Cosgrove Send Off: An Appeal - Really?
- Thread starter Redster
- Start date
That tackle was absolutely fine for over 150 years till the snowflakes took over.... today, we have a medical condition??? Wow.... explain please!
The lad hits his opponent something like a foot above the ground, with all of his weight, and then momentum carries him several yards further. It was a ridiculous challenge. Any analysis of Law 12 has that as a send off - you cannot possibly say that he did not use excessive force.
If the laws gave some dispensation for taking the ball your romantic preference for the Sheffield rules might have some currency. Fortunately, for the health of professional and amateur footballers alike, they do not.
If the laws gave some dispensation for taking the ball your romantic preference for the Sheffield rules might have some currency. Fortunately, for the health of professional and amateur footballers alike, they do not.
Nothing to do with Sheffield rules, its reckless at very worse (in todays world), 'excessive force' is such a vague grey area phrase you can make a case for ANY challenge being excessive!! Great tackle!!
"A foot off the ground"? "All his weight"? Nope.
Is it done without regard for the safety of the opponent? Sure. Does that mean it used more force or energy than necessary? Having just sprinted across the field to get there, anything less would have seen the ball gone before the tackle happened.
Is it done without regard for the safety of the opponent? Sure. Does that mean it used more force or energy than necessary? Having just sprinted across the field to get there, anything less would have seen the ball gone before the tackle happened.
Having just sprint across the field he should have been mindful of clattering his opponent. It is an objective fact that when he went through his opponent he did so a) high and b) with all of his weight. That is obvious when you keep in mind that Cosgrove was entirely off the ground at the point of impact. It is demonstrable on the replay.
Whatever way you swing it it was a wild challenge. Sure it was reckless - he didn't go in to injure the player - but it certainly, in my view, also reaches the SFA threshold.
I might also take a cheap point and say that if it was reckless, as you concede, then it was certainly not a great tackle.
Whatever way you swing it it was a wild challenge. Sure it was reckless - he didn't go in to injure the player - but it certainly, in my view, also reaches the SFA threshold.
I might also take a cheap point and say that if it was reckless, as you concede, then it was certainly not a great tackle.
I’m sure that football fans on here would applaud the tackle... this wasn’t just the norm it was expected. I get this snowflake era And why it came but I don’t fully agree with it! Players still get injured, don’t forget squads back then we’re 12-13 so it couldn’t have been as bad as they made out!
Tip of the day
Start a thread saying that anyone who has a different opinion is mentally deficient..... see how it goes
Start a thread saying that anyone who has a different opinion is mentally deficient..... see how it goes
one
RefChat Addict
Yellow for me too after seeing replays and slow mo especially from the camera behind the goal.
A. Should have been mindful of = he acted with disregard to
B. Catering his opponent = danger to or concequences to an opponent
A+B = caution
None mentioned in law but I am not against it if you want to consider them for the right occasion. Contact was on top of the opponent's foot and not throught it.
Now that is more or less in the laws
A. Should have been mindful of = he acted with disregard to
B. Catering his opponent = danger to or concequences to an opponent
A+B = caution
Last edited:
he wont win the appeal
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
He's played the ball with the side of his foot and then caught the player. I think red is justifiable but not the right decision here. Must be tough in front of the home fans but I think reckless, careless or no offence are better decisions and more easily justified than red here.
