Should number of tacklers be limited?

[Acker79]

Just watching the Liverpool/Everton game and two defenders shut out one of the Everton players and then another Everton player waved his arms and screamed at the ref as if he was expecting a free kick. I didn't see anything wrong with the challenges, and neither did the ref, but it got me thinking...

Often times two players will work together to dispossess one opponent. Quite often these challenges are messy and because it's three people trying to fit into two people's space, one person, usually the one with the ball is left laying, which leads to calls for free kicks, but because of all the legs involved it's hard to tell when there's a foul and when there isn't.

Sometimes free kicks are given that shouldn't be, and sometimes they are not given when they should.

Plus, two people can work together to dispossess an opponent, but can two people work together to make sure one person survives a tackle? I can't see how.

So a 2 on 1 situation can only benefit those challenging the person with the ball, so it is an inherently unfair situation.

So, should there be a rule that says only one play may tackle an opponent at a time? (I'm not just looking for yes/no answers, I'd appreciate reasons)

 

[Nottseagull]

Tackling can only be defined as getting your foot on the ball, and it's very rare that two defenders manage this at exactly the same time.

 

[Acker79]

Tackling can only be defined as getting your foot on the ball, and it's very rare that two defenders manage this at exactly the same time.

But it's also very rare that two defenders go in for a tackle and give away a free kick.

Are you agreeing with the idea?

 

[Driver8]

If two players are trying to get the player with the ball then presumably there must be a player unmarked to whom the player with the ball can pass?

 

[Everest]

No, otherwise we'll be seeing the 2 defenders leaving it for the other to make the tackle -

"I made the last one, it's your turn"
"no, you made such a good job of it you can carry on"
"but I'm knackered"
"but I'm not really a defender"
"neither am I"
"cup of tea?"
"sounds like a good idea"
"guess which tart I saw JT out with"

Hang on, we do that already.

Stupid idea.

 

[sam86]

What are you on about...

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

So a 2 on 1 situation can only benefit those challenging the person with the ball, so it is an inherently unfair situation.

reasons)

Why should a team that is organised enough to have two defenders committed to the tackle be penalised

It would also be a nightmare to both write a rule and also to enforce

 

[Acker79]

No, otherwise we'll be seeing the 2 defenders leaving it for the other to make the tackle -

"I made the last one, it's your turn"
"no, you made such a good job of it you can carry on"
"but I'm knackered"
"but I'm not really a defender"
"neither am I"
"cup of tea?"
"sounds like a good idea"
"guess which tart I saw JT out with"

Hang on, we do that already.

Stupid idea.

That can happen without the law. Currently not every run attracts two challengers, they sometimes attract only one tackle, so why isn't there this confusion? Because players are professional and communicate with each other.

 

[Acker79]

Why should a team that is organised enough to have two defenders committed to the tackle be penalised

But it isn't about organisation. A team on the attack can be equally organised. The two men may be tackling together because of lack of organisation.

Also, to answer another point, there may be a man spare to be passed to, but he may not be in space, the pass to him may be blocked off by one of the defenders attempting to tackle.

It would also be a nightmare to both write a rule and also to enforce

That hasn't led to eliminating the offside law...

 

[Everest]

Maybe, so why do 2 defenders still make tackles at the same time when only 1 will do?

 

[Acker79]

Maybe, so why do 2 defenders still make tackles at the same time when only 1 will do?

Because it's often easier for two people to dispossess one player than it is for one. They sandwich him out, two people out muscling one.

They do it, because it tips the odds in their favour for a successful challenge while also reducing the risk of conceding a freekick.

 

[pasty]

I'm confused.

 

[Acker79]

I'm confused.

How so?

 

[dougdeep]

Let's leave the rules alone eh? xxx

 

[Everest]

Because it's often easier for two people to dispossess one player than it is for one. They sandwich him out, two people out muscling one.

They do it, because it tips the odds in their favour for a successful challenge while also reducing the risk of conceding a freekick.

So why outlaw it? If it's a fair challenge, it's a fair challenge.

 

[Acker79]

Let's leave the rules alone eh? xxx

Everything evolves. Life changes, language changes, sport changes. Don't fear change.

 

[Acker79]

So why outlaw it?

Because it's unfair. Because, as notters points out, you can only tackle someone if you take the ball. Two defenders can't both take the ball, so what is the other doing? He is giving an unfair advantage to his team mate.

If Murray is baring down on goal and, say, john terry and rio ferdinand both close him down and squeeze him out how can he balance it out? If forster joins him in the challenge that's then four pairs of legs making it harder for Murray to retain possession. There's no way a team mate can join in that moment of play and not make things more difficult for his Murray. Conversely, more defenders trying to get the ball off murray will help.

Because it makes it harder for the ref to spot fouls. If only one player can win the ball, the other is making a challenge in which he can't win the ball and can only interfere, can only impede the opponent. Which is illegal, but these challenges are rarely ever called up, despite this logic that one defender must be breaking the laws of the game.

 

[Everest]

Because it's unfair. Because, as notters points out, you can only tackle someone if you take the ball. Two defenders can't both take the ball, so what is the other doing? He is giving an unfair advantage to his team mate.

If Murray is baring down on goal and, say, john terry and rio ferdinand both close him down and squeeze him out how can he balance it out? If forster joins him in the challenge that's then four pairs of legs making it harder for Murray to retain possession. There's no way a team mate can join in that moment of play and not make things more difficult for his Murray. Conversely, more defenders trying to get the ball off murray will help.

Because it makes it harder for the ref to spot fouls. If only one player can win the ball, the other is making a challenge in which he can't win the ball and can only interfere, can only impede the opponent. Which is illegal, but these challenges are rarely ever called up, despite this logic that one defender must be breaking the laws of the game.

Well, the other team can then do the same, can't they? Swings and roundabouts.

BTW, why are Terry and Ferdinand in the same team? Do you know something?

 

[Acker79]

Well, the other team can then do the same, can't they? Swings and roundabouts.

BTW, why are Terry and Ferdinand in the same team? Do you know something?

We're playing england in a friendly in my example.

But the swings and roundabouts can be applied to anything. Why not make it legal for defenders to block certain goals with their hands, because their opponents can do it too? Get rid of the offside rule because both teams can leave someone in their opponents box, swings and roundabouts...

 

[beorhthelm]

So a 2 on 1 situation can only benefit those challenging the person with the ball, so it is an inherently unfair situation.

utter rubbish. have you watched much football? if two players are closing on a player with the ball that leaves a space behind (or elsewhere) to exploit. should the player with the ball beat the on coming defenders or pass to another player, the defense is now at a disadvantage as they are out of position. so rather than being inherently unfair, its a somewhat risky tactic.