A&H

Hard Tackles

one said:
One of the points of my post was the speed and force of blue has no impact. red has not moved in the direction of which blue was going. The cause of how red ends up in the air is his own speed. Blue could have been 10 times slower but red would have still ended up the same because of his own speed.

Yes blue knew if goes for the tackle there will be a collision. So did red. Its clear to me that blue did not 'hit' red hers. It was red who collided with blue.


I did a number of times before posting. In full speed and slow motion, freeze frame and so on. My post may make more sense of you watched it in the same way. :)
Click to expand...
I'm really confused by what you're seeing here.
the speed and force of blue has no impact? Blue didn't hit red directly - if he did, it'd be a red card and an ambulance. Just because blue got to the spot a moment before red it doesn't mean blue wasn't reckless.

Have you EVER seen a player, running at speed, suddenly and instantaneously change his momentum 90 degrees in line with impact? That's not how it works when somebody takes out your legs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
The Referee Store
spuddy1878 said:
You would get destroyed if you give this at any level, the lower down the level the more you would get slated.

I think the ref has a slight look as if to say i know i probably should do something but its such a great tackle.

BUT

I would say its exactly the sort of tackle that IFAB and co dont way to see, if thats not excessive force i dont know what is.
Click to expand...
@spuddy1878
I penalise these yesteryear tackles at level 7
Not difficult to justify
 
I've given it.

I gave it last Saturday as a penalty, keeper did it. He was fuming as he declared, along with most of his team, that he had won the ball. I don't care, that's just dangerous.
 
RobOda said:
I've given it.

I gave it last Saturday as a penalty, keeper did it. He was fuming as he declared, along with most of his team, that he had won the ball. I don't care, that's just dangerous.
Click to expand...

Never does a game go by where I dont have the old "I got the ball" argument. Usually I end up explaining that 10 years ago it was a great tackle but the laws have moved on. We may not like it but that's the game these days and we have to adapt.

I welcome an early chance to give a foul for a tackle that is a bit more forceful than is necessary. Gives me chance to give a strong blow of the whistle and loudly explain that you cant tackle like this and I'm looking at the force you tackle with and not the ball. Line in the sand then and everyone knows where they stand.
 
I’m old skool and that’s a great tackle.... we all know what most players think too... why and when did football get all snowflakey??
 
I did one of them once and the lad had 2 weeks off work, it was a Vinny Jones on Peter Reid tackle... I didn’t feel a thing! 🙈
 
Cheshire Ref said:
Your interpretation of this is absolutely bonkers!!

Red is running down the line, blue comes in and completely wipes him out but that is reds fault??
Click to expand...
Amazingly, I find myself in complete agreement with @one on this clip. And I think the critical point that most are missing is that red did not have possession of the ball at any stage. If you commit a tackle like that when red is in control of the ball at his feet, then I agree, it's at least a yellow. But in this case, no one has possession and Blue gets to the ball before Red. It was Red's choice to attempt to get to the ball and as a result, he's run into Blue with the spectacular consequences we then see. Why is that Blue's fault???
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Russell Jones said:
Amazingly, I find myself in complete agreement with @one on this clip. And I think the critical point that most are missing is that red did not have possession of the ball at any stage. If you commit a tackle like that when red is in control of the ball at his feet, then I agree, it's at least a yellow. But in this case, no one has possession and Blue gets to the ball before Red. It was Red's choice to attempt to get to the ball and as a result, he's run into Blue with the spectacular consequences we then see. Why is that Blue's fault???
Click to expand...

