A&H

Man U v Spurs

Status
Not open for further replies.
In post 16, you’ve put ‘Excessive compared to the amount of force that would have been used in a normal challenge? Again, I'd say no’

that implies this isn’t a normal challenge. I do agree that if the ball was there to be played, it was no excessive. However, in an attempt to simply stop the player from running to a ball, it’s excessive.

Shaw has multiple options to stop that attack. He can either trip the player, grab his shirt, or hack him down. Through frustration, he’s gone with the option which could hurt the player as well as stop him
Any tackle "could hurt" an opponent, that alone isn't an argument for anything. I still see no reason why this is any more dangerous than a normal, yellow-card-worthy reckless tackle. People keep talking about how he "wasn't expecting it", but a) that doesn't automatically make it any more dangerous and b) is in no way a consideration in law.
 
The Referee Store
I mentioned earlier in the thread about my association discussing a similar clip.
2:41 is where the incident happens.


Quite significant differences on this one for me. The key one being he actually kicks his opponent. Catches him half way up the shin.
The Shaw is a slide 'challenge' along the floor, and the contact is much lower down the leg.
I happen to think the referee made the right call on this one.
 
Quite significant differences on this one for me. The key one being he actually kicks his opponent. Catches him half way up the shin.
The Shaw is a slide 'challenge' along the floor, and the contact is much lower down the leg.
I happen to think the referee made the right call on this one.
I appreciate what you’re saying but I respectfully disagree.

shaw isn’t making contact with the ground at the point of contact. Another thing for myself personally is Shaws eyes. He clearly decides he isn’t catching the player or the ball and has every intent of endangering the safety.
(i know a still photo doesnt tell the full picture)
AD9B2BC0-F940-46BB-B5A0-60BB99961768.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Any tackle "could hurt" an opponent, that alone isn't an argument for anything. I still see no reason why this is any more dangerous than a normal, yellow-card-worthy reckless tackle. People keep talking about how he "wasn't expecting it", but a) that doesn't automatically make it any more dangerous and b) is in no way a consideration in law.
IFAB’s definition of a tackle is ‘A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)’. What Luke Shaw did by that definition, is in no way a tackle.
 

Attachments

  • 0E0F82D4-4749-4B38-87E5-A2AA8EE03775.png
    0E0F82D4-4749-4B38-87E5-A2AA8EE03775.png
    380.9 KB · Views: 7
IFAB’s definition of a tackle is ‘A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)’. What Luke Shaw did by that definition, is in no way a tackle.

Exactly that, it wasn't a challenge for the ball and therefore cannot possibly be deemed as a tackle. It was kicking out at an opponent off the ball.
 
Okay this is where I step in as a player. In post 16, it was stated that an attacker would expect this challenge. If I were to expect this challenge coming in from experience, I'd consider stopping football. I don't think it's anything to do with football. I've been hacked down a couple of times like this, and the only thing you're thinking when you're that far ahead of the defender is what you're going to do next (a shot or pass) , and the moment you get hacked down, that hurts as you DO NOT EXPECT THIS.
And I agree, last minute WC, I'd love him to make the tackle but you know it's got to be red. All the times this happened to me can be counted on one hand as it is lower level, but every time it was red and no one complained. I cannot state how much I disagree with that notion, its an incredibly dangerous tackle. I'm not even sure I'm discounting SFP even with the ball in playing range, it's not like it's an attempted trip, he just scythes him down.

A very specific example, which I think is similar to Shaw's tackle is this one, from 6:30 onwards

The player expected that red and I'd have no doubt Shaw would have walked off without any issues there. He knew damn well what he did.
 
Last edited:
If we look at the Shaw challenge, we can all agree there’s no attempt to play the ball as it’s nowhere near them, so I don’t see how it can be considered reckless rather than excessive force. Excessive force by definition is ‘exceeds the necessary use of force’, so by going yellow we’re looking at that and saying the amount of force used was necessary. Can we all confidently say he needed to go into that challenge the way he did?
By that argument pushing a player in a mass confrontation is a RC
 
Screenshot_20201007-134537.jpg

This does not mention getting the ball or ball within playing distance. When a player says I got the ball ref we dismiss it as being irrelevant. We can't have the cake and eat it too. Ball not being within playing distance here is merely proof that this was an intentional foul and not playing for the ball. If this was a DOGSO situation, yes it would impact the decision but here, it's a classic SPA reckless foul which is worth one caution only, not two or a red.

