"He got the ball"...

[OwlsFan]

Two things I have learned when on the armchair (barstool) watching football. Ex-pros dislike referees and they think once contact is first made with the ball, all is well. The latter may be correct when dinasaurs ruled the earth, but is no longer the rule. Kompany's tackle yesterday was a case in point. It is a sending off offence for studs to show in a tackle AND to lunge in the air at the same time even if the ball is the first object of contact. Danny Mills the co-commentator on Setanta didn't seem to grasp this point and went on as nauseum about it, so much so that I had to turn over to ITV. Luckily Nanni or whatever his name is was not in the line of fire so he didn't get hurt or protest about it but if contact had been made, he would have been seriously injured. Three other Man U players thought it was a sending off offence (even though Mills said there was no protest from the Man U players). Fergie thought so as well but....

It was a pity of course and made the contest unequal (didn't ruin it) but I would have thought that a team on which multi millions was spent should be able to cope with one player down rather than caving in 3-0. They had a bit more fight in the second half at least and perhaps should have had a peno but then so should Man U.

[KK77]

By the letter of the law he had to go but in the real world it was a good old fashioned fair tackle. He clearly didn't go to do the player but the rules are the rules. Just because City have spent X amount doesn't mean they should not conceed goals as it could easily happen with 11 men on the pitch. You could say similar about Man U in the second half in that with the man advantage they should have scored more but they didn't. These things happen in football. Overall Man U won the game and deserved to win it.

[Dodge]

It is a sending off offence for studs to show in a tackle AND to lunge in the air at the same time even if the ball is the first object of contact.
NOWHERE in the laws of the game does it mention studs, or being in the air.

The only thing that's outlawed are tackles that are reckless, dangerous or excessively forceful. I'd argue strongly that Kompany's tackle was none of these.

I'm not one of these "modern football is ****e" types, but there are so many myths perpetrated by the media about the laws of the game its unreal. The laws don't differentiate between tackling with one or two feet, they don't mention 'daylight' when it comes to offside etc etc

[Stuttgart88]

The lack of focus on the actual laws rather than what actually looks like a foul or offside is shocking.

I don't actually know what the referees are instructed to do, but in my opinion the key is "duty of care" to your opponent. You might have got the ball, but what if you were a fraction out (like a non-league player is likely to be - they play to the same rules)?

That's why Essien was (rightly) sent off last year despite winning the ball cleanly, and Jay Spearing this year and why Hutton should have been sent off this year (Shane Long). Flamini should have seen a red versus Spurs in Milan last year.

Dodge, isn't it the case that although the rules outlaw dangerous, reckless and excessively forceful tackles, the instructions given to refs is to interpret 2 footed tackles as such? As with all laws, there's also an accompanying "users' guidelines".

Personally, I think Kompany's tackle was 2 footed, but didn't show any great neglect of his duty of care.

[Macy]

NOWHERE in the laws of the game does it mention studs, or being in the air.

The only thing that's outlawed are tackles that are reckless, dangerous or excessively forceful. I'd argue strongly that Kompany's tackle was none of these.

I'm not one of these "modern football is ****e" types, but there are so many myths perpetrated by the media about the laws of the game its unreal. The laws don't differentiate between tackling with one or two feet, they don't mention 'daylight' when it comes to offside etc etc
Are the refs not told how to interpret the laws though? Two footed tackles have been dodgy ground for at least 10 years at this stage, probably longer.

[Dodge]

But the point is that two footed challenges themselves aren't illegal, but the the vast majorityof two footed challenges are, because they're dangerous (if that makes sense).

In England they might be told to look out for them, as a possible indicator, but they're not completely outlawed.

None of which detracts from the fact that Kompany should be aware of how card happy some refs are. I can understand why the ref sent him off, but I think it was the wrong decision

[Stuttgart88]

Regardless of what the rules are or how they are interpreted, there is a skill in tackling that the studs up / two footed tackle doesn't exhibit. By all means let players go to ground but it should be to win the ball sideways / with the top of the foot in a sweeping movement. The likes of Alan Hansen will moan that it's making the game a game for namby pambies but I disagree. Seeing a really good tackle, preferably standing up, is something you don't see very often anymore. It's as pleasing on the eye as a good pass or shot.

[BonnieShels]

Wanna tear your hair out?

Listen to Cas and Lawro on the Last Word now.

