"He got the ball"...

[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 (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. 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?

[mypost]

LolololololoLOLZ coming from you. Seriously.

Lol all you like. You're still wrong.

I'll even attack your post

A change of tack so.

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.

Geysir has like a good ref should, used his judgement to make his call, not looked up every rule and every law for every action.

No, I think he just lunged. The rule is to clamp down on potential leg-breakers.

No it isn't. The rule is there to punish dangerous fouls. It's not there to eliminate clean ball-winning challenges. Tackling is allowed in football.

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.

The guideline you just quoted...........I've asked for you to show me this in the rules.

He doesn't have to. This is not a court case stretched out over 6 months, it's about a split second moment at a sports event. He just has to use his judgement, and get it right. Much like the ref did re: Johnson.

[pineapple stu]

Geysir has like a good ref should, used his judgement to make his call, not looked up every rule and every law for every action.

Tell me so - in your opinion, what are the laws of the game for? Are they vague suggestions which the ref can improve on at his whim? Is it like licencing - has to be done, but can then be ignored? Do you think trainee referees sit around and discuss what they think of an incident for their course? And maybe FIFA put the document up on their website for the hell of it?

Referees, believe it or not, actually have to learn the laws of the game, and consider the guidelines. The laws of the game, and the guidelines, should determine a referee's decision. You absolutely should look up the laws if you want to make an intelligent comment on the game. And I'm baffled as to how you still think "dangerous fouls" and "potential leg-breakers" are different things.

If you want to actually consult the laws of the game, feel free. I'll get back to you then. Otherwise, you're just screaming your ignorance from the roof-tops with that last post.

[mypost]

The guidelines and laws of the game are open to interpretation, as we've seen on this thread. They're not decision makers. There are times when the eye is a better judge than the script.

I don't think they're different things, but I'm baffled at how you want to judge something on it's "potential", rather than what has actually happened.

[geysir]

You've stated this numerous times, but I've asked for you to show me this in the rules. Seemingly you can't?

I never claimed there was a definition of a tackle in the rules, I asked you check up on what defines a tackle in football.
I believe I have given a good concise definition of what constitutes a tackle in football.
If you have another definition, perhaps a better one, then please offer it.

No, I think he just lunged.

Well then, I was misled when you wrote "because I think Johnson has lunged at yer man".
I took it as gospel that you believed Johnson lunged at the other player. I missed the part in the discussion where you change your viewpoint from he lunged at yer man, to he lunged at the ball.

If you believe he lunged at the ball, then there is nothing in the law on serious foul play which applies. Unless you offer a definition of a tackle that includes a lunge to win the ball, which is not in the possesion of another player and doesn't even involve physical contact.


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.

[pineapple stu]

I never claimed there was a definition of a tackle in the rules, I asked you check up on what defines a tackle in football.

If there's no definition in the laws of the game (which there's not), where do you suggest I start looking?

The rest of your post depends on their being such a definition, so it's moot for the moment.

The guidelines and laws of the game are open to interpretation.

No they're not. That would kind of defeat the purpose of them being "laws".

[Stuttgart88]

I haven't been able to post for a few weeks so a few posts made much earlier in this thread are the subject of this post.

I have actually played the game so any ad hominem response on that basis doesn't apply to me.

The whole "tackling is allowed in football" / "it's a contact sport " / "they're trying to change it into a non-contact sport" argument holds no water whatsoever. They're just meaningless soundbites that muppets like Alan Shearer like to drop in. He has also played the game - does that mean he's worth listening to? I expect we all agree the answer is no.

"They're trying to change it into a non-contact sport" - that's just not true. Anyone who has played the game knows that you need strength to hold off opponents, or to win tackles. There's plenty of contact allowed , and plenty happens. It's actually a very physical game even without lunge tackles.

That's not to confuse the issue with due regard to opponents' safety. Even in rugby, a full-on contact sport, there is a duty of care to execute tackles safely (e.g., Sam Warburton incident).

I watch Barcelona regularly. They are quite frankly the best tackling side I have ever seen yet I have seen them go whole games without a single sliding tackle. Why? Because they are skilled in the ART of tackling.

A culture that tolerates, even welcomes, reckless tackling because it raises a cheer is never going to be one where the skill of tackling properly is nurtured. Strength and contact are required in tackling, studs-up lunges aren't.

I'm not saying there should be a stop to sliding tackling. A good slide tackle (great to watch) is made with the defender on his side, sweeping the ball with the top of his foot - not presenting his studs to his opponent, and definitely not presenting both sets of studs whilst airborne. And I'm somewhat sympathetic to Geysir's "no man's land" argument. Getting that type of call wrong is a lesser evil than letting a dangerous lunge go unpunished though.

But just stop this "it's a contact sport" nonsense. It's a totally fallacious argument, as is the argument that if the ball is won then it's a fair tackle. By mypost's reasoning above dangerous driving is only dangerous if it causes a crash. Driving that might well cause a crash but doesn't isn't dangerous.

Also, just because bad tackles happen in lower levels of football doesn't mean it should be allowed in lower levels of football. At lower levels they copy what they see on TV but do it worse. Cutting it out at the top of the game is exactly what's needed to cut it out at the lower levels. Maybe when blood and guts approach is taken out of Irish junior football we might actually develop a culture of skillful football, rather than the hoofball the dominates large parts of our game - and which some of the same posters on this thread are happy to criticise.

[the bear]

there is a big difference between going in hard and going in to cause damage. players who go in to cause damage should be dismissed regardless of what contact they make. in 20 years of playing football i have never come across a situation where i needed to or gained an advantage by jumping in the air 2 feet outstreched in front of me diving into a tackle. in fairness ive seen more of these tackles on the telly in the epl then in matchs ive played in. our match on saturday in the aul went into extra time, the pitch cut up so bad it was like oxygen by the end of it. there were a lot of hard tackles going in but nobody was flying around like that.

on the flip side of the arguement watching the chelsea man utd game yesterday it seemed that united were playing to try and win penalties, welbeck in particular. as soon as he got into a decent position in the box he would look for any sort of contact and go down. for the peno that was given he actually kicked ivanovic and threw himself to the ground. its terrible to watch. the game should be about skill and technique in the final third not this pantomime playacting. i think the commentator said that was 4 pens in 2 games for utd. how is evra still getting a game , he has been muck for a while now.

[Lionel Ritchie]

moved post to NP championship thread

[Stuttgart88]

Objection. Relevance?

[Lionel Ritchie]

Objection. Relevance?

Sustained. In my incandesent rage I posted in the wrong thread. Not even a near miss either. I'll now up stumps and repair to the pavillion ...though I should probably keep that remark til a day comes I accidently wander in to a cricket thread.

As you were.