Football Rules, okay!

**DannyInvincible** · 26/06/2014, 9:23 AM

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

I've always seen it, that there's careless tackles, and there's careless challenges. You can challenge someone very carelessly without much chance of getting the ball and give away a poor free, like a swipe of the leg, similar to that of Maxi Perriera of Uruguays red card in their first game.
On the flip side, you can tackle someone carelessly where the ball is there to be won and still get a touch on the ball, however poorly timed it may be. I wouldn't necessarily call it a foul.

With the Zabaleta tackle in question, I don't think it was a foul. However slight, he still got a touch of the ball, just enough to take it away from Dejaggah, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

So, getting just enough of a touch of the ball is the significant factor for you? What constitutes getting "just enough" of a touch though? Just enough to result in dispossession? Could Zabaleta have touched the ball in another scenario on another day but still given away a foul? Do you see any circumstance where a foul might be given in spite of a touch on the ball (ignoring possibilities where tackling players have threatened injury through their carelessness, recklessness or excessive force)?

**Roberto** · 26/06/2014, 9:55 AM

I think this is a very good issue you raise. On a very similar theme I've always being curious about the following type of sliding tackle in the box. A defender slides in and gets a touch on the ball that nudges it away from the attacker. However after touching the ball and following through he secondly clips the foot of the attacker bringing him down (i.e. the momentum of the tackle saw him make contact with the ball first and then make contact with the player). In this case should it be a penalty eventhough he touched the ball first? You could argue that even though he touched the ball first by making contact with the attacker with the follow through he prevented a clear goal scoring chance? Does that make sense?

**osarusan** · 26/06/2014, 10:19 AM

I think that the trouble stems from (what I imagine is) the presumption that there are two outcomes to a tackle: the tackler either gets the ball and averts the danger, or doesn't get the ball and brings down the attacker.

Usually, it is one of the two that happens, and it's generally fairly clear which it is.

The issue is when the tackler gets the ball, but the contact is not significant enough to avert the danger. Zabaleta'a tackle is a pretty good example of this. In the case of Zabaleta'a tackle, the change of direction or pace of the ball was pretty negligible, and the attacker would have been in virtually the same position after the tackle even if Zabaleta hadn't got a touch on the ball.

So, has Zabaleta been careless or not? His aim when making the tackle was presumably not just to make the faintest of contact with the ball, but to avert the danger, so you could argue that he failed in his aim, and the only thing that really averted the danger was bringing down the player.

But, as I said in the other thread, the idea of determining whether 'the tackler's contact with the ball resulted in the goalscoring opportunity being averted to a satisfactory degree' (or some other wording with the same theme) is a nightmare to legislate and interpret, and would result in a greater number of contentious incidents than what seems to be the current interpretation of the law.

**DannyInvincible** · 26/06/2014, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Roberto

I think this is a very good issue you raise. On a very similar theme I've always being curious about the following type of sliding tackle in the box. A defender slides in and gets a touch on the ball that nudges it away from the attacker. However after touching the ball and following through he secondly clips the foot of the attacker bringing him down (i.e. the momentum of the tackle saw him make contact with the ball first and then make contact with the player). In this case should it be a penalty eventhough he touched the ball first? You could argue that even though he touched the ball first by making contact with the attacker with the follow through he prevented a clear goal scoring chance? Does that make sense?

I hear you. I'd pose a similar question. The example you raise is practically very similar to the Zabaleta incident. Zabaleta touched the ball and then undeniably tripped up his opponent. However, it must be noted that the idea of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is, as far as I understand, relevant only to deciding whether or not a challenge already adjudged to have constituted a foul is deserving of a red card. Rather than thinking of whether Zabaleta denied such an opportunity in order to answer the question of whether a foul occurred, I'd maybe ask something along the lines of: "Did he illegally dispossess the player?"

**Roberto** · 26/06/2014, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I hear you. I'd pose a similar question. The example you raise is practically very similar to the Zabaleta incident. Zabaleta touched the ball and then undeniably tripped up his opponent. However, it must be noted that the idea of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is, as far as I understand, relevant only to deciding whether or not a challenge already adjudged to have constituted a foul is deserving of a red card. Rather than thinking of whether Zabaleta denied such an opportunity in order to answer the question of whether a foul occurred, I'd maybe ask something along the lines of: "Did he illegally dispossess the player?"

I suppose it's here where the referee has to use his discretion. As Osarusan says there are usually 2 outcomes to a sliding tackle in the box, i.e the ball is won or a foul committed. The difficulty is when you have a combination of both and in this case you are relying on the referee making a correct call (and in fairness he'll get it wrong sometimes) i.e. was the tackle careless/reckless or a genuine attempt to win the ball.

**Roberto** · 26/06/2014, 10:52 AM

Ps For what it's worth I would have given a penalty in the Zabaleta case as I believe the tackle was in the 'careless' category.

