"He won the ball"

[Goldstone Rapper]

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.

Kompany was sent off for using excessive force:

'"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
* A player who uses excessive force must be sent-off.'

Kompany must be fully aware that going for the ball with two feet, when one will do, while not starting from a sitting position, is likely to be considered to be a use of excessive force, due to the momentum and the power of using two feet. He may disagree as a matter of opinion with that interpretation, which is his right. But he must be aware that that is the likely interpretation, and he still went with the two-footed tackle. He's only got himself to blame.

 

[drew]

Kompany was sent off for using excessive force:

'"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
* A player who uses excessive force must be sent-off.'

Kompany must be fully aware that going for the ball with two feet, when one will do, while not starting from a sitting position, is likely to be considered to be a use of excessive force, due to the momentum and the power of using two feet. He may disagree as a matter of opinion with that interpretation, which is his right. But he must be aware that that is the likely interpretation, and he still went with the two-footed tackle. He's only got himself to blame.

Thats your opinion. Mine is that it wasn't. At worse, it might be considered reckless which i believe under the guidlines, is only a yellow.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

It's not really about my personal opinion, but about players knowing what tackles are likely to land them with a dismissal:
Referees are just Comment - Football - The Independent

'The spokesman said: "The issue of the two-footed challenges was discussed at the regular pre-season meetings the PGMO hold with managers and players. They were reminded of the key point surrounding the excessive use of force in the tackle.

"A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed."'

Knowing that a jumping two-footed tackle is likely to lead to a sending-off offence, Kompany can have no complaints when he chose to make a tackle that could easily be interpreted as a jumping two footed tackle. A little bit like someone, despite knowing the deadline and the financial penalty, complaining that they've been fined for not completing their tax return on time.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

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.

Oh God, this.

I'm unfailingly surprised at how little many commentators and pundits actually know about the game. My favourite wrong interpretations include:

-a player goes down in the penalty area and appeals for a penalty. Ref says no, pundit screams that "well if it's not a penalty, it HAS to be a dive then" and demands a yellow card. Er...clean challenges can result in players falling to the ground without diving, you UTTER spanners. See almost every other tackle in other areas of the pitch. They are just tackles. Not fouls, or dives.

-a player swings at or moves to headbutt or kick an opponent, but misses. Gets red carded. "Expert" then states that "to be honest, there's no contact there at all, it should have been a yellow at most". FFS, striking or ATTEMPTING to strike an opponent= red card. Learn the bloody RULES.

-attacker is through on goal with ball at his feet. Gets brought down by a defender. Gets sent off. Massive debate then ensues amongst tiresome ex-pros on SkySports about whether the defender was, in fact, the "last man" and whether a red card should have been issued. Dear pundits: please, please please find me the part of the Laws of the Game which refers to the "last man"....

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Oh God, this.

I'm unfailingly surprised at how little many commentators and pundits actually know about the game. My favourite wrong interpretations include:

-a player goes down in the penalty area and appeals for a penalty. Ref says no, pundit screams that "well if it's not a penalty, it HAS to be a dive then" and demands a yellow card. Er...clean challenges can result in players falling to the ground without diving, you UTTER spanners. See almost every other tackle in other areas of the pitch. They are just tackles. Not fouls, or dives.

-a player swings at or moves to headbutt or kick an opponent, but misses. Gets red carded. "Expert" then states that "to be honest, there's no contact there at all, it should have been a yellow at most". FFS, striking or ATTEMPTING to strike an opponent= red card. Learn the bloody RULES.

-attacker is through on goal with ball at his feet. Gets brought down by a defender. Gets sent off. Massive debate then ensues amongst tiresome ex-pros on SkySports about whether the defender was, in fact, the "last man" and whether a red card should have been issued. Dear pundits: please, please please find me the part of the Laws of the Game which refers to the "last man"....

Well done, Edna. Bullseye! The other ones that gets me are pundits' own homemade versions of what 'interfering' with play means in relation to the offside law.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The fact is, most violent conduct offences are fairly cut & dried, the player either did it or he didn't.

Tackling, on the other hand, is most definitely a subjective issue, one with numerous shades of grey. There are degrees of "bad-ness".

For what it's worth, I think Kompany was probably slightly unfortunate on this occasion, but then again I can easily see why the referee took the course of action he did. It's quite easy to imagine that from his position on the pitch, and at full speed, without any replays, it might have looked worse than Sky's million slow motion replays showed it to be.

To be honest, I'm getting increasingly bored of the media & others constantly having a go at officials. Joey Barton was particularly pathetic after his red card this week, sniffing like a six year old girl and demanding video technology "because people's livelihoods are being affected". Are they REALLY, Joey? You mean, if your team finishes bottom of the league after thirty eight games, you can honestly blame one man's honest mistake in a single game? Talk about losing any sense of perspective (or personal responsibility).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"because people's livelihoods are being affected".

He should maybe think twice about his actions then, including the two acts of violence for which he has criminal records. I appreciate and agree with what you have written Edna, but I really don't give a flying f*** what Joey Barton has to say. And most of what he has to say these days seems to be plagiarised from a book of quotes has stumbled upon.

 

[Simster]

The thing about the Kompany incident is that I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do. His job was to clear the ball from danger, and it was travelling at speed towards him, along with Nani.

He went forward, cleanly taking the ball with one foot before Nani had got there. Of course his second leg moved forward too, but was well away from the tackling foot.

I can see why the ref sent him off too. From his position, he won't have seen how far apart his legs were. I do think big decisions like this ought to be referred to a 4th official nowadays as it ruined City's chances.