So if he wipes him out with possession of the ball its a foul and without its not. That's a new on on me i must admit. Is the point not that he wiped him out? Of course red is going to go for the ball but how you can say its red's fault is beyond me. Should it be a blue free kick??
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Sheffields Finest said:
I’m old skool and that’s a great tackle.... we all know what most players think too... why and when did football get all snowflakey??
Click to expand...
What Minty said! I don't know if others have seen this, but when I started twenty-something years ago there seemed to be a lot more serious injuries. I seemed to have players getting broken legs two or three times a season. Sometimes these were due to accidental collisions, but mainly they were serious foul play and the player was walking. The culture at the time was that as long as you took the ball first you could pretty much do what you wanted to the opponent.
Now I don't usually see more than one a season, and some years it's none at all. I had three players with dislocated knee-caps in about 4 months last season, but these were due to pitches, not tackles. The "snowflakey" culture appears to be reducing the serious injuries, at least around here.

The area I ref in a lot has a lot of people on low income, and I am occasionally asked not to caution players because "he can't afford it", and the players genuinely mean this. If this player gets a serious injury because of a challenge like the one in the OP then he is going to really struggle to pay the bills. This type of tackle may be great fun when you're doing it, but I've been hit by this type of challenge and it's not great from that side.
I've seen both my kneecaps (underneath the skin!) on the pitch due to challenges like this and didn't even get a free kick on either occasion. I may be a snowflake, but my intention is that I start with twenty two and I will try to end up with the same, but if anyone thinks this is ok then I would rather they didn't finish the game than a player had to go off in an ambulance.
 
markref said:
What Minty said! I don't know if others have seen this, but when I started twenty-something years ago there seemed to be a lot more serious injuries. I seemed to have players getting broken legs two or three times a season. Sometimes these were due to accidental collisions, but mainly they were serious foul play and the player was walking. The culture at the time was that as long as you took the ball first you could pretty much do what you wanted to the opponent.
Now I don't usually see more than one a season, and some years it's none at all. I had three players with dislocated knee-caps in about 4 months last season, but these were due to pitches, not tackles. The "snowflakey" culture appears to be reducing the serious injuries, at least around here.

The area I ref in a lot has a lot of people on low income, and I am occasionally asked not to caution players because "he can't afford it", and the players genuinely mean this. If this player gets a serious injury because of a challenge like the one in the OP then he is going to really struggle to pay the bills. This type of tackle may be great fun when you're doing it, but I've been hit by this type of challenge and it's not great from that side.
I've seen both my kneecaps (underneath the skin!) on the pitch due to challenges like this and didn't even get a free kick on either occasion. I may be a snowflake, but my intention is that I start with twenty two and I will try to end up with the same, but if anyone thinks this is ok then I would rather they didn't finish the game than a player had to go off in an ambulance.
Click to expand...

I played over a 1000 games and never broke a bone thankfully but I agree that there appears to be less serious injuries in matches these days. When I first started playing they brought in the law about not tackling from behind. That changed football fundamentally as before then a defender could go right through you from behind as long as they touched the ball!

There does/will become a point where we will have to look at where the game is going when it comes to contact. The game always has evolved and always will, at what point will we get a game when any physical contact is a foul? This is the issue for football, and for referees over the next decade or two imo. Because football evolves all the time, we don't notice how much it's changed. Its a completely different game to what it was even a decade ago in terms of physical contact and I wonder where the next decade will take us?
 
Foul for me, especially because he's way off the ground. However, I think I can justify careless. I think the defender is in control. Yes, there's force. but it's so well timed it isn't dangerous, could have been, but wasn't.

I'm surprised at anyone not finding an offence here.
 
I think the views here are pretty unique and obviously referee biased. I suspect if that tackle was posted on various football forums the consensus would be completely different..
 
I'll try and justify no foul one more time at the risk of repeating myself. :)

It is not blue that hits red. It's red that hits blue.
1. Blue kicks ball. At this point ball is hlaf a yard to the right of red (from vid angle) and close to a yard in front of him.
2. Blue continues sliding in the same direction as he was running which is in right angle to Red's run
3. Red continues his run and makes contact with blue's hip. Note blue has now slid 1.5 yards further from the point he kicked the ball. Slide is not towards red but in right angle to the path red was running at the time.
4. Red tumbles in the direction RED was running.