[Real ale Madrid]

Growing up, I always thought the Stuart Pearce tackle was the pinnacle of world football. Simultaneously winning the ball, and crippling the man - Magic!

[Stuttgart88]

Giles used to talk about targeting the man but making sure yoiu got at least a small bit of the ball, just to make it look like you tried!

[OwlsFan]

Wanna tear your hair out?

Listen to Cas and Lawro on the Last Word now.

I was listening!!

http://tirelessthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/bald_head.jpg

[Stuttgart88]

There was an interesting one in the Sunderland v Man City game in December where a City player stuck out a leg but missed both man and ball, but the Sunderland player had to leap over the leg, losing control of the ball in the process and going to ground. Ref gave a foul (rightly imo).

The commentator thought it was controversial because there was no contact but the co-commentator (Davie Provan?) said no, there doesn't need to be contact for it to be a foul. I was delighted to hear it said, but surprised at the same time.

[tetsujin1979]

Kompany's red at the weekend did remind me of the time Ronaldo was sent off for something similar a few years ago in the Manchester derby. Never made contact with the player, the ref sent him off for intent, and dangerous play. Ronaldo was a bit more blatant about it though.
qmTyPd5oqqg

[Schumi]

Wanna tear your hair out?

Listen to Cas and Lawro on the Last Word now.Or any other time they're on. Comfortably the worst football punditry team around.

[Dodge]

I download the (usually) excellent "The Game" podcast from the Times. If Cascirino is on, I just delete. Ruins the odd commute...

[DannyInvincible]

NOWHERE in the laws of the game does it mention studs, or being in the air.

The only thing that's outlawed are tackles that are reckless, dangerous or excessively forceful. I'd argue strongly that Kompany's tackle was none of these.

I'm not one of these "modern football is ****e" types, but there are so many myths perpetrated by the media about the laws of the game its unreal. The laws don't differentiate between tackling with one or two feet, they don't mention 'daylight' when it comes to offside etc etc

Alan Hansen doing punditry for the Manchester City-Liverpool game in the Carling Cup; just informing viewers that the "letter of the law" prohibits two-footed tackles...

[BonnieShels]

Alan Hansen doing punditry for the Manchester City-Liverpool game in the Carling Cup; just informing viewers that the "letter of the law" prohibits two-footed tackles...

The ********ology that was talked after that Johnson tackle was breathtaking.

How is the rule so difficult to understand for these plebs?

Lawrenson on co-commentary was his usual generic best. Saying a whole lot of nothing.

After the game though the discussion that Hansen, Shearer and Dixon had was so far beyond reasoned and informed that I wondered when my brain would call it quits.

[Stuttgart88]

Lawro and BBC commentator last night (Glen Johnson tackle) - "but he got the ball"! Only on the replay did they see why it was controversial.

Sorry Bonnie - was typing while your post went up. Agree entirely. Infuriating.

[Dodge]

Alan Hansen doing punditry for the Manchester City-Liverpool game in the Carling Cup; just informing viewers that the "letter of the law" prohibits two-footed tackles...
I couldn't have asked for greater validation that hansen disagreeing with me ;)

I wonder have TV bosses noticed how everyone who watches football on TV racves about Gary Neville's analysis. its because he's actually played the modern game and isn't harping back to his old glory days like the rest of the fools (Shearer is the antithesis to this argument but he's just a clown...)

[mypost]

Are the refs not told how to interpret the laws though? Two footed tackles have been dodgy ground for at least 10 years at this stage, probably longer.

The refs are told what offences go with cards, and they're told to apply them.

As for Johno last night, he won the ball. No foul, no free kick, no discussion required.

[Dodge]

he won the ball. No foul, no free kick, no discussion required.

Actually this is the best validation I could hope for

[KK77]

I couldn't have asked for greater validation that hansen disagreeing with me ;)

I wonder have TV bosses noticed how everyone who watches football on TV racves about Gary Neville's analysis. its because he's actually played the modern game and isn't harping back to his old glory days like the rest of the fools (Shearer is the antithesis to this argument but he's just a clown...)

He just needs to criticise Man U when it needs to be said!

[old git]

The refs are told what offences go with cards, and they're told to apply them.

As for Johno last night, he won the ball. No foul, no free kick, no discussion required.

kompany last sunday won the ball only difference is ref thought it was a foul and sent him off.. the discussion is what if johnson had not won the ball when he tackled with 2 feet !!

