Telegraph article on two footed tackles

Blatter · 13-01-2012 10:10am #1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9010849/Vincent-Kompany-is-wrong-footballs-human-torpedoes-cannot-know-what-damage-they-will-cause.html

Vincent Kompany is wrong - football's human torpedoes cannot know what damage they will cause

Worries about the game being emasculated in the light of Vincent Kompany's dismissal are outweighed by injuries from two-footed tackles.

Smart weapons know where the target is and sell us the myth of no collateral damage. The same promise comes from footballers who tell us they can jump in with both feet without maiming the opponent.

Manchester City's Vincent Kompany thought he could do it. So did Glen Johnson. In they both went, like Cato from the Pink Panther films surprising Inspector Clouseau as he comes home from work. Neither caused a scratch to Nani or Joleon Lescott, respectively. But would you trust an airborne missile?

This week we have seen Kompany sent off and banned for four games for his jump at Manchester United's Nani and Liverpool's Johnson escape any kind of punishment for his arrow-leap in the direction of Kompany's team-mate, Lescott, in Wednesday night's Carling Cup semi-final first-leg at the Etihad Stadium.

Inconsistency is the obvious red rag to football's bull. Kompany was glumly imprisoned in an executive box while Johnson remains free to go about his work. As ever we get lost in a fog about which jump was worse and who said what to whom, while the principle on which the law is based is obscured.

Every time the whistle toots there is a tension in the English game between the old island heritage of blood and guts and the modern yearning to see something closer to ballet. We want it both ways: thunderous collisions and David Silva-esque artistry.

Finding that harmony is tough and we can all cite areas where we see imbalance. One is in the penalty box, where any kind of defender-on-striker contact is now considered reason enough for the forward to hit the deck.

This has bred a whole culture of deceit in which the striker encourages the defender to touch him with the end of a toenail to justify the subsequent tumble.

Too many commentary box experts are going along with this sophistry.

"There was contact," they say, as if the attacking player has no moral obligation to stay on his feet. But this is subtle, moral-maze material compared to the simple issue of players leaving the ground and arriving at the contact point like human torpedoes.

Chris Foy flashed a red card at Kompany. Lee Mason did nothing about the Johnson challenge. One response probably shaped the other. Mason will have watched the Kompany imbroglio and perhaps decided subconsciously that he was not about the expose himself to a similar trial by TV.

Either both were red-card offences or neither was. And let's go for both, because if you study footage of the most infamous two-footed tackles you will see a level of reckless endangerment that could put a victim in hospital or end a career.

Examples, old and new, would be Kevin Nolan on Victor Anichebe or Steven Gerrard on Everton's Gary Naysmith. The Fernando Torres leap at Mark Gower of Swansea City fits into the category of karate lunges where the recipient is off to the side of both sets of raised studs and therefore supposedly safe, however bad it looks.

You know what comes next. It's the 'he-won-the-ball' defence. Both Johnson and Kompany could justifiably claim as much but neither complied with the current criteria for the essentially dangerous act of leaving the ground in the tackle.

Referees are meant to look at the speed and intensity of a challenge and ask whether both soles are off the turf. Then they ask whether the tackler is out of control (ie can he change his course of action). Johnson and Kompany fail on at least three of these counts and were therefore in clear contravention of the law.

Philosophically, plenty of us worry that football is being emasculated. A deeply rooted voice wants the game to be a test of strength as well as skill. But these combative urges are easily quelled by pictures of feet pointing the wrong way after irresponsible challenges.

The sickening injuries to Eduardo and Aaron Ramsey of Arsenal should have been a watershed in the transformation of English football. Nobody could have studied those images and argued for the kind of eye-popping machismo employed by lesser teams to nullify more graceful opponents.

The advance made by Kompany's tackle was to remind all players that airborne interventions will not be tolerated. The leniency shown towards Johnson reversed that progress in a moment of weakness by Lee Mason.

Instinct drives them to jump in like this, and sometimes malice. Leaving the ground enables the tackler to arrive faster and 'clean-out' the ball.

