"He won the ball"

[Max Paper]

So if you go in two footed like Kompany did on Sunday, and win 100% of the ball and don't touch the player, why is that a red card?

Winning the ball does matter if you don't touch the player. IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

Because IT IS IN THE RULES OF THE GAME. A two footed, airborne tackle is a straight red no matter the outcome!

 

[Mellotron]

So if you go in two footed like Kompany did on Sunday, and win 100% of the ball and don't touch the player, why is that a red card?

Winning the ball does matter if you don't touch the player. IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

But at the moment that Kompany started his lunge, he had no idea whether

a> Nani was going to jump out of the way
b> Nani was going to leave his feet planted on the floor and suffer a horrific leg break

It's a red card because Kompany is NOT IN CONTROL of the outcome, which could've easily been b>. He has put in a potentially leg breaking challenge when there was absolutely no need.

Your argument is effectively the same as the American: "let everyone have a gun. we'll send in the police ONCE people shoot each other."

Just don't give retards guns in the first place.

 

[ROSM]

Controversially i dont believe Kompany went in two footed deliberately (in as much as he didnt 'jump' in), he went in and his other leg rose in my view - admittedly I only saw it once aon sunday afternoon so am prepared to be proved wrong. Also Nani had more than enough time to jump out of the way just as Ashely Barnes did in the opening game against Doncaster (and I dont mean this as a defence for the challenge but as a statement of fact). Fat Frank got a yellow for worse and that is what causes the concern for fans I think.

 

[DTES]

IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

But opinions don't matter when it's spelt out in black and white in the rulebook. You can complain about the rules - but it ain't the ref's fault if he follows them, he doesn't write them.

 

[Gritt23]

Drives me nuts - 'There was contact' supporting a penalty is a personal favourite.....

Yes, yes, YES! Same here. Since when did any contact whatsoever = a foul ? Madness, and very infuriating as it gets used over and over again.

 

[Badger]

You could smash someone round the head with a clawhammer but 'win the ball'. Doesn't mean it's not a foul.

Depends if it's a two-footed clawhammer though surely?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

But opinions don't matter when it's spelt out in black and white in the rulebook. You can complain about the rules - but it ain't the ref's fault if he follows them, he doesn't write them.

When was this rule introduced? If it was in the last few years i'm prepared to accept that. If it's been for 20 - 30 years then why did they not get reds for them sort of challenges 20 - 30 years ago? The game has gone soft and I present Milijas' red card as evidence for that.

 

[Gritt23]

So if you go in two footed like Kompany did on Sunday, and win 100% of the ball and don't touch the player, why is that a red card?

Winning the ball does matter if you don't touch the player. IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

In which case your issue is with the rule makers and not the referee who correctly applied the laws as laid down by the authorities.

For what it's worth, I also disagree that it should be a red, but that IS the rules as they stand today.

 

[countryman]

So if you go in two footed like Kompany did on Sunday, and win 100% of the ball and don't touch the player, why is that a red card?

Winning the ball does matter if you don't touch the player. IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

I couldn't agree more.
And how can players know what sort of tackles warrant a red card or a yellow card when it is down to the referees opinion? Each ref seems to have a completely different view from the next about similar tackles.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It is all based on the referee's opinion. In his opinion it is "careless, reckless or using excessive force". If we are talking about Kompany I don't think it was any of those. He won the ball cleanly.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

It is all based on the referee's opinion. In his opinion it is "careless, reckless or using excessive force". If we are talking about Kompany I don't think it was any of those. He won the ball cleanly.

And if Kompany hadn't jumped, he'd have broken his leg.

 

[Neil]

When Kompany went for the ball Nani was nowhere near the ball and only jumped over his legs after two more steps.
It wasnt even a tackle because Nani was nowhere near the ball.
Kompany didnt "win the ball" because Nani didnt have it

 

[sten_super]

So if you go in two footed like Kompany did on Sunday, and win 100% of the ball and don't touch the player, why is that a red card?

Winning the ball does matter if you don't touch the player. IMO a two-footed high challenge which is timed perfectly and wins the ball while touching none of the player is fine, it's when it goes wrong that its a red card.

I certainly think there's a balance to be had, but I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as you.

Another example is the tackle from behind. This was legal (as long as you got the ball) until 1994, when, on the back of Marco Van Basten's career effectively being ended by badly-timed versions of this tackle, it was banned, punishable by a yellow card. Effectively there is a balance - if you accept 'hard' challenges, you have to accept that people will be injured as a result.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Harding on CMS. For me, Harding was undisputably 'out of control'. According to Adkins 'a perfect tackle' unjustly punished with a yellow.

 

[Notters' Dad]

So when the referee indicates it's not a foul because 'He won the ball', how significant is that? It seems to happen at least once in most games at Falmer, when a player is clattered.

 

[Simster]

Worst rant of the year.

Bollocks. I started one about the position of the 4th digit of London telephone numbers only last week.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

And if Kompany hadn't jumped, he'd have broken his leg.

As Neil says. Nani was not there yet. I could not believe at the time the ref even blew up for it.

A question. If two players are going for header and one really wants it more and sticks his bonce in hard, the other player thinks "no thanks" - should that be a foul because he wanted it more and could have done some damage if the other player had also stuck his head in ?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Bollocks. I started one about the position of the 4th digit of London telephone numbers only last week.

That was a quality rant. I still consider it an outrage.

 

[sten_super]

A question. If two players are going for header and one really wants it more and sticks his bonce in hard, the other player thinks "no thanks" - should that be a foul because he wanted it more and could have done some damage if the other player had also stuck his head in ?

There's a fundamental difference though between controlled agression and uncontrolled. Kompany was not in control of the tackle, could not have shifted his weight to avoid Nani and if he had collided with him could have done some serious damage.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

There's a fundamental difference though between controlled agression and uncontrolled. Kompany was not in control of the tackle, could not have shifted his weight to avoid Nani and if he had collided with him could have done some serious damage.

To me he was in control of the tackle. Indeed he "won the ball". Nani was not in danger.