"He won the ball"

[Goldstone Rapper]

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.

It was in 2005.

Since then, 'he won the ball cleanly' is no defence against a red card. You do not need to make contact with an opponent for it to be a red card offence for using excessive force.

 

[Storer 68]

While that may be, rules is rules and it just gets annoying how many people pontificate about controversial situations without understanding the first thing about what the laws of the game are.

That's the thing I love about football fans

Oh and "feet off the ground" is now regarded as not being in control and an automatic red card. As we saw on sunday in Manchester

 

[Shifty89]

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.

I think in the case of Nani, his reaction is relevant. When a player who normally is more than happy to go down and roll around under the slightest contact just carries on with the game, surely is an indication that the tackle wasn't all that bad. In my opinion when tackles like that occur, the ref has to decide whether to follow the laws strictly, send the player off and potentially ruin the competitivity of the game, or to let it slide and keep the game competitive, maybe have a word with the player and advise him that under different circumstances he'd be off.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think in the case of Nani, his reaction is relevant. When a player who normally is more than happy to go down and roll around under the slightest contact just carries on with the game, surely is an indication that the tackle wasn't all that bad. In my opinion when tackles like that occur, the ref has to decide whether to follow the laws strictly, send the player off and potentially ruin the competitivity of the game, or to let it slide and keep the game competitive, maybe have a word with the player and advise him that under different circumstances he'd be off.

Word.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

I think in the case of Nani, his reaction is relevant. When a player who normally is more than happy to go down and roll around under the slightest contact just carries on with the game, surely is an indication that the tackle wasn't all that bad. In my opinion when tackles like that occur, the ref has to decide whether to follow the laws strictly, send the player off and potentially ruin the competitivity of the game, or to let it slide and keep the game competitive, maybe have a word with the player and advise him that under different circumstances he'd be off.

It should not be a consideration of the referee to decide which decision keeps a game competitive. Or even basing it on an opponents' reaction to the challenge. He should be deciding whether to give out a red card purely on whether it is a red card offence.

 

[Questions]

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.

So are you saying then that it was not a tackle and maybe that is how players from Belgium 'control' the ball. Or maybe the ref needs to take his tape measure out and check that the standing player was in 'tackle range' before he sends the offender off.Kompany went to ground because he was making a tackle, and the fact that Nani wouldn`t go in for a 50/50 even if his life depended on it has nothing to do with the argument.

 

[Neil]

thats like saying a player swings his arm going up for the ball and gets sent off for using his elbow even the other players head is nowhere near his elbow

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

thats like saying a player swings his arm going up for the ball and gets sent off for using his elbow even the other players head is nowhere near his elbow

You got it!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So are you saying then that it was not a tackle and maybe that is how players from Belgium 'control' the ball. Or maybe the ref needs to take his tape measure out and check that the standing player was in 'tackle range' before he sends the offender off.Kompany went to ground because he was making a tackle, and the fact that Nani wouldn`t go in for a 50/50 even if his life depended on it has nothing to do with the argument.

I am saying Nani was never in danger. That is how it looked at the time. Make up what you like around that.

 

[Mellotron]

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.

UTTER bollocks. It was a HUGE call that early in the game, the ref was brave by DOING HIS JOB and being willing to be unpopular by making the correct decision. Players reaction do NOT affect what the challenge was. Daft to suggest they would.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Ho hum. Around in circles here. It does make me smile when people think it is such a black and white game and there is only one valid opinion.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

I am saying Nani was never in danger. That is how it looked at the time. Make up what you like around that.

The point about whether Nani was literally in danger is irrelevant. The point is that no player with a desire to be in one piece could go from not being near the ball to putting themselves within the vicinity of the ball, such was the excessive force used by Kompany.

 

[Mellotron]

Ho hum. Around in circles here. It does make me smile when people think it is such a black and white game and there is only one valid opinion.

To lunge with two feet IS reckless as you are not in control of your body. It was not up to Kompany by that point whether Nani broke his leg or not.

Say, as Nani went to jump out of the way, he tripped and planted a foot, Kompany goes through that foot, breaking it in 2 places and ending Nani's career.

