CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Hardly idiotic when it was the law for several years.
When was it the law? how many decades ago was that?
Hardly idiotic when it was the law for several years.
And yet other sports with big, big money involved don't corrupt themselves like that and don't have the culture of abuse. Amazing.nail on head and we go back to the bottom line answer for anything to do with anything in the entire world....
££££££
Which is exactly why Rooney (to quote the most obv example in EPL recent times) avoided punishment so often....no Rooney next week? Loss of viewer, equals, loss of sponsors, equals, loss of cash.
Neither. I don't see ambiguity.Hardly idiotic when it was the law for several years. The problem was that a clean tackle from behind got a red card but going over the top onto the shins didn't, not helped by the ambiguity in "A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play".
Does that mean a tackle from behind that doesn't endanger safety is OK, or that every tackle from behind endangers safety?
Have you not read the thread?When was it the law? how many decades ago was that?
There is now.Neither. I don't see ambiguity.
The reason it was removed was that it was redundant and it's existence could lead to misinterpretation thinking this is a especial case.
There is already a statement in law covering ALL tackles endangering the safety of an opponent being serious foul play.
Yes. Nobody has posted anything stating that tackles from behind were outlawed. Treated more harshly isn't the same as being explicitly outlawed.Have you not read the thread?
Hardly idiotic when it was the law for several years. The problem was that a clean tackle from behind got a red card but going over the top onto the shins didn't, not helped by the ambiguity in "A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play".
Does that mean a tackle from behind that doesn't endanger safety is OK, or that every tackle from behind endangers safety?
There was before, while and after the tackle from behind class was in the laws.There is now.
I'll go out on a memory limb (can't find my collection of the LOAF/LOTG since 1963) and say the phrase "which endangers the safety of an opponent" only came in with the tackle from behind.There was before, while and after the tackle from behind class was in the laws.
It's not selective if we're talking about when the phrase came into being.Bit of selective quoting there - the good book actually says from the front, side or behind - which takes the emphasis away from the tackle from behind being any better worse than any other tackle.
This got me interested.I'll go out on a memory limb (can't find my collection of the LOAF/LOTG since 1963) and say the phrase "which endangers the safety of an opponent" only came in with the tackle from behind.
I don't recall it that way at all. My observation was that while there was an immediate and marked increase in tackles from behind being punished with red cards after 1998, referees correctly understood that not every single tackle from behind was a red card. I personally also don't recall noticing that referees were not acting appropriately to penalise tackles from the front or side as a result of the change.My recollection is that, however worded, most tackles from behind were treated as red card offences, and then some referees seemed to think that a tackle from the front or side that endangered the safety of a player couldn't be a red card, so the law was changed to make it immaterial the direction the tackle came from.
And to be honest, many referees perpetuate this issue by shouting (or miming) that 'he got the ball' to justify why certain challenges (hopefully not reckless ones!) are not deemed a foul. I know I was historically guilty of this but have done my best to eradicate it from my communication.How many old pro pundits see a tackle and churn out he got all / some of the ball!!! The players on a weekend spurt the same old chunter...
It can come across a bit as we are spoilsports almost in stopping their 'fun'!!!
Once they've hung up their boots to be corrupt in office, I think it's always ex-attacking players who want clamp down on the physical stuff (and give penalties for any HB)I hope the link works. Essentially it suggests that Blatter and Platini wanted an absolute ban on any tackle from behind but the Scottish rep on IFAB watered it down - so interpretation was an issue as soon as it went in the laws.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qd5QAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=tackle+from+behind+1998&source=bl&ots=r2gSktGJym&sig=Bzo8WagDDpc-4kObFqyPNyRhjNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCtez5ro7fAhUBsaQKHeyrCLMQ6AEwEXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=tackle from behind 1998&f=false
I hope the link works. Essentially it suggests that Blatter and Platini wanted an absolute ban on any tackle from behind but the Scottish rep on IFAB watered it down - so interpretation was an issue as soon as it went in the laws.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qd5QAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=tackle+from+behind+1998&source=bl&ots=r2gSktGJym&sig=Bzo8WagDDpc-4kObFqyPNyRhjNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCtez5ro7fAhUBsaQKHeyrCLMQ6AEwEXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=tackle from behind 1998&f=false
Then I would say thank goodness for the Scottish rep - can you imagine the ridiculousness of a law that punished any tackle from behind with a red card, regardless of whether it was dangerous or not (or indeed, regardless of whether it actually met the CRUEF criteria for being an offence or not)?Blatter and Platini wanted an absolute ban on any tackle from behind but the Scottish rep on IFAB watered it down - so interpretation was an issue as soon as it went in the laws.
"I got the ball" still lives on even to this day unfortunately but that was a very relevant point back then regardless of the direction of the tackle.
I tend to reply with "yes I agree you did, however, you cant tackle like that".... (for those non severe tackles that you do give), I find the empathy usually works.