But it's not for players to decide whether they can make these Cato jumps without hurting opponents whose limbs are probably planted when the missile hits the ball.

If you tolerate this then your ankles will be next.

Very good article in light of the recent tackles from Vincent Kompany and Glen Johnson.

It is far to dangerous to leave the ground and launch yourself into a two footed tackle, no matter how cleanly you get the ball.

Zero tolerance should be displayed when it comes to these airborne lunging tackles and all fans/players/managers ought to realise it's for the good of the game and not to the detriment of the art of tackling.

_blank_ · 13-01-2012 10:15am

Liverpool/City fans to defend these tackles.

United fans to be aghast about them

/thread.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 10:26am

Des wrote: »

Liverpool/City fans to defend these tackles.

United fans to be aghast about them

/thread.

You can't paint all with the one brush. I think it is a great article and completley agree that those tackle are unacceptable and what frustrates me is the inconsistency which is going to have City players and fans hung up on a stupid debate and not in getting on with the game.

I would also add De Jong's tackle on Ben Arfa and Evans tackle on Holden as other examples of the damage caused by these types of tackles.

I think I heard the argument that this is only brought up because clubs want to secure their investment's rather than being about the players and that these were contract winning tackles in the good old days. For any City fan that would make these claims, I would ask them to think of what happened to Paul Lake.

GavRedKing · 13-01-2012 10:27am

Good article alright. Uses modern examples as well as highlighting some old, severe injuries and bad tackles.

Johnson should have been sent off in the same way that Kompany was, as the article outlines, a number of criterias relating to both tackles should have seen consistent red cards and thats the problem, consistency.

As long as the referees are allowed to make calls as they see them without relying on any video help then mistakes will be made across the board.

Luis21 · 13-01-2012 10:33am

Kompany is Dutch, off you go.
Glen Johnson, England International, not sent off.

Simples.

TheTownie · 13-01-2012 10:38am

Luis21 wrote: »

Kompany is Dutch, off you go.
Glen Johnson, England International, not sent off.

Simples.

Wanna bet?

Crash Bang Wall · 13-01-2012 10:49am

Interesting article.

Was originally thinking that neither tackle was a red card offence, now Im not so sure. The 2 feet off the ground being justification for a red card is probably fair as nobody wants to see injuries like Ramseys.

Simple solution would be to outlaw 2 footed challenges by name in the laws of the game rather than pussyfooting around it. I seen a post in another forum and 2 footed challenges are not mentioned. Its all intent/wreckless etc.

He also made another point re contact and the commentators attitude condoning a "dive" because there was "contact". I would hope the guy would write an article on that, because as far as Im concerned, if say Silva pushed Huth, and he fell then 9 times out of 10 then its a dive as there is no way that Silva could knock Huth with a shove.

Rambled a bit so apologies. I just think that commentators opinions and attitudes at times are not helping the game when they say there was contact so he had a right to go down, hence a penalty. Yes it may be a foul and a penalty but there is no need for the dive/simulation.

Liverpool fan btw, and Johnsons tackle was worse than Kompanys. Both red cards, but the 2 footed tackle needs to be outlawed

Sappy404 · 13-01-2012 11:26am

'Studs showing' and 'off the ground' are phrases you hear a lot too. It's tough to do a slide tackle without 'showing' your studs though, and keeping one foot on the turf at all times while you're tackling will hardly make a difference if your outstretched foot hits an ankle.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 11:54am

Sappy404 wrote: »

'Studs showing' and 'off the ground' are phrases you hear a lot too. It's tough to do a slide tackle without 'showing' your studs though, and keeping one foot on the turf at all times while you're tackling will hardly make a difference if your outstretched foot hits an ankle.

Yes, this is where the arguments start, because some pundit has used buzz words like these and fans take it as gospel.

The article clearly outlines how the ref should base his decision:

The speed and intensity of a challenge?
Are both soles off the turf?
Is the tackler is out of control (ie can he change his course of action)?

