"He won the ball"

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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

And Nani made no reaction to the tackle. He did not think he had been in danger.

 

[sten_super]

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

I posted this on the other thread, so apologies for the repetition, but this to me does not look like a man in control of a tackle.

edit to add: I am not necessarily saying that, had it not been given, I would be arguing vociferously for a red card. But I certainly think that the red card was a completely rational decision to arrive at, and was incensed by the manner in which the pundits (but also some people on here) jumped on the refs back for making it.

 

[Questions]

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 ?

No of course it shouldn`t be a foul. You are allowed to go 'in' with your head but not two footed. I think it`s quite straight forward really. If you dive in with both feet showing studs then you will be sent off.
It is when some berk says on the radio that the referee 'should have shown some common sense there' that I want to scream.'

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I posted this on the other thread, so apologies for the repetition, but this to me does not look like a man in control of a tackle.

Photos can be misleading. Watching the game live it did not look dangerous or out of control. Nani just carried on with the game. Then the ref got involved.

edit to add: I am not necessarily saying that, had it not been given, I would be arguing vociferously for a red card. But I certainly think that the red card was a completely rational decision to arrive at, and was incensed by the manner in which the pundits (but also some people on here) jumped on the refs back for making it.

The ref followed the laws of the game, and ignored the spirit of the game. I know they feel they have to do that - but it usually leads to poor decisions. Like this one.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

No of course it shouldn`t be a foul. You are allowed to go 'in' with your head but not two footed. I think it`s quite straight forward really. If you dive in with both feet showing studs then you will be sent off.
It is when some berk says on the radio that the referee 'should have shown some common sense there' that I want to scream.'

There is no law against two footed challenges. It is the "careless, reckless, or excessive force". Of course the ref's opinion counts - but there are other opinions. As I say Nani was in never in danger in my opinion. The ref should have shown some common sense - partly by looking at the reaction of the "victim".

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

No of course it shouldn`t be a foul. You are allowed to go 'in' with your head but not two footed. I think it`s quite straight forward really. If you dive in with both feet showing studs then you will be sent off.
It is when some berk says on the radio that the referee 'should have shown some common sense there' that I want to scream.'

You can do more damage with your head than with a two footed tackle. Lots of players "bottle" aerial challenges because of it. Good headers of the ball who "want it more" are usually simply more reckless, and go in with force.

 

[brightonrock]

Must say, having been born after the 83 Cup Final I was really chuffed to watch it for the first time in full the other day - and I now see what everyone was always going on about, how it used to be 'a man's game'. Some of the tackles in that final (by nowadays' criteria) were absolutely horrendous, straight-red tackles. At one point a Utd player (can't remember who) went in two-footed, off the ground, over the ball, on Gordon Smith. Not only was it not a red, it wasn't even a foul, there was a roar of approval from the crowd, Motson commented that it was a great tackle, and Smith was up on his feet running after it to try and win it back. Immense.

But the shorts have improved.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Agree with this. EPL has become an inconsistent joke.

Can we add another banning offence - calling the Premier League - EPL

 

[DTES]

Must say, having been born after the 83 Cup Final I was really chuffed to watch it for the first time in full the other day - and I now see what everyone was always going on about, how it used to be 'a man's game'. Some of the tackles in that final (by nowadays' criteria) were absolutely horrendous, straight-red tackles. At one point a Utd player (can't remember who) went in two-footed, off the ground, over the ball, on Gordon Smith. Not only was it not a red, it wasn't even a foul, there was a roar of approval from the crowd, Motson commented that it was a great tackle, and Smith was up on his feet running after it to try and win it back. Immense.

But the shorts have improved.

Don't forget Norman Whiteside v Chris Ramsay...

 

[bhawoddy]

The game is for poofs now. Whenever a proper challenge comes in a card is produced, joke.

Yeah im amazed that he went in 2 footed, off the ground and got a red card!!!

 

[JBizzle]

Its almost as bad as the "he's not that kind of player" excuse after some clogger shatters another players leg. He IS that kind of player, I just watched him do it!!

 

[brightonrock]

Don't forget Norman Whiteside v Chris Ramsay...

Yeah that just really was awful. Still no yellow though, and Ramsay (after treatment) limped round the outside of the pitch to get back to the tunnel. No stretchers in them days. Hard.

 

[Questions]

You can do more damage with your head than with a two footed tackle. Lots of players "bottle" aerial challenges because of it. Good headers of the ball who "want it more" are usually simply more reckless, and go in with force.

If one players foot is on the ground and another comes through two footed we all can see the danger there. A clash of heads is inevitable in the game on occasions when two players go for the ball but a players head is not locked to the ground is it.
I think you are also confusing recklessness with determination in the above DKM.

 

[Questions]

There is no law against two footed challenges. It is the "careless, reckless, or excessive force". Of course the ref's opinion counts - but there are other opinions. As I say Nani was in never in danger in my opinion. The ref should have shown some common sense - partly by looking at the reaction of the "victim".

But the two footed challenge IS covered within those three descriptions. It is reckless. Players are forewarned at the start of the season of the fact.

 

[Acker79]

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.

That does annoy me. I think that is largely a combination of talking in terms players understand, and ease of communication - it's easier to point to the ball and carry on than to stop and discuss with the player the merits of the challenge and why you felt it wasn't careless, reckless, or using excessive force.

 

[Mellotron]

By the rules of the game Kompany's was a red card 24/7/365, and I think the ref was very brave to give it and should be rewarded. Nani's reaction should have NO bearing on the card issued. ZERO. That is completely missing the point.

The debate really should be about whether the rules of the game are right or not.

Personally, when watching a La Liga game, I've never caught myself thinking "cor, I wish they'd all lunge in a bit more."

Do any of you? Genuine question.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If one players foot is on the ground and another comes through two footed we all can see the danger there. A clash of heads is inevitable in the game on occasions when two players go for the ball but a players head is not locked to the ground is it.
I think you are also confusing recklessness with determination in the above DKM.

I am no advocate of dirty play. I think refs need to protect skillful players and one of the improvements in the modern game is that skill is more protected. I just think the ref got it wrong in this case. Nani was not in danger, and did not appear to think he had been.

You may be right - it is a thin line between determination and reckless. I can think of players who I played against who were more determined in the air - as they had no concern about a clash of heads. You could say they were reckless - I thought so anyway. But I wanted to protect my looks.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

By the rules of the game Kompany's was a red card 24/7/365, and I think the ref was very brave to give it and should be rewarded. Nani's reaction should have NO bearing on the card issued. ZERO. That is completely missing the point.

Bollocks. If it was so obvious - why was it brave ? If he was doing his job - why should he be rewarded ? Players reactions are sometimes an indication of what has happened. Did that look a handball ? No-one's appealed - play on.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

The two were never close enough for it to be even called a 'tackle'...just play on

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

But the two footed challenge IS covered within those three descriptions. It is reckless. Players are forewarned at the start of the season of the fact.

A two footed tackle off the ground is reckless - and should be red-carded. But looking at it - Nani was not there when Kompany got the ball.