Yes because he wasn't intending to play the ball and a 'professional' foul in a promissing attack we would like it to be more than a caution but the laws don't support that.
 
View attachment 4607

This does not mention getting the ball or ball within playing distance. When a player says I got the ball ref we dismiss it as being irrelevant. We can't have the cake and eat it too. Ball not being within playing distance here is merely proof that this was an intentional foul and not playing for the ball. If this was a DOGSO situation, yes it would impact the decision but here, it's a classic SPA reckless foul which is worth one caution only, not two or a red.

Yes because he wasn't intending to play the ball and a 'professional' foul in a promissing attack we would like it to be more than a caution but the laws don't support that.
I mean, you've posted directly the definition of UEF and the mandatory dismissal statement, but still don't see how this is more than a caution?
 
I mean, you've posted directly the definition of UEF and the mandatory dismissal statement, but still don't see how this is more than a caution?
I have posted directly the definition of UEF and you still don see this can't be a dismissal?

Also I suggest you reevaluate your definition of mandatory.
 
I have posted directly the definition of UEF and you still don see this can't be a dismissal?

Also I suggest you reevaluate your definition of mandatory.
You're the one who said "more than a caution" isn't supported by the laws, mate.
So, you could either explain how the definition of UEF and associated mandatory dismissal does not support a dismissal for something that used excessive force, or, I don't know, whatever else you think is somehow going to happen.
 
I really wouldn't want to be on the pitch where a ref doesn't give a red for this. It's an absolute stretch to call this reckless when there's zero attempt at making a good tackle. We can't have our cake and eat it too when players shout 'got the ball' but that's when we often give fouls or yellows.A tackle like this doesn't fall in that category. If playing the ball isn't relevant, we can all agree obviously not even trying to play the ball clearly is relevant.

I mean we've all agreed on a lot of tackles posted here when the ball was played and it was a red, it just doesn't make sense to me at all how anyone would not give a red here. Whether SFP or VC even and I'd wager most assessors would agree.

I normally don't get wound up about most of these posts but these tackles just bring back memories and I frankly would have walked of the pitch had the defender gotten a yellow for it. You have to take the player's safety into account, that's our primary task and allowing random swipes at legs when a player cannot reasonably be expected to see that coming does endanger the safety for me alongside the obvious use of more force than necessary here.
 
View attachment 4607

This does not mention getting the ball or ball within playing distance. When a player says I got the ball ref we dismiss it as being irrelevant. We can't have the cake and eat it too. Ball not being within playing distance here is merely proof that this was an intentional foul and not playing for the ball. If this was a DOGSO situation, yes it would impact the decision but here, it's a classic SPA reckless foul which is worth one caution only, not two or a red.

Yes because he wasn't intending to play the ball and a 'professional' foul in a promissing attack we would like it to be more than a caution but the laws don't support that.
But if the ball is not within playing distance, then it’s not a tackle. So essentially, Shaw has just kicked out at an opponent.
 
Okay this is where I step in as a player. In post 16, it was stated that an attacker would expect this challenge. If I were to expect this challenge coming in from experience, I'd consider stopping football. I don't think it's anything to do with football. I've been hacked down a couple of times like this, and the only thing you're thinking when you're that far ahead of the defender is what you're going to do next (a shot or pass) , and the moment you get hacked down, that hurts as you DO NOT EXPECT THIS.
And I agree, last minute WC, I'd love him to make the tackle but you know it's got to be red. All the times this happened to me can be counted on one hand as it is lower level, but every time it was red and no one complained. I cannot state how much I disagree with that notion, its an incredibly dangerous tackle. I'm not even sure I'm discounting SFP even with the ball in playing range, it's not like it's an attempted trip, he just scythes him down.

A very specific example, which I think is similar to Shaw's tackle is this one, from 6:30 onwards

The player expected that red and I'd have no doubt Shaw would have walked off without any issues there. He knew damn well what he did.
This is a great clip and I love how the referee calmly takes his time, observing any further misconduct, before administering the Red. (For what it's worth I hope there was also a yellow for the Green 9 for his reaction and possibly also for the Green GK for running 70 yards to get involved!).