I think that is a pretty simple checklist to base a decision on. I think the 'soles off the turf' add to both the others rather than mean anything significant on their own.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 12:12pm

I think if the arse is airbourne when the foot is in proximity to the tackled player, the tackled player will be in bother if contact is made. If the tackler slides in even with feet raised and studs showing but is arse is in contact with the ground the degree of danger is lessened.

Look even the most innocous tangle can break a leg, that has to be acknowledged.

A one foot tackle can cause horrendous damage. Carragher on Nani springs to mind. again his arse was off the turf, the full weight and momentum of Carragher has a locus on the point of contact between Nani's shin and Carragher's boot.

Had he gone to ground and slid in it might still be a heafty challange but it gives Nani a chance to jump over carragher or take the tackle if he beleives he can ride it.

I think players HAVE to go to ground in a slide tackle. If the arse is in the air the angle of attack is down. Downward force is going to go damage.

People may disagree with that assessment which is perfectly fair. It is a question that is extremely nuanced and there is no simple catch all answer.

RandolphEsq · 13-01-2012 12:28pm

Sappy404 wrote: »

'Studs showing' and 'off the ground' are phrases you hear a lot too. It's tough to do a slide tackle without 'showing' your studs though, and keeping one foot on the turf at all times while you're tackling will hardly make a difference if your outstretched foot hits an ankle.

If you come in from the side you will go in 'laces showing' to hook the ball away. Trip the player from behind. From the front there is no need to go to slide in since you are already blocking them.

Pepe LeFrits · 13-01-2012 12:28pm

Often discussions on tackles often end up getting lost in debates about ‘studs up’ and ‘off the ground’ like you say and I think a lot of the time people don’t even really understand what these mean; you’ll read posts where the person seems to think that if the tackler’s studs are visible to the TV camera then it’s a studs up tackle.

For me the primary factor in a tackle’s dangerousness is the relative force of the tackle. The harder, faster the player goes in the more dangerous it is, and a tackle can be on the ground and have no studs showing and still be nasty. The movement of the other player is also a factor; you can go into a tackle at a much higher speed if you’re in a foot-race with a player running alongside you in the same direction than you can if the player is coming straight at you.

Most of it is common sense but these incidents are frequently devoid of that. Attitudes on tackling have a long way to go yet.

HazDanz · 13-01-2012 12:45pm

Luis21 wrote: »

Kompany is Dutch, off you go.
Glen Johnson, England International, not sent off.

Simples.

Your logic there is as solid as your knowledge on player nationalities

13-01-2012 12:48pm

I'd like to see a return to Schumacher type tackles.

When men were men and all that.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 12:52pm

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Often discussions on tackles often end up getting lost in debates about ‘studs up’ and ‘off the ground’ like you say and I think a lot of the time people don’t even really understand what these mean; you’ll read posts where the person seems to think that if the tackler’s studs are visible to the TV camera then it’s a studs up tackle.

For me the primary factor in a tackle’s dangerousness is the relative force of the tackle. The harder, faster the player goes in the more dangerous it is, and a tackle can be on the ground and have no studs showing and still be nasty. The movement of the other player is also a factor; you can go into a tackle at a much higher speed if you’re in a foot-race with a player running alongside you in the same direction than you can if the player is coming straight at you.

Most of it is common sense but these incidents are frequently devoid of that. Attitudes on tackling have a long way to go yet.

The speed of the game is unreal now. Clean tackles committed at the tempo of the game can still cause huge injuries. Guys like Theo Walcott have close to an Olympic B standard sprint time; you slide in on him going at full pelt and then say someone like Teddy Sheringham going at full pelt the results are going to be very different. This is where the problems occur.

Nani too is like a greased pig and often times whn a player commits to a clean challange the pace and ability of Nani to change direction at pace result in the tackle becoming high or late.

I'm not launching a defence for heavy tackles but I am trying to frame them within the context of the modern game.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 12:53pm

Where has 'arse in the air' come from? Its already confusing enough with 1 or 2 footed, studs showing etc.

The argument would be to remove these buzzwords and look at the tackle logically.