[mypost]

If he had not won the ball, or the ref didn't think he did, then the situation would be different. He did win the ball, and the ref agreed, so there's nothing more to say.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but this is a non-issue.

[Stuttgart88]

eh, the whole point is that winning the ball does not in itself mean it was a fair tackle. Much discussion required.

Spurs' third (or second?) goal against Rovers at WHL started with a 2 footed lunge by Kaboul (?) that won the ball but was a really nasty effort at a tackle and a definite foul and card in my opinion.

[mypost]

If he won the ball, it's play on. From what I saw at the time, it didn't look like he won the ball, and so therefore it should have been a free kick.

Football is a contact sport. You're not supposed to tackle with two feet, but if you win the ball, no-one can complain. That's what you tackle a player for.

[shakermaker1982]

Football is a contact sport. You're not supposed to tackle with two feet, but if you win the ball, no-one can complain. That's what you tackle a player for.

well if the player getting tackled gets his leg broken I'd beg to differ. The ref has to make the call as to whether he deems the tackle to be serious foul play i.e. dangers safety of player. If it does then it's a red. Players launching themselves like missiles at the player/ball are only asking for trouble.

[Dodge]

If he won the ball, it's play on. From what I saw at the time, it didn't look like he won the ball, and so therefore it should have been a free kick.

Football is a contact sport. You're not supposed to tackle with two feet, but if you win the ball, no-one can complain. That's what you tackle a player for.
And it's a striker's job to score goals, and if handles into the net, then no one can complain, that's what he's there to do

[mypost]

well if the player getting tackled gets his leg broken I'd beg to differ. The ref has to make the call as to whether he deems the tackle to be serious foul play i.e. dangers safety of player. If it does then it's a red. Players launching themselves like missiles at the player/ball are only asking for trouble.

A player can break his leg at any time, tackle or no tackle. Tackles won are allowed in football. Tackles lost can be, and are punished.


And it's a striker's job to score goals, and if handles into the net, then no one can complain, that's what he's there to do

Yes they can complain, as he's not there to score with a handball. That's GAA, not football.

[Dodge]

I thought your argument was that the restult was the only thing that matters? If he wins the ball its not a foul is the same as if he scores a goal its not handball

[mypost]

If you can't see the difference between what a legal action in football is and what isn't, then I can't really explain it much further.

[Dodge]

And if you can't see how some tackles that may win the ball are illegal, then blah blah

[mypost]

But they are not illegal, that's the point of the whole thread.

[pineapple stu]

I think the whole point of the thread may now revolve around you.

Yes, they are illegal.

Though I'm surprised why people bother to try argue stuff with mypost anymore. If he gets it into his head that the earth is some manner of tetrahedron shape, wild horses wouldn't bring him to change his mind.

[osarusan]

If you can't see the difference between what a legal action in football is and what isn't, then I can't really explain it much further.

If you can't see that winning the ball does not automatically mean the tackle is legal, then there's no point explaining it much further.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Well quite. FIFA & co want to turn turn the whole thing into a non-contact sport, despite what mp says. And have some sympathy with him here.
Clearly many of his detractors have never played the game and seen what passes for tackles in various forms of amateur football, never mind the EPL.

[geysir]

And if you can't see how some tackles that may win the ball are illegal, then blah blah
Actually I'm sorta with mypost in this.
The first (Kompany's) was 2 footed tackle to win the ball, the second (Johnson's) was a 2 footed lunge to win the ball, the 2nd was not a tackle as the other player had no control of the ball. The ball was in "free space".
In that situation, afaia, the ref has to differentiate between serious foul play to win the ball or dangerous play to win the ball or was it clean. Possibly it was dangerous but not serious, because there was no contact with the other player.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except, if they think it's 'dangerous' now (without intent), out comes the red...

[geysir]

Seeing as Johnson's 2 footed effort was an attempt to win the ball, no other player was in possession of the ball, it was not a tackle to win the ball from another player. The refs have a different interpretation of a 2 footed tackle to win the ball from a player as distinct from a 2 footed attempt to win the ball that is in free space.