In an earlier post I described the hack by Shaw as borderline ... I think this is backed up by the strength of views in both directions on here from various posters whose views I have great respect for. My leaning towards Red was partly driven by a hypothesis that the hack was more dangerous because it was less expected than an actual challenge for the ball. This hypothesis has now been endorsed by @Jorik0907 as an ex player (Caution - sample of one!). Overall, I have far more tolerance for players when they are doing stuff that's in keeping with the spirit of the game. And I still feel that if Shaw felt he HAD to bring him down (which I would seriously question given the state of the match at the time) he could / should have used far less force than he actually did.
 
But if the ball is not within playing distance, then it’s not a tackle. So essentially, Shaw has just kicked out at an opponent.
I never said it was a tackle. I don't know about kicked 'out' but if you want to word it that way then you have to prove by law (kicked out = red).

However the way I see this, he has recklessly kicked an opponent. And by law that is a "mandatory" ;) caution.
 
I never said it was a tackle. I don't know about kicked 'out' but if you want to word it that way then you have to prove by law (kicked out = red).

However the way I see this, he has recklessly kicked an opponent. And by law that is a "mandatory" ;) caution.
But you’re talking as if it was acceptable by saying it was a professional foul. We can all dress it up how we want, but if that happens anywhere else on the pitch when the ball is 50 yards away it’s a red but because it was with the ball was within the TV image, we’re calling it a ‘professional foul’
 
But you’re talking as if it was acceptable by saying it was a professional foul. We can all dress it up how we want, but if that happens anywhere else on the pitch when the ball is 50 yards away it’s a red but because it was with the ball was within the TV image, we’re calling it a ‘professional foul’
I think you have your mind made up on this (I too) and it's going to be very very hard to sway it. For me we are talking opinion and expectations here.

You picked on the word tackle and brought up kick out. I responded to that. You are not taking that response any further and taking a different avenue now. I don't think it will get anywhere but happy to go down this new avenue as well :)

If the ball was 50 yards away I could easily justify that as VC because it has nothing to do with play. But in this case it has a lot to do with play. He is trying to stop an opponent from getting to the ball. The intensity of the kick (or trip) is to make sure it stops his run. I don't see enough in there to justify VC as is defined in law 12. It is close but I am not sending someone of cor close. Of course this is my opinion. If you do see VC (your opinion), that is fine but I don't agree with it. I think that is a result of expectations that we should lower our tolerance if there is no chance of getting the ball. That is a different debate all together.

This incident aside, the biggest debates and disagreements on this forum have always been on borderline decisions or the once the laws haven't been very clear in. This one is no different.
 
For me, this is very similar to when a player goes past another, and they trip them up from behind. Arguably, that is more dangerous. However, I doubt any of the forum members would send off for that. It's a clear as day caution.

I agree with one, I doubt we will reach consensus.
Those that see this as very dangerous - have you never seen rugby? I know this isn't rugby, but if what Shaw has done is SO dangerous then perhaps rugby should be banned as its far to dangerous to take people's legs out whilst they are running.

(and I am not saying football and rugby are should be the same, I'm making a comparison between the dangers of swiping someone's legs)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Okay this is where I step in as a player. In post 16, it was stated that an attacker would expect this challenge. If I were to expect this challenge coming in from experience, I'd consider stopping football. I don't think it's anything to do with football. I've been hacked down a couple of times like this, and the only thing you're thinking when you're that far ahead of the defender is what you're going to do next (a shot or pass) , and the moment you get hacked down, that hurts as you DO NOT EXPECT THIS.
And I agree, last minute WC, I'd love him to make the tackle but you know it's got to be red. All the times this happened to me can be counted on one hand as it is lower level, but every time it was red and no one complained. I cannot state how much I disagree with that notion, its an incredibly dangerous tackle. I'm not even sure I'm discounting SFP even with the ball in playing range, it's not like it's an attempted trip, he just scythes him down.

A very specific example, which I think is similar to Shaw's tackle is this one, from 6:30 onwards

The player expected that red and I'd have no doubt Shaw would have walked off without any issues there. He knew damn well what he did.

I think that video backs up my previous point that outside of the UK this would always be seen as a red card. The offender is walking before the referee even gets his card out.

It also backs up the danger of not sending off for something like that in a grass roots game. When you have professional players reacting the way they did it doesn't take much of an imagination to work out how pub players might react.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top