The speed and intensity of a challenge? Tackle came in very fast with full weight behind it with foot raised too high.
Are both soles off the turf? No, one is raised over the ball.
Is the tackler is out of control (ie can he change his course of action)? No, his weight is behind the tackle and he has raised his foot above the ball so unable to use it to stop in time.

Therefore the ref must consider this a reckleess and dangerous challenge and would warrant at least a yellow card, if not red.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 12:54pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd like to see a return to Schumacher type tackles.

When men were men and all that.

This is the one where Patrick Battison was having seizures for 20 minuites after it and had to have three teeth surgically removed from the roof of his mouth.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 12:56pm

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Where has 'arse in the air' come from? Its already confusing enough with 1 or 2 footed, studs showing etc.

Re-read it, please. Slowly this time.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 12:58pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

Re-read it, please. Slowly this time.

I am, but I must be missing something. Is it sarcasm, cause I don't think it is clear.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 1:07pm

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I am, but I must be missing something. Is it sarcasm, cause I don't think it is clear.

The corollary of most if not all the bad leg breaker tackles are players going in studs up down tow footed one footed whatever is their arse off the turf, i.e their full body weight being focused on the point of contact between the boot and the opposition limb. Use that as the focus of reconstituting a dangerous tackle and you have a definable, verifiable baseline for sending a guy off. Glen Johnson's ass in the air feet off the gorund, red, Vincent company feet up two footed but body in contact with the ground slowing his momentum giving him a degree of control. Carragher on Nani, one footed both feet airbourne ass off the ground, Nani has a three inch gash in his leg.

Here is a quick example, two tough tackles by Gerrard, first one is fine, he is in contact with the ground thorugh the whole execution of the tackle, the second one although cleanly winning the ball he is airbourne (ass off the turf) and it is dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dleIp8j_Ows

SlickRic · 13-01-2012 1:10pm

there's a lot of myths bandied about in terms of this law.

these myths include the notion, which i heard BBC commentators as well as Andy Townsend on ITV during the City/Utd game, put forward that the laws "would like tackling outlawed".

this idea that players getting sent off for these things equate to tackling being done away with, and that it's turning into a "bunch of girls", as i've seen from some on here as well, is just plain wrong.

i don't know if we're supposed to be some sort of cavemen or what, that to be a "man", we have to encourage flying tackles because they've always been part of the game, and it's what i remember. i don't buy that. you know what players can do? learn the technique of tackling. there is a way of tackling, and if you find yourself unable to do it properly, or you don't have time to adjust yourself on the pitch to do it properly and safely, then i guess you simply don't do it.

learn the technique. one footed, sliding on the ground at a reasonable speed, taking as little of the player as possible, is fine. and players should be encouraged to learn that.

Tony Gale, of all people, made a decent point on SSN this morning. he's never seen so many players with such a poor tackling technique. there are too many players seemingly flying through the air for no real reason compared to previous years. there does seem to be one every week that is high, flying, with studs showing.

was it always that way? because he seemed to suggest that while tackles were always strong throughout the years, there wasn't as many studs up flyers as there does seem to be now. he thought it was a technique issue.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 1:17pm

SlickRic wrote: »

there's a lot of myths bandied about in terms of this law.

these myths include the notion, which i heard BBC commentators as well as Andy Townsend on ITV during the City/Utd game, put forward that the laws "would like tackling outlawed".

this idea that players getting sent off for these things equate to tackling being done away with, and that it's turning into a "bunch of girls", as i've seen from some on here as well, is just plain wrong.

i don't know if we're supposed to be some sort of cavemen or what, that to be a "man", we have to encourage flying tackles because they've always been part of the game, and it's what i remember. i don't buy that. you know what players can do? learn the technique of tackling. there is a way of tackling, and if you find yourself unable to do it properly, or you don't have time to adjust yourself on the pitch to do it properly and safely, then i guess you simply don't do it.

learn the technique. one footed, sliding on the ground at a reasonable speed, taking as little of the player as possible, is fine. and players should be encouraged to learn that.