Still not a red? You'd honestly turn to me at that point and say " that's not a red".

 

[Questions]

Ho hum. Around in circles here. It does make me smile when people think it is such a black and white game and there is only one valid opinion.

I dont think that handsome.

Opinions and arseholes and all that.

 

[Mellotron]

The original point of this thread (which has gone slightly off tangent) was that "he won the ball" is never an excuse IN ITSELF.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

The original point of this thread (which has gone slightly off tangent) was that "he won the ball" is never an excuse IN ITSELF.

Yes. Nowadays, saying Vinnie Jones 'won the ball' would be no justification for this tackle:

[yt]x4ldo4KNj3M[/yt]

Back then, it would have carried some weight in discussions with the referee.

 

[Mellotron]

Quite. And anyone who suggests how it was is better than how it is is a f***ing moron.

 

[drew]

But sometimes its relevent
If you tackle someone from behind it is irrelevant. If you tackle some one running towards you then it is relevant. if you launch yourself into the air irrelevant, slide studs down along the ground, relevant.

Agree entirely.

The Kompany challenge at the weekend is a perfect example of this. He went in two footed, off the ground and was lucky not to have hurt Nani seriously. Que the usual idiot pundits banging on about how he's won the ball and then the tossers on Radio 5 hoping that last night's game wasn't ruined because of a bad decision by a referee, hinting that the red card for the Kompany offence was incorrect.

Fair enough rant.

Utter bollocks. Suggest you take a real close look. Firstly, take into account it was raining and therefore players would slide in but you have to consider whether it was excessive force. Secondly, Kompany is hooking his feet around the ball and not studs first which is very relevant.

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.

Not in control, what utter cock. He was sliding in. Your statement means that no player can slide towards the ball even if they keep their feet down and not showing any studs.

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.

This is also utter cock. The still photo is not at the point that Kompany intercepted the ball. If it were you would see that Kompany is not going in studs first, his boots are almost in contact with the ground and therefore not 'high'. But no, lets reprint a still that is more controversial. You should work for the NotW, oh, too late.

I am saying Nani was never in danger. That is how it looked at the time. Make up what you like around that.

The point about whether Nani was literally in danger is irrelevant. The point is that no player with a desire to be in one piece could go from not being near the ball to putting themselves within the vicinity of the ball, such was the excessive force used by Kompany.

Regardless of some of the posts on here, the tackle is a long way from being a clear cut red or even a yellow. I agree with what has been said that the phrase, 'he won the ball' is irrelevant and the nature of how the ball is won is. However, if you applied the laws in accordance with some of the posts on here, we might as well tie everyones hands to their side so no one gets caught by a flailing arm and no one must jump off the ground, either to slide on a wet surface to intercept a ball or even to head it because when your feet are off the ground, apparently you are completely out of control.

 

[sten_super]

[MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], is that really the level you see it at? Anyone who disagrees with you is spouting 'cock' or 'bollocks', you are entirely right and everyone else entirely wrong? How do you ever have a sensible conversation about anything even vaguely controversial?

I've just watched the tackle again, and when he gets to the ball both feet are off the ground. He's therefore got no control over his bodyweight, and if Nani had been there (it doesn't matter, in the eyes of the rules, whether he was or not) then it could easily cause serious damage. For my money (and I accept others view it differently) that's excessive recklessness.

 

[drew]

[MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], is that really the level you see it at? Anyone who disagrees with you is spouting 'cock' or 'bollocks', you are entirely right and everyone else entirely wrong? How do you ever have a sensible conversation about anything even vaguely controversial?

I've just watched the tackle again, and when he gets to the ball both feet are off the ground. He's therefore got no control over his bodyweight, and if Nani had been there (it doesn't matter, in the eyes of the rules, whether he was or not) then it could easily cause serious damage. For my money (and I accept others view it differently) that's excessive recklessness.

Not really, just taking the sort of stance Mellotron and Questions have regarding differing views. What I do seriously take issue with is when a still photo is used in evidence when it clearly shows nothing of the sort.

Also, exactly where does it state that you cannot be off the ground anyway. I stand by my view that Kompany was not out of control and was in know way leaping with studs up and over the ball.