 

[mikeyjh]

-a player goes down in the penalty area and appeals for a penalty. Ref says no, pundit screams that "well if it's not a penalty, it HAS to be a dive then" and demands a yellow card. Er...clean challenges can result in players falling to the ground without diving, you UTTER spanners. See almost every other tackle in other areas of the pitch. They are just tackles. Not fouls, or dives.

Ha, another favourite of mine! There should be a set of rules for the 'pundits' to follow - It can be not a foul and not a dive, it can be a foul and a dive, contact doesn't mean foul, no contact doesn't mean no foul (see Kompany, V).

On a broader note, I'm so bored with referee bashing, they have to call it as they see it, generally in a split second. Live with it, debate it then move on, it's what makes the game fun! The frame by frame analysis of a borderline offside decision is just pointless.

Which brings me on to another point, why do the pundits profess to speak for fans regarding 'Technology' - I'm not sure the fans want technology, but the media and pundits are convinced that we do - Do we?

 

[mikeyjh]

The thing about the Kompany incident is that I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do. His job was to clear the ball from danger, and it was travelling at speed towards him, along with Nani.

There are times when you have to realise that you can't make a fair tackle, for instance when a player shields a ball passed in to his feet in front of you - You have to do something else, back off, put pressure on the player, whatever...

 

[Simster]

There are times when you have to realise that you can't make a fair tackle, for instance when a player shields a ball passed in to his feet in front of you - You have to do something else, back off, put pressure on the player, whatever...

I take your point Mike but I'm not convinced this was one such time. He's there MILES ahead of Nani in this instance. It's not 50/50 by any means.

 

[mikeyjh]

I take your point Mike but I'm not convinced this was one such time. He's there MILES ahead of Nani in this instance. It's not 50/50 by any means.

For the record, I will argue till the last about the Kompany tackle but it should be noted, that I haven't actually seen it......

 

[Simster]

For the record, I will argue till the last about the Kompany tackle but it should be noted, that I haven't actually seen it......

I think you should. For as much as you say you have to know when you can't make a fair tackle, you could also say that a speedy winger ought to know when to give up a ball he has no chance of winning.

In this instance, Nani was only ever going to nick the ball from the defender on the floor at best. He was never going to have control of the ball even if he managed that.

 

[mikeyjh]

I think you should. For as much as you say you have to know when you can't make a fair tackle, you could also say that a speedy winger ought to know when to give up a ball he has no chance of winning.

In this instance, Nani was only ever going to nick the ball from the defender on the floor at best. He was never going to have control of the ball even if he managed that.

Oh I agree, I was just making a wider point - And then ridiculing myself.

I'll find it and have a look and then give you the benefit of my wisdom.

 

[ROSM]

-a player goes down in the penalty area and appeals for a penalty. Ref says no, pundit screams that "well if it's not a penalty, it HAS to be a dive then" and demands a yellow card. Er...clean challenges can result in players falling to the ground without diving, you UTTER spanners. See almost every other tackle in other areas of the pitch. They are just tackles. Not fouls, or dives.

perhaps we should have expected the ref for our game against Doncaster to have known this then (when booking Lua Lua for a 'dive' after he was knocked off the ball in the box).

and that Edna is the problem. Refs dont ref consistently so how on earth are fans and players expected to get to grips with this?

 

[ROSM]

It's not really about my personal opinion, but about players knowing what tackles are likely to land them with a dismissal:
Referees are just Comment - Football - The Independent

'The spokesman said: "The issue of the two-footed challenges was discussed at the regular pre-season meetings the PGMO hold with managers and players. They were reminded of the key point surrounding the excessive use of force in the tackle.

"A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed."'

Knowing that a jumping two-footed tackle is likely to lead to a sending-off offence, Kompany can have no complaints when he chose to make a tackle that could easily be interpreted as a jumping two footed tackle. A little bit like someone, despite knowing the deadline and the financial penalty, complaining that they've been fined for not completing their tax return on time.

But the point that has been missed on the Kompany tackle is that he doesnt 'leap' in two footed. he leads one footed and the other leg comes round almost as if it slipped on the wet grass, yes there are two feet facing forward when he reaches the ball but that is the not the initial momentum.

 

[CHAPPERS]

If you're looking for reactions then look at Kompany as he strolls off completely unsurprised at being red carded....

 

[CHAPPERS]

I take your point Mike but I'm not convinced this was one such time. He's there MILES ahead of Nani in this instance. It's not 50/50 by any means.

What a load of rubbish. Not 50/50? MILES ahead?

Vincent Kompany red card v Manchester United - 101 Great Goals

 

[H block]

But the point that has been missed on the Kompany tackle is that he doesnt 'leap' in two footed. he leads one footed and the other leg comes round almost as if it slipped on the wet grass, yes there are two feet facing forward when he reaches the ball but that is the not the initial momentum.

So he wasn`t in control at all , was he ? Doesn`t matter how you 'leap' in it is how you finish up that matters. Two footed and studs up is not a tackle that can go unpunished nowadays. Intent does not come into it either.

 

[H block]

But the point that has been missed on the Kompany tackle is that he doesnt 'leap' in two footed. he leads one footed and the other leg comes round almost as if it slipped on the wet grass, yes there are two feet facing forward when he reaches the ball but that is the not the initial momentum.

So he wasn`t in control at all , was he ? Doesn`t matter how you 'leap' in it is how you finish up that matters. Two footed and studs up is not a tackle that can go unpunished nowadays. Intent does not come into it either.