Now commonly in this type of tackle red anticipates he can't get to the ball and jumps over blue and everyone is a happy chappy. In this instant he misread the distance and didn't leave himself enough to time to jump. In fact I think he had already started to jump when contact happened and that contributed to how the fall looked. His bad fall and the speed of the tackle are giving the impression blue was the cause of Red's fall while that is not the case.

To make the point about impression and perceptions, move this exact scenario into the penalty area and replace the defender with the keeper who slides in with his hands. 99 out of a hundred red jumps over keeper but say contact is still on the hips and same sort of fall. Would you give a penalty?

I understand some/most don't agree with me and as long as you read and understand my analysis I am fine with disagreeing with it. Unfortunately the vid quality is poor and freeze frames produce very poor quality images. Better quality vid can convince me otherwise but can also strengthen my points.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I think the views here are pretty unique and obviously referee biased. I suspect if that tackle was posted on various football forums the consensus would be completely different..
Click to expand...
It would. But then the home team in my game last week were convinced that I over reacted by sending their player off for sfp. After all, he went for the ball and only just missed it. The fact he caught the opponent on the knee and raked his studs all the way down his shin was entirely accidental. The away team felt it was a bad challenge that had hurt their player.

If only there was someone neutral who could decide whether it was a foul or not, and if so, what the punishment should be!
 
one said:
I'll try and justify no foul one more time at the risk of repeating myself. :)

It is not blue that hits red. It's red that hits blue.
1. Blue kicks ball. At this point ball is hlaf a yard to the right of red (from vid angle) and close to a yard in front of him.
2. Blue continues sliding in the same direction as he was running which is in right angle to Red's run
3. Red continues his run and makes contact with blue's hip. Note blue has now slid 1.5 yards further from the point he kicked the ball. Slide is not towards red but in right angle to the path red was running at the time.
4. Red tumbles in the direction RED was running.

Now commonly in this type of tackle red anticipates he can't get to the ball and jumps over blue and everyone is a happy chappy. In this instant he misread the distance and didn't leave himself enough to time to jump. In fact I think he had already started to jump when contact happened and that contributed to how the fall looked. His bad fall and the speed of the tackle are giving the impression blue was the cause of Red's fall while that is not the case.

To make the point about impression and perceptions, move this exact scenario into the penalty area and replace the defender with the keeper who slides in with his hands. 99 out of a hundred red jumps over keeper but say contact is still on the hips and same sort of fall. Would you give a penalty?

I understand some/most don't agree with me and as long as you read and understand my analysis I am fine with disagreeing with it. Unfortunately the vid quality is poor and freeze frames produce very poor quality images. Better quality vid can convince me otherwise but can also strengthen my points.
Click to expand...
This all seriously breaks down given that 1) red didn't take a single step after blue launched himself and 2) none of that justifies blue coming into the tackle in a manner that is only ever going to be cleaning up the red player with his body, which is completely unnecessary and not a necessary part of winning the ball (and even if it was, wouldn't justify it).
Heck, that 2nd point really highights why your victim blaming makes no sense whatsoever.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
blue coming into the tackle
Click to expand...
How can you tackle someone who hasn't got the ball? Instead, it's two players attempting to get to the ball and one clearly getting there first. As @one says, if it was obvious that Blue's follow through would inevitably "clean up" Red then fair enough .. but his slide was perpendicular to the direction Red was runing ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Russell Jones said:
How can you tackle someone who hasn't got the ball? Instead, it's two players attempting to get to the ball and one clearly getting there first. As @one says, if it was obvious that Blue's follow through would inevitably "clean up" Red then fair enough .. but his slide was perpendicular to the direction Red was runing ....
Click to expand...
This is pointless semantics that has absolutely nothing to do with anything

And yes, blue's slide is perpendicular. Not quite sure how that precludes him from inevitably cleaning up red.

Had blue come through with a proportionate level of force and kept his focus on the ball, rather than ensuring he put a hit on the player, red wouldn't have been cleaned up at all - or simply fallen over a leg that's gotten the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top