Tony Gale, of all people, made a decent point on SSN this morning. he's never seen so many players with such a poor tackling technique. there are too many players seemingly flying through the air for no real reason compared to previous years. there does seem to be one every week that is high, flying, with studs showing.

was it always that way? because he seemed to suggest that while tackles were always strong throughout the years, there wasn't as many studs up flyers as there does seem to be now. he thought it was a technique issue.

Great post.

I remember years ago when Ryan Giggs was establishing himself as first choice winger at United Match of The Day highlighted how good his tackling was, slid in really low and could hook the ball out from the player's possession and get up almost in one movement. I've looked for clips of his tackling but it seems to be almost totally overlooked now. It was a fabulous technique. Low and quick, winning and retaining the ball as opposed just moving it away.

Pepe LeFrits · 13-01-2012 1:51pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

The speed of the game is unreal now. Clean tackles committed at the tempo of the game can still cause huge injuries. Guys like Theo Walcott have close to an Olympic B standard sprint time; you slide in on him going at full pelt and then say someone like Teddy Sheringham going at full pelt the results are going to be very different. This is where the problems occur.

Nani too is like a greased pig and often times whn a player commits to a clean challange the pace and ability of Nani to change direction at pace result in the tackle becoming high or late.

I'm not launching a defence for heavy tackles but I am trying to frame them within the context of the modern game.

Sure, you'll never remove all risk from tackling but the game can still move towards requiring players to show due care for their opponents. How often do we hear commentators talking about how a player 'didn't mean to injure him' and such - of course he didn't, he's not a psychopath, but he also obviously didn't think about his opponent's health when he launched his entire bodyweight in the general direction of the shins of the poor guy on his way to hospital.

I'm not sure how a player being quick can make a tackle high, but a late/mistimed tackle isn't inherently dangerous - it only really becomes dangerous if there's a lot of force, studs are raised etc. Again we often see comments like 'he was just too quick for him, he moved the ball away at the last minute' - that's only relevant in cases where the tackle is clean and safe and the referee is deciding whether the foul was deliberate or not (and thus whether it is a professional foul). If the tackle is dangerous and reckless, it's always a foul, regardless of what happens with the football.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 2:12pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

i.e their full body weight being focused on the point of contact between the boot and the opposition limb.

Yes, I understand that. That is what I was saying in that the players weight is behind the tackle. What I didn't understand was the use of where his arse was, and what actual reference this has.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Great post.

I remember years ago when Ryan Giggs was establishing himself as first choice winger at United Match of The Day highlighted how good his tackling was, slid in really low and could hook the ball out from the player's possession and get up almost in one movement. I've looked for clips of his tackling but it seems to be almost totally overlooked now. It was a fabulous technique. Low and quick, winning and retaining the ball as opposed just moving it away.

Shame he has lost that skill. His tackles of late aren't anything to be proud of.

DOC09UNAM · 13-01-2012 2:23pm

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Orando Broom wrote: »

i.e their full body weight being focused on the point of contact between the boot and the opposition limb.

Yes, I understand that. That is what I was saying in that the players weight is behind the tackle. What I didn't understand was the use of where his arse was, and what actual reference this has.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Great post.

I remember years ago when Ryan Giggs was establishing himself as first choice winger at United Match of The Day highlighted how good his tackling was, slid in really low and could hook the ball out from the player's possession and get up almost in one movement. I've looked for clips of his tackling but it seems to be almost totally overlooked now. It was a fabulous technique. Low and quick, winning and retaining the ball as opposed just moving it away.

Shame he has lost that skill. His tackles of late aren't anything to be proud of.

Needs gif of scholes and giggs tackling same player.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 2:27pm

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Sure, you'll never remove all risk from tackling but the game can still move towards requiring players to show due care for their opponents. How often do we hear commentators talking about how a player 'didn't mean to injure him' and such - of course he didn't, he's not a psychopath, but he also obviously didn't think about his opponent's health when he launched his entire bodyweight in the general direction of the shins of the poor guy on his way to hospital.