**DannyInvincible** · 26/06/2014, 12:33 PM

What about it specifically would you deem "careless"?

Originally Posted by osarusan

I think that the trouble stems from (what I imagine is) the presumption that there are two outcomes to a tackle: the tackler either gets the ball and averts the danger, or doesn't get the ball and brings down the attacker.

Usually, it is one of the two that happens, and it's generally fairly clear which it is.

The issue is when the tackler gets the ball, but the contact is not significant enough to avert the danger. Zabaleta'a tackle is a pretty good example of this.

There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

**osarusan** · 26/06/2014, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

I thought it was implicit in the first of my scenarios that the tackler brings down the attacker after getting the ball and averting the danger.

If the tackler gets the ball first, and the tackle itself isn't considered reckless or dangerous, then that will be a legal tackle in my opinion.

**Roberto** · 26/06/2014, 1:19 PM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What about it specifically would you deem "careless"?

There is another possible (and frequent) outcome; the tackler gets the ball (and might well even avert the danger) but he also brings down the attacker. You could say that also occurred during the Zabaleta incident. Will that always be a legal tackle, as far as you are concerned?

I have looked at it again. In MY opinion Zabaleta took a bit of a 'lunge' and must have been aware the attacker was virtually on top of him. As I said previously when the tackler takes both man and ball it is very much at the discretion of the referee. This referee used his discretion not to award in this case whereas another referee may have given the penalty.

**DannyInvincible** · 14/03/2017, 2:28 PM

The IFAB are set to trial an "AB-BA" penalty shoot-out format modelled on the tie-breaker in tennis: http://www.espn.co.uk/football/blog-...is-tiebreakers

Originally Posted by ESPN

Football's global rule-making body is looking to make penalty shootouts even more unpredictable by adopting the format used for tiebreakers in tennis.

Teams currently alternate in shootouts, but the International Football Association Board (IFAB) said on Friday that research shows the first team taking kicks has a 60 percent chance of winning.

IFAB is seeking trials in the lower-levels of football with a new pattern that would see the order mixed up between teams A and B to AB-BA-AB-BA-AB. This mirrors tennis, where after the first point in tiebreaks, the opponent then serves the next two points and so on.

"We believe that the ABBA approach could remove that statistical bias and this is something that we will now look to trial,'' Scottish FA chief Stewart Regan said after Friday's IFAB meeting. "It would mean the first 10 kicks are taken under the ABBA system and then when it gets to next-goal-wins then it would revert to alternate penalties.''

There is a more immediate change coming on regular penalties in matches starting in June, with yellow cards no longer awarded for "stopping a promising attack" if there was a clear attempt to play the ball.

Another change could be seen later this month in the quarterfinals of the FA Cup, when teams will be allowed to make a fourth substitute in extra time.

A fourth substitute may also be introduced for extra-time at some point, whilst yellow cards will no longer be awarded for "stopping a promising attack" if there was a clear attempt to play the ball from June onward.

**BonnieShels** · 14/03/2017, 4:22 PM

The statistical bias is there because they flip a coin for who starts first...

All this stuff and we still have away goals scored in ET in a second leg. :O

**SkStu** · 14/03/2017, 9:11 PM

I like the idea of the 4th substitute in ET - I think it makes sense for a number of reasons. I also think I like the penalty stuff - it could add a lot of drama.

**BonnieShels** · 14/03/2017, 9:34 PM

Both laudable. But jesus... can we get someone to shout out about the away goal in ET!!!!

**OwlsFan** · 15/03/2017, 9:16 AM

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Both laudable. But jesus... can we get someone to shout out about the away goal in ET!!!!

But the home team is still having the advantage of playing at home in ET so is that reasonably offset by the AG rule ? In other words, one team plays at home for 120 minutes and the other for 90 minutes. Is that not also unfair because of the toss of a coin ? I am just sayin' like.

**BonnieShels** · 15/03/2017, 10:00 AM

No way is it offset by as much as people think. The home advantage argument is often overplayed. Especially after 210min of football.

**DeLorean** · 15/03/2017, 10:53 AM

Just scrap extra time completely for two legged ties... and scrap the away goals rule too.

**osarusan** · 15/03/2017, 11:41 AM

If two teams are still completely level to the point that they need extra time in the 2nd leg, I don't think that extra 30 minutes is going to make much of a difference - not to the extent that an away goal should still count.

**DeLorean** · 15/03/2017, 12:27 PM

Looking at the Chelsea Man Utd game the other night too and the Herrera red card in the first half. The fact that extra time was playable meant that United would have had to survive the final hour of regular time plus extra time if they were to hold out for penalties. I'm not sure this is very fair either. In the GAA you are restored to your full complement for extra time and I think that makes a bit of sense, you wouldn't remain a man down if it went straight to a replay for example.

There's the obvious counter argument that if Herrera picked up the red card in injury time with the game going into extra time then United wouldn't have been really punished much at all, but that would be the case if extra time wasn't playable anyway.