Robbie Brady M Preston b.1992

**bwagner** · 04/12/2011, 9:17 AM

Met Rob in the airport at Leeds,hes suspended for a few games, sound lad, even after my mate hounded him to sign for Leeds,top lad i have to say . P.S Andy Keogh had a class game when he came on at Leeds, very decent preformance, Aidy White was solid enough to, But i was surprised at Keogh

**liamoo11** · 04/12/2011, 11:38 AM

just saw the tackle he was sent off for. I thought it might be a typical wingers studs up and fly in but to be fair it was a real strong side on tackle where he won the ball that did not deserve any card.

**drummerboy** · 05/12/2011, 8:37 AM

Originally Posted by liamoo11

just saw the tackle he was sent off for. I thought it might be a typical wingers studs up and fly in but to be fair it was a real strong side on tackle where he won the ball that did not deserve any card.

Totally agree with above comment. Football is turning into a non contact sport, where the tackle is being outlawed. Shameful decision by Ref.

**Stuttgart88** · 05/12/2011, 11:23 AM

I love watching a proper tackle where one guy's foot steals the ball from his opponent's foot, ideally standing up.

A sliding tackle where the defenders "sweeps" the ball with the top of his foot is great to watch too.

A sliding tackle with studs up is the dangerous one.

There's always a grey area between a fair shoulder and a barge.

I haven't seen Brady's tackle, but I'm generally unsympathetic to "football's becoming a non-contact" sport claims because of who usually makes them. Duty of care is the key issue, but another is to restore the skill to tackling.

**drummerboy** · 05/12/2011, 12:04 PM

I have seen the tackle and ten years ago the tackle would have been allowed. At the very most he should have been penalised for an over robust tackle.

**Kingdom** · 05/12/2011, 12:16 PM

Philip Reid mentioned Brady in Saturday's Irish Times, saying that he could be a real possible bolter come next June for Trappatoni's squad, as there is a possibility he'll get game time with United in the new year.

Edit. here's the piece
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...308524111.html

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/12/2011, 12:17 PM

I'm not usually sympathetic to people who get sent off for heavy challenges but this does look a bit harsh. At the same time, I read in a couple of places that a red card's been coming for him. He's definitely a full-blooded tackler.

**Serb** · 05/12/2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I'm not usually sympathetic to people who get sent off for heavy challenges but this does look a bit harsh. At the same time, I read in a couple of places that a red card's been coming for him. He's definitely a full-blooded tackler.

What the hell? That tackle was never a straight red card. It must have looked a lot worse from the angle the referee was looking at it.

**Stuttgart88** · 05/12/2011, 1:24 PM

Hmm, I'll sit on the fence on that one.

He clearly won the ball but it was a lunge and those lunges can go wrong. His follow through came right through the guy. On this instance I'd have given a foul on the basis that he owes a duty of care which was not shown, but given a stern warning rather than a card. There are degrees of recklessnes and I think the fact that it was side-on and the ball was well ahead of the Southampton player made it less reckless than, say, the Hutton tackle.

I think referees are right to focus on overly aggressive tackles though. The art of actually tackling properly is going out of the game.

**SwanVsDalton** · 05/12/2011, 1:45 PM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Hmm, I'll sit on the fence on that one.

He clearly won the ball but it was a lunge and those lunges can go wrong. His follow through came right through the guy. On this instance I'd have given a foul on the basis that he owes a duty of care which was not shown, but given a stern warning rather than a card. There are degrees of recklessnes and I think the fact that it was side-on and the ball was well ahead of the Southampton player made it less reckless than, say, the Hutton tackle.

I think referees are right to focus on overly aggressive tackles though. The art of actually tackling properly is going out of the game.

I think that's fair enough but in this instance I'd hate to see tackles like that stamped out (pardon the pun) - the ball was there to be played and Brady went in for it 100%. Took the man on the way through, so a foul but no way was it a sending off. The signal this sends out is 'don't tackle' when the message should be 'tackle properly'.