I'm not sure how a player being quick can make a tackle high, but a late/mistimed tackle isn't inherently dangerous - it only really becomes dangerous if there's a lot of force, studs are raised etc. Again we often see comments like 'he was just too quick for him, he moved the ball away at the last minute' - that's only relevant in cases where the tackle is clean and safe and the referee is deciding whether the foul was deliberate or not (and thus whether it is a professional foul). If the tackle is dangerous and reckless, it's always a foul, regardless of what happens with the football.

fair points but if you don't account for the blinding pace that some players now have compared to even ten years ago you'll never define the parameters for a safe tackle. Going in on Teddy Sheringham hard while he ambles up the field will not have the same consequences of using the same force on Theo Walcott at full speed.

Ignore the pundits. They lack the intelligence to fully elucidate the machinations of football at the best of times so they have no hope of diseminating the intricacies of the tackle (That clown Danny Mills kept bleating after the Kompany sending off that the game was ruined!).

the question has to be how, in the modern game, do you keep the quickest and most skillful safe in the game. Answer that you solve the problem for all. I say arse on the ground. There will be guys who'll miss the tackle because of the pace of the players and slowing force of friction but that will be the base line. dive in with feet airbourne and arse off the turf, straight red, contact or no contact.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 2:27pm

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Shame he has lost that skill. His tackles of late aren't anything to be proud of.

Absolutely agree. One against City springs to mind immediately.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 2:31pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

Ignore the pundits. They lack the intelligence to fully elucidate the machinations of football at the best of times

Bang on! That sums up the problem behind so many arguments in football. It is directly as a result of some fans regurgitating the nonsense they have heard from idiots.

On a side note to this, why are the same useless pundits never changed? The article here shows there are some journalists etc that have some very good views that would only help tv analysis.

folan · 13-01-2012 2:34pm

Kompany can whine all he wants, it was a fair sending off.

a 2 footed challange is always dangerous and should always be a red card.

DoctorGonzo08 · 13-01-2012 2:37pm

folan wrote: »

Kompany can whine all he wants, it was a fair sending off.

a 2 footed challange is always dangerous and should always be a red card.

Who said he was? Who do you support and I'm sure I'll find a '2 footed challange' that you will swear isn't.

#15 · 13-01-2012 2:44pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

Great post.

I remember years ago when Ryan Giggs was establishing himself as first choice winger at United Match of The Day highlighted how good his tackling was, slid in really low and could hook the ball out from the player's possession and get up almost in one movement. I've looked for clips of his tackling but it seems to be almost totally overlooked now. It was a fabulous technique. Low and quick, winning and retaining the ball as opposed just moving it away.

Good example here at the 0:41 mark.

Pepe LeFrits · 13-01-2012 2:46pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

fair points but if you don't account for the blinding pace that some players now have compared to even ten years ago you'll never define the parameters for a safe tackle. Going in on Teddy Sheringham hard while he ambles up the field will not have the same consequences of using the same force on Theo Walcott at full speed.

Well as I said earlier it's the relative force; if a player is bombing towards you, you can make a really dirty tackle without having any momentum at all. An example recently was Cabaye on Spearing (although in that case Spearing went in very recklessly too and could also have been sent off again).

Fuzzy_Dunlop · 13-01-2012 3:03pm

There's some good slide tackles in this video (Also some dodgy ones of course)
Particulary 1:16 is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH5UxBdIKgw

amacachi · 13-01-2012 3:07pm

SlickRic wrote: »

learn the technique. one footed, sliding on the ground at a reasonable speed, taking as little of the player as possible, is fine. and players should be encouraged to learn that.

This right here. Even if players aren't purposely trying to injure others there are some who look like if a couple of us were allowed drive in Formula 1. It's not malice, it's a lack of skill or ability and it endangers others.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 3:12pm

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

There's some good slide tackles in this video (Also some dodgy ones of course)
Particulary 1:16 is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH5UxBdIKgw

Excellent technique shown there, in low lots of contact with the ground. Even the heavy one at 2:21 had plenty of his body on the ground.

I have never seen that facet of his game highlighted by a pundit.

Looking at him in those clips you'd swear he was closer to a Dennis wise (with skill) type midfielder than a playmaker.

