Southampton Gull wrote:To try and apply laws of the land to a sport is quite plainly ridiculous. Sport crosses international boundaries and in doing so is played in countries with totally different and opposing laws. Sport is played to its own rules and conditions. om this case the offending tackler, Kompany, was quite rightly shown a red card, all your contadictory and irrelevant arguments are still just that, irrelevant.
I don't see ANY referee saying Foy got it wrong, just players and armchair pundits who really don't know any better. If Kompany had tried that challenge on Rooney, he (Rooney) would have jumped over it and made sure he landed studs first in Kompany's face, Kompany knew there was little chance of Nani doing so hence his tackle was not only reckless, it was cowardly too.
Graham Poll, who would never even get a mention if he didn't criticise other refs, in his own words "Vincent Kompany should not have dived in,", says it all really. By the way, the Daily Mail?
Doing what, Parkman? All the protestations you can come up with are totally irrelevant and then an ex-ref, who hasn't bossed a competitive match in however long, gives a less than reliable interview to a daily rag for purposes of sensationalism and you wet yourself because it backs up your peculiar view of what is DEFINITELY a foul tackle and one that WARRANTS a red card, and indeed was given one.
I merely posted Poll's comments to counter the remark that you had not seen any referee give the opinion that it wasn't a red card. Poll is the leading referee pundit and his opinion was that it shouldn't have been given and Foy was merely looking to stamp his authority in the wrong way. He may not have refereed in a few years, but he still has excellent credentials and is the most informed view of anyone who has spoken out. And yes, I know the daily mail is an awful paper, but unfortunately that's where the only article was.
Unfortunatelyno current referees are allowed to speak, especially if it is against their current colleague and in opposition to his view so therefore Graham Poll is more than likely the most educated view on the subject.
For the record I don't see it being overturned, not because it was a red card in the first place, but because the FA will want to show backing to Chris Foy, as they will not want to see one of their leading refs undermined so publicly.
I know, but even in the link you gave, his line "Vincent Kompany should not have dived in," says it all. I should add that he doesn't actually say that Foy was wrong either.
I haven't mentioned the Poll interview, nothing to do with me.
It won't be overturned, because by the letter of the law, it's a two footed tackle and a red must be issued. My argument is that in all bar a very technical sense, it is a perfectly decent tackle and one which ought to be allowed in the game because it didn't cause and wasn't likely to cause and wasn't intended to cause, any harm.
This is just where we differ, I see shades of grey, it seems you see black and white. You'll see tackles which are designed to injure, or have the propensity to cause much greater injury, which are punished much less harshly, for the technicality of not being 'two footed'.
In the absence of a sin bin, a yellow card and stern warning would have done for me.
ferrarilover wrote:I haven't mentioned the Poll interview, nothing to do with me.
It won't be overturned, because by the letter of the law, it's a two footed tackle and a red must be issued. My argument is that in all bar a very technical sense, it is a perfectly decent tackle and one which ought to be allowed in the game because it didn't cause and wasn't likely to cause and wasn't intended to cause, any harm.
This is just where we differ, I see shades of grey, it seems you see black and white. You'll see tackles which are designed to injure, or have the propensity to cause much greater injury, which are punished much less harshly, for the technicality of not being 'two footed'.
In the absence of a sin bin, a yellow card and stern warning would have done for me.
Matt.
I refer the dishonourable gentleman to my previous statement
Southampton Gull wrote:Wrong as usual Matt. They are linked because they are both dangerous tackles. Whether the results are the same is immaterial. I'm not saying I agree with the rules but if they are applied correctly which in both cases used by you they were then both result in a red card.
ferrarilover wrote:I haven't mentioned the Poll interview, nothing to do with me.
It won't be overturned, because by the letter of the law, it's a two footed tackle and a red must be issued. My argument is that in all bar a very technical sense, it is a perfectly decent tackle and one which ought to be allowed in the game because it didn't cause and wasn't likely to cause and wasn't intended to cause, any harm.
Even if you assume it to be 'perfectly decent', that's only accurate because Nani was fortunate enough to get out of the way. If Kompany had made solid contact above the ankle - easily possible because when you go in two footed you lose control - Nani would probably be out for the season. I don't think it's enough to only punish those challenges that actually cause injury; they should be doing all they can discourage challenges that have the potential to be injurious.
I think everyone should agree that the rules are stupid, and stop giving refs a hard time. If, with hindsight of a million replays and the rulebook in front of people, there is any debate about whether the decision is corect or not, then how is a referee supposed to be consistent and get decisions right.
Fans, pundits, and other referees all seem to have different opinions on this, so how can the decision be deemed to be either right or wrong?
I actually do not think the rules are stupid, i think managers , players and in truth us fan's aswell want to see an end to possible career ending two footed tackle's, there was something vey similar to this in a Torquay game, Marvin Morgan then a Woking player went through two footed on one of our players cant remember who, did not catch our player and was sent off, we all areed back then it was a correct decision.
I do not think there is such a thing as "the ref was only applying the letter of the law" As there is no set formula that says tackle "A" is serious foul play, and tackle "B" is not, it is up the to the referee to make a judgement as to the letter of which law applies to what tackle, and he has a split second to do so.
In this case the ref judged it to be serious foul play and issue a red card, and was correct to do so.
"If applied correctly" is black and white. You're suggesting that the correct application of the rules is two footed tackle must be an automatic red card, this leaves no room for leeway and is, therefore, black and white. Your own personal opinion as to whether the rules are correctly drafted is irrelevant, because you're suggesting that, as they are written, they should be enforced in a black and white fashion.
I am suggesting that not every challenge in which both feet leave the ground is a two footed tackle and so that shouldn't automatically be a red card.
As for you Haps, you cannot punish people for the 'what might have happened if...' scenario, because it's irrelevant what COULD have happened. If you're going to apply that to tackles which miss, for consistency and fairness you MUST apply the same principle to tackles which connect and say, that yes, Roy Keane did end Inge Haaland's career, but 'what if' Inge Haaland had jumped out of the way, he wouldn't have got hurt, so Keane is innocent. People under any kind of rule or law can surely only be justly convicted if found guilty on the facts of the case, not the imagination of those sitting in judgement.
If Kompany had made solid contact above the ankle, then it would have ceased to be a perfectly decent tackle.
If the FA aren't going to give referees any room for manoeuvre in terms of the cards they must award for types of challenges based on the nature of their execution, rather than their intent, effect or cause, then perhaps they should allow themselves greater freedom in sentencing and have a panel to adjudicate upon each straight red (two yellows can probably stay as it is) and award anywhere between 1-5 games, with exceptional powers to award more if a challenge is particularly heinous?
So, strictly speaking a two footer, but with no intent, harm and bare minimal recklessness, 1 game. Rene Howe against Accrington, 5 games.