**French Toasht** · 05/12/2011, 1:45 PM

Not a red card. The Southampton player's histrionics gets him sent off.

**geysir** · 05/12/2011, 2:00 PM

I think it was an almost fair lunge for the ball. The ball was there for a fraction of time in no man's land and Brady went for it.

No way were Brady's studs going to make contact with the other player. You might even make a case for the other player jumping in, in such a way to protect the ball that he put himself in danger. But I might be biased. This Brady lad looks good.

Did you see the ticker tape 'Reid sent off for Forest'

**John83** · 05/12/2011, 2:56 PM

I agree - that's a very harsh sending off.

**tricky_colour** · 05/12/2011, 3:20 PM

Should never have been sent off, he had every right to go for the ball, if anything the other
player should have been booked for obstruction, he makes no attempt to play the ball
and he clearly tries to obstruct Brady from getting to the ball.

The game has gone crazy to the extent to can't make a legitimate tackle.

It is ridiculous, Brady clearly goes to play the ball and it is equally clear that
the other guy doesn't attempt to play the ball and it is clear his
only intention was to body check Brady to obstruct him!!
Look where he puts his foot, no attempt to play the ball just to block Brady.

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/12/2011, 3:45 PM

The Southampton player was fully entitled to shield the ball with his body. The issue is Brady's tackle and whether it was reckless and likely to cause injury. I think the fact he brought his second leg around to swipe the player from behind was probably enough to justify a red card. Hull haven't appealed, in any case.

**SwanVsDalton** · 05/12/2011, 4:07 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I think the fact he brought his second leg around to swipe the player from behind was probably enough to justify a red card. Hull haven't appealed, in any case.

He didn't swipe his leg. He comes straight through the tackle, one leg leading, the other leg coming behind it pretty much in parallel with the first. The nature of the challenge and the body position of the player he's tackling makes it look like a swiping motion, but there's definitely no intentional movement from Brady. It's a forceful if relatively fair attempt to play the ball imo.

**tricky_colour** · 05/12/2011, 4:14 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

The Southampton player was fully entitled to shield the ball with his body. The issue is Brady's tackle and whether it was reckless and likely to cause injury. I think the fact he brought his second leg around to swipe the player from behind was probably enough to justify a red card. Hull haven't appealed, in any case.

I don't think he is entitled to shield the ball like that, I see that as obstruction, and look where he stamps his foot, he
could have broke Brady's leg. The rules are all wrong, you cannot tackle anymore you can pick up the ball and walk it
into the goal and it anyone tackles you they are sent off!!
How can it be dangerous when he plays the ball?

Also how is Brady's lunge any different to that of the other guy?
The only difference I can see is that Brady plays the ball and the other guy does not!!!

I don't think he brings his second leg round either, his second leg just happens to be connected to
the rest of his body and thus tends to follow it around automatically.

Makes no sense!!!

**Charlie Darwin** · 05/12/2011, 4:53 PM

What? He went to shield the ball because normally Brady would attempt to go shoulder to shoulder. The tackle was completely unnecessary. Maybe he doesn't swing the leg around but the way he goes in he stills takes the defender's legs out from under him.

**geysir** · 05/12/2011, 5:13 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Hull haven't appealed, in any case.

Because Hull are not appealing, does not mean they think it was straight red card offense. Once a ref decides it was a straight red card, then that becomes the truth by default.

**SwanVsDalton** · 05/12/2011, 5:18 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Maybe he doesn't swing the leg around but the way he goes in he stills takes the defender's legs out from under him.

I actually think, if anything, that makes it a fairer attempt. From looking at it the ball is there to be played but the angle of the Southampton player means, to play it, a tackler would have to come 'round the corner', at an angle. Brady could've went straight through the guy, but instead, he tries to play the ball first by swinging his right leg round to play it.

It doesn't quite come off for him - it's a foul for me - but it's still a tough challenge, in the spirit of the game. Zero malice in it. Over-exuberant maybe, full-blooded sure, but definitely not a red. I think he's very unlucky.