A&H

Champions League Final

I'm not convinced of a yellow, but think you can perfectly make the case for it. If a referee thinks this tackle was reckless (and therefore the player deserves to be cautioned), that's defendible. Within his margin of appreciation; personal opinion; etc.

Cuadrado also seems to hold back when he sees Ramos coming, so you could also see it as a case of playing in a dangerous manner ("any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury").
 
The Referee Store
He did leave the ground with both feet, so certainly took a risk. Suspect he has got away with it as the trailing leg is tucked in, he stays low, wins the ball, and makes minimal contact with the opponent. If that leading leg had made any contact whatsoever with Cuadrado he'd be looking at a straight red, so shows the very small margins between a tackle being deemed as OK and getting sent off for it.
 
Good tackle...... Very close to a very bad tackle though!!! Shouldn't have been on the pitch though!! He'd been carded and had more than a few chances after that!!
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Correct, its the same as saying, oft, if he had not moved his hand away just as he did then that would have been a penalty.
Had he been later then we might have been looking at a very different incident. I would love to have seen/heard the conversation
"Mr Ramos, great tackle, however, I am going to sanction you because if you had not tackled the way you did you might have hurt someone"
Click to expand...

Wow, is English your first langauge?
Because you've either struggle to read what I said or have deliberately just taken a snippet of what I said and used it out of context for your argument.
Perhaps you are a politician.
So basically a theoretical double-footed lunge is okay as long as the ball is taken clearly?
Roger!
 
I thought it had already been clearly established for many, many years now (if it had ever been unclear) that getting the ball first is not an excuse for a foul tackle. Ramos launches himself with both feet off the ground (so not in control of his momentum) and although he does get the ball, he subsequently upends the opponent.
2017-06-06 09.05.24.png 2017-06-06 09.04.14.png

For me, that's at least a careless challenge, if not reckless.
 
fullsizeoutput_b03.jpeg

Clever selection of pictures Peter, I like your style.... Completing the set is this one that shows no contact at all with the player and confirmation of a good tackle. Mistimed though this was an awful tackle and could have damaged something, but you can say that about any tackle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
deusex said:
Wow, is English your first langauge?
Because you've either struggle to read what I said or have deliberately just taken a snippet of what I said and used it out of context for your argument.
Perhaps you are a politician.
So basically a theoretical double-footed lunge is okay as long as the ball is taken clearly?
Roger!
Click to expand...


Getting a bit personal, I am making reference to your recognition of foul play, you are taking character pot shots.
This is a referee forum, not an English exam
my comments are based on the Ramos tackle
A double footed lunge does not sound too clever, Ramos was not guilty of such though

Maybe at your next training session ask your regions top FIFA guy if its a foul
We had training last night, and somebody, not myself, did mention this tackle to our elite performer.
He seemed confused for a minute as to why he was being even asked to consider the possibillty that this was a foul.
The only reasoning is if but and maybe. Had he mistimed it etc
Its a good tackle, its not a foul.
By all means penalise it in your games. Thats what makes referees so popular!
Our inconstistsncy.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
View attachment 1308

Clever selection of pictures Peter, I like your style.... Completing the set is this one that shows no contact at all with the player and confirmation of a good tackle. Mistimed though this was an awful tackle and could have damaged something, but you can say that about any tackle.
Click to expand...

"Not contact at all"?
I'd readjust the glasses and have another peep

Anyway it only takes one picture to prove a tackle is careless.
One picture can never prove a tackle was legal
 
Ciley Myrus said:
A double footed lunge does not sound too clever, Ramos was not guilty of such though
Click to expand...

Google "theoretical"

Again with the senior refs! Howard Webb didn't think the Luke Shaw tackle was a foul!!!
I don't need a FIFA badge to watch a replay 10 times and compare it to a written set of instructions in the LOTG
They have FIFA badges cos they do it first time in front of millions
I've already stated I wouldn't penalise it in a match because there is jo way I would have spotted it was a foul in real time!
 
We all, or should, aspire to be the best referee that we can be. If the best referee that I know of can clearly state that tackle is fair, then I am content in
my recognition of foul play in this example.
The reason you would not spot it as a foul is because, its not a foul.
Oh and seeing as you are clearly an ex winner of Countdown or similar contest, the words you are looking for are, " no way". Instead of "jo way"
Maybe if your recognition and appreciation of foul play was anywhere near as good as your perfect grasp of English then we can all see you perform at next years Champ league final so you can penalise fair tackles
Or perhaps not
 
You guys need to chill out! I have watched this thread with interest and my first, second, third and fourth thoughts were great tackle - perfectly timed and as a player something I would of been proud off. However as much as it pains me to say this, the last clip highlights to me the recklessness of the challenge. Off the ground and lunges in. It's reckless, winning the ball does not negate that fact!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
No contact as in no illegal contact.. football is a contact sport so to nit pick on it that sounds like your meds need adjusting Keep up cherub!
Click to expand...

How nitpicky of me to not be able to guess a person means something other than what they wrote.
Good thing you came along to tell me what was "actually" written to suit your argument!!
I can't compete at this higher level of communication I must confess
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Ciley Myrus said:
We all, or should, aspire to be the best referee that we can be. If the best referee that I know of can clearly state that tackle is fair, then I am content in
my recognition of foul play in this example.
The reason you would not spot it as a foul is because, its not a foul.
Oh and seeing as you are clearly an ex winner of Countdown or similar contest, the words you are looking for are, " no way". Instead of "jo way"
Maybe if your recognition and appreciation of foul play was anywhere near as good as your perfect grasp of English then we can all see you perform at next years Champ league final so you can penalise fair tackles
Or perhaps not
Click to expand...

Ah yes, typos and rearranging 9 letters are exactly the same as distorting someone's words to suit your own agenda.
Exactly the same....
I'd have prob included the two apostrophes missing from your post if I was making a point on grammar but hey ho.
Your attempted misdirection is boring now. Crack open a bottle of wine and give that ref you're clearly in love with a text.
I'm out
 
Oh the irony. Plying the ball and playing the man happening both on the game incident and the relating debate ;)

And the referee getting involved. So is it a cautionable offence? :)
 
Personally, if there's a Sergio Ramos' challenge like that in a game of mine I wouldn't bat an eyelid. A fantastic challenge IMO and to say 'if he mistimes it, it could be dangerous' is irrelevant because the fact is he didn't mistime it, he got it spot on. It's like saying 'if he dives in with his hands, its handball'. We might as well ban slide tackles if making any contact with the player is deemed dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top