Looking at him there you could actually play him as the deep lying midfielder. good passer, pacey and able to tackle.

amacachi · 13-01-2012 3:32pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

Excellent technique shown there, in low lots of contact with the ground. Even the heavy one at 2:21 had plenty of his body on the ground.

I have never seen that facet of his game highlighted by a pundit.

Looking at him in those clips you'd swear he was closer to a Dennis wise (with skill) type midfielder than a playmaker.

Looking at him there you could actually play him as the deep lying midfielder. good passer, pacey and able to tackle.

He played there a little for Arsenal last year, I thought he was going to be used as a DM season-long but he's fallen out of favour for some reason.

wandatowell · 13-01-2012 4:22pm

Player tackles with two feet, gets the ball, play on. Whats the problem????

Player tackles with two feet, gets the player, yellow or red card. Whats the problem?

Why is this being made into such a complicated issue?

I'll say it again. The F.A. and refs are ruining football. Also players acting like little girls, crying and falling over isn't helping anybody.

And I hate this arguement "O but there was contact"!!!! What type of bullcrap is this? Of course there's gonna be contact!!!! ITS A PHYSICAL GAME!!!!

Players are falling over way to easily. They are just waiting for contact and boom they drop. Refs are just playing into their hands.

KittyeeTrix · 13-01-2012 4:24pm

For me the most important part of the article is this part:

This week we have seen Kompany sent off and banned for four games for his jump at Manchester United's Nani and Liverpool's Johnson escape any kind of punishment for his arrow-leap in the direction of Kompany's team-mate, Lescott, in Wednesday night's Carling Cup semi-final first-leg at the Etihad Stadium.

Inconsistency is the obvious red rag to football's bull. Kompany was glumly imprisoned in an executive box while Johnson remains free to go about his work. As ever we get lost in a fog about which jump was worse and who said what to whom, while the principle on which the law is based is obscured.

Orando Broom · 13-01-2012 4:24pm

wandatowell wrote: »

Player tackles with two feet, gets the ball, play on. Whats the problem????

Player tackles with two feet, gets the player, yellow or red card. Whats the problem?

Why is this being made into such a complicated issue?

I'll say it again. The F.A. and refs are ruining football. Also players acting like little girls, crying and falling over isn't helping anybody.

And I hate this arguement "O but there was contact"!!!! What type of bullcrap is this? Of course there's gonna be contact!!!! ITS A PHYSICAL GAME!!!!

Players are falling over way to easily. They are just waiting for contact and boom they drop. Refs are just playing into their hands.

Messrs Holden, Eduardo, Ramsey and Ben Arfa may disagree with this post.

SlickRic · 13-01-2012 4:37pm

wandatowell wrote: »

Player tackles with two feet, gets the ball, play on. Whats the problem????

Player tackles with two feet, gets the player, yellow or red card. Whats the problem?

Why is this being made into such a complicated issue?

I'll say it again. The F.A. and refs are ruining football. Also players acting like little girls, crying and falling over isn't helping anybody.

And I hate this arguement "O but there was contact"!!!! What type of bullcrap is this? Of course there's gonna be contact!!!! ITS A PHYSICAL GAME!!!!

Players are falling over way to easily. They are just waiting for contact and boom they drop. Refs are just playing into their hands.

you really still don't get it.

this isn't a diving issue. this isn't an issue on players acting soft. that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, and is entirely missing the point.

this is to do with a certain type of tackle being stamped out. i.e., a tackle that genuinely endangers the safety of an opponent. all it really asks is that a tackler is not reckless. it doesn't tell you not to stretch or lunge for the ball. it's just asking not to be reckless and leave yourself out of control with the tackle, therefore endangering the safety of your fellow professional.

there's nothing manly about those sorts of tackles.

yes, sometimes refs are harsh, absolutely. for instance, in my own opinion, Kompany's red was slightly harsh because i thought he was in some control, and wasn't likely to hurt Nani. certain angles hint that he was on his way to impaling him, but that simply wasn't the case. but Kompany was stupid, and the refs are being asked to outlaw a flying, out of control tackle.

i have no problem with that at all as long as it's consistent.