According to the rule book,
serious foul play to win the ball is dangerous play with physical contact (reckless).
Dangerous play to win the ball, is of course dangerous play (careless) but without the physical contact.
The ref made the correct decision re Johnson

Disciplinary sanctions
If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, thereferee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player

[pineapple stu]

I think this tackle is made with an obvious risk of injury. How many times have you seen a leg broken from a tackle like this? (Go to 1:20)

dncRi_DWkT0
Therefore the ref made the wrong decision re Johnson (by letting play go on).

[mypost]

Post 39 covers what I've posted. The correct decision, i.e. no decision, was made.

I will agree that two-footed tackles are dangerous, I won't agree that those that win the ball (and not the player) are automatic red cards. And two wrongs (as in what the challenge is getting compared to) don't make a right.

[geysir]

I think this tackle is made with an obvious risk of injury.

It's not a tackle, it's an interception to win the ball which is travelling across the pitch
Check up on what defines a tackle in football.
Once you understand it is not a tackle, it then switches to interpreting Johnson's play in that context. Obvious risk of injury is not a consideration.

Serious foul play has to have physical contact, in order to be regarded as serious foul play.
A mere millimeter out from physical contact, it becomes a question of dangerous play. In this incident, Johnson clearly gets to the ball first, cleanly with his outstretched foot.

[pineapple stu]

Sigh...

Let's look up the laws of the game then, shall we? Here we go (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf) (pdf file).

Under the section Interpretation of the Laws and guidelines for Referees (specifically, page 117), we have the following -


Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
That's fairly straightforward, I think. It even comes with pictures showing the kind of tackles it's looking to avoid - the two pictures have contact, but they're both of the studs up variety. There's no indication that contact is needed to endanger an opponent (and rightly so)

The word "tackle" appears once in the Laws, and it's not to define it. (It is, in fact, to say that "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.") Nowhere is the word "interception" mentioned. If you're going to quote definitions, let's have a source.

Can we end this thread now?

[mypost]

Sigh...

Let's look up the laws of the game then, shall we? Under the section Interpretation of the Laws and guidelines for Referees (specifically, page 117)

That's fairly straightforward, I think.

The word "tackle" appears once in the Laws, and it's not to define it. (It is, in fact, to say that "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.") Nowhere is the word "interception" mentioned. If you're going to quote definitions, let's have a source.

Can we end this thread now?

Typical referee. :rolleyes: Knows all the regulations, doesn't know the game.

Of course geysir's simple yet detailed interpretations/explanations on this issue are correct. And he does it without needing pdfs, videos, or even "tetrahedron shapes" (whatever they are) to do so. Clearly, he understands the game and how it's played on the ground.

I don't mind the thread closed, as long as you accept when posters prove you're wrong, for a change.

[geysir]

Laws of the game
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred

Johnson challenged for the ball, not the other player - who was also challenging for the ball.
Johnson did not lunge at an opponent.

The law that applies is this one
Playing in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while
trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the playerhimself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponentfrom playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of thereferee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between theplayers. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishablewith a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, thereferee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has alsobeen committed.
Disciplinary sanctions

If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, thereferee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made withobvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in adangerous manner, the referee should send off the player

The word "tackle" appears once in the Laws, and it's not to define it. (It is, in fact, to say that "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.") Nowhere is the word "interception" mentioned. If you're going to quote definitions, let's have a source.

Do you need a source to define a tackle in football?

Basically, it is an attempt to win the ball from an opponent who is in possession of the ball or an attempt to stop him while he is in possession of the ball.

What Johnson and the other player were doing, was challenging for the ball, neither player was in possession of the ball.

[pineapple stu]

as long as you accept when posters prove you're wrong, for a change.
LolololololoLOLZ coming from you. Seriously.

And in a nod to my mod-dom, I'll even attack your post (which I notice you didn't/couldn't)

And he does it without needing pdfs, videos
Heaven forbid that in a discussion about how the laws of the game should judge a tackle, I look up said laws and show said incident. Whatever was I thinking?

At least geysir has looked up the laws. And it seems we'll have to disagree, because I think Johnson has lunged at yer man. This is backed up by my quote (where it describes the action as "using one or both legs"). I think it did endanger the safety of the opponent; this is backed up by the pictorial demonstrations in the laws, where they show similar challenges connecting - this is what the law is trying to avoid, of course. I don't see any relevance to some notional difference between a tackle and an interception; it's no difference to a player whose leg gets broken whether the other player was trying a tackle or trying an interception, and the laws don't seem to provide for any distinction. Indeed, the first line of that part says that "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play." So we have a situation where serious foul play is the same whether it's a tackle, a challenge or a lunge - which covers pretty much every way of defining what Johnson did.

