| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? 14:21 - Apr 30 with 2979 views | Toast_R |
|  | | |  |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 15:11 - Apr 30 with 2904 views | LongsufferingR |
Fking great tackle. Well done ref. |  | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 15:19 - Apr 30 with 2886 views | Boston |
Got the ball first, got the other balls second. |  |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 15:54 - Apr 30 with 2855 views | smegma |
Great tackle. Never a foul. | | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 16:04 - Apr 30 with 2848 views | DejR_vu |
Reckless. If he has mis-timed it by a fraction he would have crippled him. | |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 10:07 - May 1 with 2636 views | TacticalR |
Yes, it came off but that tackle might have gone horribly wrong. And was there any need to come sailing out of defence like that?
Compare this puzzling sending-off at Birmingham - Huddersfield (at about 1:30)
http://www.skysports.com/football/birmham-vs-huddsfld/358639 |  |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 11:36 - May 2 with 2471 views | kingsburyR |
Great tackle.
Rules say if you commit to a tackle you have to win the ball.....that's what he did.
The fact we are even discussing it show the state football is in.
Didn't see (or want to) the game. Did Miller get up straight away? |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 11:48 - May 2 with 2456 views | bosh67 |
Nothing wrong with that. Took the ball cleanly. No intended follow through. |  |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 12:12 - May 2 with 2428 views | PinnerPaul |
Its the summer, I'm off duty!   | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 18:24 - May 2 with 2324 views | Northernr |
Brilliant tackle.
Not having this "if he'd have mistimed it the sky would have fallen in" nonsense. If he'd have mistimed it it would have been a foul, but he didn't so it's not. |  | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 21:14 - May 2 with 2234 views | DejR_vu |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 18:24 - May 2 by Northernr |
Brilliant tackle.
Not having this "if he'd have mistimed it the sky would have fallen in" nonsense. If he'd have mistimed it it would have been a foul, but he didn't so it's not. |
Not only would it have been a foul, the stewards would have been picking limbs up in plastic bags from the stand behind the far goal. You can't have tackles like that because they will be mistimed and they will end someone's career. It's like saying it's okay to drive up the M1 at 120mph because you didn't drive in to anyone.
What if Barton had done that to Freeman? | |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 06:17 - May 3 with 2168 views | timcocking |
Great tackle. If you take the ball first and aren't going in two footed, it's not a foul. It's a contact sport.
So what if one player a year gets a broken leg? They're paid bloody fortunes. Football has always been a contact sport. It's not right that some guys in suits somewhere can change the rules of the game and make it a non contact sport just because they are a bunch of pussies.
Perhaps they should make rugby touch rugby, should help reduce injuries. |  | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 08:46 - May 3 with 2102 views | DejR_vu |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 06:17 - May 3 by timcocking |
Great tackle. If you take the ball first and aren't going in two footed, it's not a foul. It's a contact sport.
So what if one player a year gets a broken leg? They're paid bloody fortunes. Football has always been a contact sport. It's not right that some guys in suits somewhere can change the rules of the game and make it a non contact sport just because they are a bunch of pussies.
Perhaps they should make rugby touch rugby, should help reduce injuries. |
I agree it's a contact sport, it's not a blood sport. Personally, I don't think it's acceptable to maim, or risk maiming a person just because he's paid a fortune.
The wider point I was trying to make is that if referees let that sort of thing go it will become more prevalent. If it becomes more prevalent it will go wrong more frequently, and it will be more than one broken leg.
And, the rules apply to players across all leagues. They're not all paid a fortune so even if you were of the view that being paid a lot of money is justification in itself for being exposed to a career-ending injury, the argument wouldn't apply to lower league players. | |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 09:15 - May 3 with 2076 views | Northernr |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 21:14 - May 2 by DejR_vu |
Not only would it have been a foul, the stewards would have been picking limbs up in plastic bags from the stand behind the far goal. You can't have tackles like that because they will be mistimed and they will end someone's career. It's like saying it's okay to drive up the M1 at 120mph because you didn't drive in to anyone.
What if Barton had done that to Freeman? |
Barton's not good enough to time a tackle like that. | | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 09:19 - May 3 with 2069 views | DejR_vu |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 09:15 - May 3 by Northernr |
Barton's not good enough to time a tackle like that. |
Nicely side-stepped | |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 09:37 - May 3 with 2051 views | BrianMcCarthy |
I can't see from that shot how high his two feet are off the ground. It looks to me as if it would have failed the 'Sunday League Test For Tackles'. This test is simple - would he have got the head boxed off him in Sunday League. I think he would. Therefore, I reckon, foul or not, it's a stupid tackle. |  |
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 10:05 - May 3 with 2020 views | paulparker |
Brilliant tackle played the ball then the man , stuart pearce esq that was
the problem with this sanitised over hyped game of ours is the lost art of a committed tackle without the oppo players all jumping around the ref asking for a player to be sent off |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 10:07 - May 3 with 2014 views | francisbowles |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 09:37 - May 3 by BrianMcCarthy |
I can't see from that shot how high his two feet are off the ground. It looks to me as if it would have failed the 'Sunday League Test For Tackles'. This test is simple - would he have got the head boxed off him in Sunday League. I think he would. Therefore, I reckon, foul or not, it's a stupid tackle. |
Great post, Brian. Really made me chuckle. I think I am on the side of this being reckless, even though I hate this move towards a non contact sport and am often to be heard saying it's not basketball ref! | | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 11:08 - May 3 with 1970 views | PinnerPaul |
Couldn't resist!
From RefChat (Level 3 ref)
Three definitions for you:
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Just because a player 'gets the ball' doesn't necessarily mean they can escape without disciplinary action. If a player has got the ball, but in an act that meets the reckless or excessive force definition above, they can be cautioned / sent off respectively. Furthermore, a player may injure an opponent during the process of a fair challenge (i.e. it does not meet any of the above definitions, and is not considered an offence under law 12), and thus play continues (unless of course we have a serious injury)
A brief example of someone winning the ball, but receives disciplinary action: A player jumps in with two feet off the ground. He makes contact with the ball first, before going through the player. Yes, the player has won the ball, but he has done so in a manner that has endangered the safety of an opponent, and therefore must be sent off.
TIP: Many referees, including those in the Premier League, have a tendency to point at the ball after what they consider a 'fair challenge'. Avoid doing this (as an observer correctly picked me up on last season) - you are insinuating that if you get the ball it is a fair challenge, but as we discussed above, this is not always the case. Instead, use 'a hands behind your back' or your voice to convey your response appropriately. | | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 11:23 - May 3 with 1953 views | Phildo |
The ref in this one has a blinding view and the player executes the tackle well with one leg tucked under him catching the ball cleanly. There s clearly no intent to foul or even intent to be reckless so I do not see how this could be a foul? |  | | |
| Bad foul or great tackle (muck & nettles)? on 11:33 - May 3 with 1941 views | Metallica_Hoop |
Looked good to me. |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