let the players, coaches and managers know, as a whole, what exactly is not allowed, and assure them that the punishments will be consistent. assure them that if something is missed, or the ref gets it wrong, there will retrospective punishment, etc, then at least all the players know where they stand...you go in reckless, off your feet, it's a red, and even if it's not, you're banned. then there's no excuse for any of it.

either get consistent, or get rid of the rule though and let them do what they like.

but this hyperbole, as i mentioned before, that "the tackle" is being outlawed, is media-spun bollocks in all honesty.

dfx- · 13-01-2012 4:48pm

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

..How often do we hear commentators talking about how a player 'didn't mean to injure him' and such - of course he didn't, he's not a psychopath, but he also obviously didn't think about his opponent's health when he launched his entire bodyweight in the general direction of the shins of the poor guy on his way to hospital....

Unless you're Pepe:D (any excuse to post this mentalist losing it, something like 9 fouls in 30 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YisKIgdCgGQ

No tackle is outlawed, nothing is outlawed, the referee interprets the law. One referee sees out-of-control differently to another. I'd say if you got every poster on the SF to look at something, you'd have 200 verions of the same thing.

Why can't people accept that decisions will be different. You get them one night, you won't on another. The stupidity is betting your entire season or budget on them getting it 'right'. One tackle will be a straight yellow card, another yelllow card might not be dished only after several offences.

Boom_Bap · 13-01-2012 4:48pm

wandatowell wrote: »

Player tackles with two feet, gets the ball, play on. Whats the problem????

That means that you are allowing players to tackle like this, which increases the chance of injury to others

Player tackles with two feet, gets the player, yellow or red card. Whats the problem?

Probably the player on the receiving end getting badly injured, possibly having thier career ended, and because they became professional at a young age have no back-up profession to walk (hobble) into.

Ever been on the receiving end of one of these tackles?

Why is this being made into such a complicated issue?

Because the racism stories are getting stale in the press.

I'll say it again. The F.A. and refs are ruining football. Also players acting like little girls, crying and falling over isn't helping anybody.

That is another issue that needs to be addressed, i'm sure we'll see it again soon when the press get tired of the racism, 2 footed challenge and transfer window.

And I hate this arguement "O but there was contact"!!!! What type of bullcrap is this? Of course there's gonna be contact!!!! ITS A PHYSICAL GAME!!!!

It is a phyical game, but it should be played in a way that does not put players at risk of serious injury by allowing these type of tackles. Much like the way you are not allowed tackle from behind. There are ways of tackling cleanly that do not put others at risk.

I played a bit of rugby before, and one of the first things learned was how to tackle to not put your opponent at risk.

Players are falling over way to easily. They are just waiting for contact and boom they drop. Refs are just playing into their hands.

This again is a seperate issue of diving, or simulation. Refs have become really good at spotting this recently from what I have seen.

gnfnrhead · 13-01-2012 7:08pm

amacachi wrote: »

He played there a little for Arsenal last year, I thought he was going to be used as a DM season-long but he's fallen out of favour for some reason.

I think he's injured now. I've only really noticed it this season but he is a quality tackler and could easily play the DM role if he could stay Injury free, which has been his problem for several seasons now. Another plus for him is you never hear him complaining about lack of games.

amacachi · 14-01-2012 6:53pm

The way commentators and some of the media are going on is really getting on my nerves. There was a tackle there now in the Watford/Reading that got a yellow card when it was a perfect tackle, slid in, one foot, pulled back once he got the ball. Commentator starts trolling saying it should've been a red.

Fuhrer · 14-01-2012 6:59pm

SlickRic wrote: »

Tony Gale, of all people, made a decent point on SSN this morning. he's never seen so many players with such a poor tackling technique. there are too many players seemingly flying through the air for no real reason compared to previous years. there does seem to be one every week that is high, flying, with studs showing.

was it always that way? because he seemed to suggest that while tackles were always strong throughout the years, there wasn't as many studs up flyers as there does seem to be now. he thought it was a technique issue.

Quicker, slicker pitches, lighter ball making it faster maybe

Telegraph article on two footed tackles

Comments