Tackling

[leetufc]

Watching the Manchester derby this afternoon, and I am shocked that Kompany got sent off for that tackle. Yes, he used both feet and his studs were slightly showing, but there was no malice whatsoever, and he clearly won the ball and got none of the man. I don't even see it as a foul, let alone a red card. I know that people will say by the letter of law he had to go, but for me that's a ridiculous comment. Referees need to show some common sense and realise that tacking is all part of the game, and the rules should be use as a guideline, not pure black and white fact. Remarkable decision in my eyes.

Is this a further sign that tackling in football is being eradicated?

And yet again Chris Foy is making the headlines for a contentious refereeing decision this season. When are refs going to take account for bad performances like managers and players are?

[Southampton Gull]

No, it's a sign that the ref gets one chance to see it and gives it based on that. Armchair pundits get replay after replay. He left the ground with both feet showing and you can bet your life that's why the ref saw it as red. Whether he makes contact or not it's still a two footed lunge.

[stevegull]

Not allowed to do two-footed tackles anymore, like it or not. It's a red card. He left the ground and you can't do that, it's a red.

[leetufc]

I know the ref only gets one chance, and has to make a call based on one view, but for me it's too quick a call from Foy. I have always said if a ref is going to send a player off, he should give himself at least ten seconds to calm himself and have a think about the decision and what just happened. Foy didn't, and too many referees don't. He also showed inconsistency moments later in not booking Giggs for a challenge from behind, which I personally also don't think is a booking, but by the letter of the law it is. Another case of the players reputation preceding them, as in the Lampard situation a few weeks ago.

I am planning on taking some refereeing courses when I have some free time in the near future, so maybe I'll take a different view then, but having spoke to my friend who is a qualified local referee, he called it the same as I did. Yes, his studs were showing, but his feet are on the ground when he made contact.

[tufcbrett]

All the ref saw was a two footed tackle. We seen it how many times and it maybe wrong but like dave said he had to judge it at full speed. We get to see the slow mo on tv.

Im qualified to reff up to the welsh prem division. Which i started untill i started coaching with Cardiff so i stopped. I can understand why he did it.

The guy was sent off and the game carried on. people need to get over it and move on. Mistakes happen, were all human

[tufcbrett]

And to add if hes followed the letter of the law, then hes done his job correctly. Yes it was harsh in the end, but its the fa who need to clear up whats what with the refs.

[Gullscorer]

The ref was absolutely right. When players go in like that, it sometimes ends in a nasty injury.

[AustrianAndyGull]

You tackle with one foot/leg NOT two. I played for years and NOBODY ever made lunging tackles with both feet fully off the ground, if you actually try and do it whilst playing it is totally unnatural. If you lunge hard for a tackle it is usually with one foot poking the ball away or with one leg wrapping round the legs of the opponent and winning the ball off them. Both feet off the ground tackling is quite a new phenomenon to me only really becoming a massive talking point these last 5 years or so. Its a sign of a bad player.

[HarrowGull]

I'm a ref with an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the Laws of the Game. And I'm sorry, but the red card was spot on.

Law 12 states:

"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play"

As we all know, Serious Foul Play = Red Card

Yes, contact was minimal, but that was by pure luck. The way he went in showed absolute disregard for the outcome, should there be contact. It was by pure luck that contact was minimal, but if the contact had been heavier, he could have broken Nani's ankle.

As such, I think it was the correct decision, and any appeal by Man City will be utterly futile.

[HarrowGull]

I know the ref only gets one chance, and has to make a call based on one view, but for me it's too quick a call from Foy. I have always said if a ref is going to send a player off, he should give himself at least ten seconds to calm himself and have a think about the decision and what just happened. Foy didn't, and too many referees don't. He also showed inconsistency moments later in not booking Giggs for a challenge from behind, which I personally also don't think is a booking, but by the letter of the law it is. Another case of the players reputation preceding them, as in the Lampard situation a few weeks ago.

I am planning on taking some refereeing courses when I have some free time in the near future, so maybe I'll take a different view then, but having spoke to my friend who is a qualified local referee, he called it the same as I did. Yes, his studs were showing, but his feet are on the ground when he made contact.

You've been listening to Peter Reid.

There is nothing in the Laws of the Game that says a foul from behind is a yellow card.

[stevegull]

I'm a ref with an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the Laws of the Game. And I'm sorry, but the red card was spot on.

Law 12 states:

"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play"

As we all know, Serious Foul Play = Red Card

Yes, contact was minimal, but that was by pure luck. The way he went in showed absolute disregard for the outcome, should there be contact. It was by pure luck that contact was minimal, but if the contact had been heavier, he could have broken Nani's ankle.

As such, I think it was the correct decision, and any appeal by Man City will be utterly futile.

Lovely!

Completely agree, why should the punishment be less severe just because he didn't break someone's leg? It shouldn't be the case that someone ony gets red carded if the player the tackled is also leaving the pitch, on a stretcher. The tackle wasn't safe, but he got lucky. Doesn't mean he should get away with it.

I commend the ref for having the courage to make such a big call so early on.

[HarrowGull]

Watching the Manchester derby this afternoon, and I am shocked that Kompany got sent off for that tackle. Yes, he used both feet and his studs were slightly showing, but there was no malice whatsoever, and he clearly won the ball and got none of the man. I don't even see it as a foul, let alone a red card. I know that people will say by the letter of law he had to go, but for me that's a ridiculous comment. Referees need to show some common sense and realise that tacking is all part of the game, and the rules should be use as a guideline, not pure black and white fact. Remarkable decision in my eyes.

Is this a further sign that tackling in football is being eradicated?

And yet again Chris Foy is making the headlines for a contentious refereeing decision this season. When are refs going to take account for bad performances like managers and players are?

Also, please don't forget that Chris Foy is a full time referee. It's his job, it's his pension, and it's his way of feeding his family. The requirements of that job are for him to enforce the Laws of the Game to the letter. Common sense should only be shown when it doesn't directly conflict with the laws. And also, the tackle was dangerous, and it's the kind of tackle that needs to be stamped out. Sending him off was the 'common sense' thing to do.

[ferrarilover]

I'm a ref with an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the Laws of the Game. And I'm sorry.

So you should be!

Decent post, and by the letter of the law, it's a red, but I think he's a bit unlucky to be sent off. There's no malice, he does win the ball and his second foot is so far away from Nani as to be incidental. If he'd had his left leg behind himself (like a hurdler), the tackle would have been equally as dangerous (not very) yet it would have been a perfectly acceptable challenge. Fans and players and referees can tell the difference between a really bad tackle and one where the tackler has made a bit of a hash of it and, in this case, a perfectly good tackle which was, technically, outside the laws of the game
I understand what the referee has seen and I accept that he has given a red card based on the rule book, but if he gets the chance to see that again at the time, he might well decide on a yellow and a strong warning given the strong mitigation available to the City chap.

Matt.

[Southampton Gull]

When he looks at it again he will see that both feet left the ground proving he was totally correct. He won't lose any sleep over it no matter what a few pundits and a trainee in the legal game think

[ferrarilover]

Nor should he. There are shades of grey for me, and that should be reflected in the punishment meted out. He will get the same ban for the offence as Rene got for his horrific two footed lunge into the Accrington player's upper thigh. Two totally different tackles linked by a technicality in the rules and therefore subject to identical punishment. That can't be right.

Matt.