptional players as they were being clattered ( legally) every game. Most modern footballers wouldn`t have lasted 10 mins in that era and as for managers like Wanger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Nani only escaped serious injury by leaping out the way, if he had stayed on the ground it was a leg breaker. I agree that tackling has all but disappeared from the modern game which makes the likes of Best, Worthington, Marsh, Le Tissier even more exceptional players as they were being clattered ( legally) every game. Most modern footballers wouldn`t have lasted 10 mins in that era and as for managers like Wanger. No it wasnt! Kompany's feet arent off the ground. At worst he would have been tripped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 No I havent watched it. Nothing will convince me that tackle was dangerous. Any law that say that tackle is dangerous or deserves a red, to me, says that tackling isnt allowed. Probably for the best because it shows that almost everything you've said in this thread is completely wrong and it would upset your fixed point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 No it wasnt! Kompany's feet arent off the ground. At worst he would have been tripped! Although it isn't actually relevant, both his feet were completely off the ground. If you're not willing to look, stop talking bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.