Playing in a dangerous manner seems to cover stuff like a high foot in a challenge, or a low header. I think to get down on your hands and knees to head a ball (over the line as a ****-take, say) is considered dangerous play. Though it would be interesting to see a definitive differentiation.

[geysir]

Actually Stu, there is a difference in the laws, between challenging for the ball and challenging an opponent with a tackle.
The difference is outlined in the laws.

The difference between your interpretation and mine, is that you believe Johnson lunged at the player, not the ball.
I believe he was 100% focussed on getting his foot to the ball first, which he did. The other player did not have possession of the ball at any time.

The law is pretty clear on defining serious foul play when lunging at an opponent who is in possession of ball and defining serious foul play when challenging for the ball.
The law you quoted, defines serious foul play when challenging a player who is in possession of the ball and the law I quoted defines serious foul play when challenging for the ball, whether it be an overhead kick, etc
There are 2 different laws.
I think it is clear enough that the refs interpret a 2 footed lunge tackle as a red card, regardless of how clean it is.

[pineapple stu]

The difference between your interpretation and mine, is that you believe Johnson lunged at the player, not the ball.
I believe he was 100% focussed on getting his foot to the ball first, which he did. The other player did not have possession of the ball at any time.

The law is pretty clear on defining serious foul play when lunging at an opponent who is in possession of ball and defining serious foul play when challenging for the ball.
No, I think he just lunged. I don't see the rules showing where it differentiates as to whether the other player is in possession or not. (Point it out to me if it is there obviously). The guideline I quoted just says that it's a lunge when challenging for the ball. This could be in a 50/50 or a tackle situation; the guideline doesn't differentiate. And as I said, if a tackle is a leg-breaker, it doesn't matter if the injured player was in possession or not, or if the injurer meant it or not. The rule is to clamp down on potential leg-breakers.

[geysir]

No, I think he just lunged. I don't see the rules showing where it differentiates as to whether the other player is in possession or not. (Point it out to me if it is there obviously). The guideline I quoted just says that it's a lunge when challenging for the ball. This could be in a 50/50 or a tackle situation; the guideline doesn't differentiate. And as I said, if a tackle is a leg-breaker, it doesn't matter if the injured player was in possession or not, or if the injurer meant it or not. The rule is to clamp down on potential leg-breakers.



The guideline I quoted just says that it's a lunge when challenging for the ball.

Not quite, the law you quoted states clearly - any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball.

However I will quote most of that rule /law, there are no guidelines :)
It does define 3 situations and only one of them refers to a tackle. And the other player does not have to be in possesion of the ball in 2 of the three.
Serious foul play
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Penalty red card

In this incident you claimed that Johnson lunged at the other player, therefore/and it was serious foul play
I disagree, I believe he aimed to play the ball and won the ball with no physical contact and therein the matter rests. And that's why I believe the ref applied the law Playing in a dangerous manner



And as I said, if a tackle is a leg-breaker, it doesn't matter if the injured player was in possession or not, or if the injurer meant it or not

You mean a leg-breaker tackle/lunge performed against a player, who is not in possession of the ball? I have never seen such a thing. Though I have seen a late tackle against a player who was in possession of the ball a milli second before.
The definition of a tackle is the attempt to win the ball from a player in possesion or to stop the same player.
Should another player be not in possession, then it is not a tackle, it is serious foul play or an assault or something else, anything but a tackle.

[pineapple stu]

However I will quote most of that rule /law, there are no guidelines :)
Yes there are. Look at the contents in the pdf; the guidelines take up about half the document. In fact, you've quoted from the guidelines, not the laws.


Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
In this incident you claimed that Johnson lunged at the other player, therefore/and it was serious foul play
I disagree, I believe he aimed to play the ball and won the ball with no physical contact and therein the matter rests.
The guideline you just quoted says you can lunge at a player while attempting to challenge for the ball, and it's still serious foul play. So while I don't disagree that he was in all probability genuinely trying to win the ball, that doesn't mean it wasn't serious foul play.


The definition of a tackle is the attempt to win the ball from a player in possesion or to stop the same player.
You've stated this numerous times, but I've asked for you to show me this in the rules. Seemingly you can't?