Flamini's tackle

[RegalRef]

Ignoring the tackle for a moment, can we please get away from the terminology "2 footed tackle".
2 footed tackles are not outlawed in the LOTG, it is perfectly possible to make a legal 2 foot tackle. Referees should not be using this terminology as it encourages the ignorant masses to thing 2 feet = red card.
Has Flamini endangered the safety of his opponent or used excessive force or brutality is the only question you need to answer when deciding on the colour.

Correct.

However, my consideration if a tackle is 2 footed is that the player cannot possibly be in control of his actions, either force, trajectory or point of impact.

That's why two feet is a massive consideration in this particular case for me.

 

[deusex]

Correct.

However, my consideration if a tackle is 2 footed is that the player cannot possibly be in control of his actions, either force, trajectory or point of impact.

That's why two feet is a massive consideration in this particular case for me.

Problem is, you get the tackles where a player slips and slides into the ball on his heels.
The player is in no more danger than a normal slide tackle but you get people screaming for red!!!

 

[RegalRef]

Problem is, you get the tackles where a player slips and slides into the ball on his heels.
The player is in no more danger than a normal slide tackle but you get people screaming for red!!!

That's not really a two footed tackle though is it? That's a slip?

 

[deusex]

That's not really a two footed tackle though is it? That's a slip?

You and I know that.
But, surely you've had players screaming bloody murder after one of those?

 

[DB]

Yes, by going in two footed which can also be called a two footed tackle... 9/10 a two footed tackle, challenge or whatever you want to call it will be a red card. The reason being is simple. By going in with one foot, you can control your challenge. By going in two feet, this makes it a lot harder to control. You are practically out of control and rely on gravity to get you back on the ground. With both feet in the air and with your body trailing, you are exerting your full weight behind the studs. This, in my opinions is excessive. Don't be one of those that encourages going in two footed! There's no place for that in football, it's dangerous and should not go unpunished.

 

[deusex]

Don't be one of those that encourages going in two footed! There's no place for that in football, it's dangerous and should not go unpunished.

As said I can challenge a player with both feet perfectly safely and legally.
Going in 2 footed in itself is not dangerous. Completely leaving the ground CAN be dangerous.
I can challenge 2 footed and have my feet, legs, buttocks, back and arms all in contact with the ground

 

[DB]

Keith Hackett's blog yesterday


Mathieu Flamini should have been dismissed for two-footed challenge against Bournemouth, says Keith Hackett

Often during discussions in my time at PGMOL, I would highlight the need for referees to get the big decisions correct.

We would analyse DVD clips and discuss amongst the group how error could be avoided. The input of our top referees passing on their skill sets to the younger officials aided the learning process.

With the help of Prozone we would investigate the position and movement of the referee, and it was evident that the majority of mistakes were made because the referee had failed to see the incident.

Over the weekend, millions were tuned in to watch Bournemouth versus Arsenal with Kevin Friend in charge.

It is difficult to understand why, with an excellent view, this fit and experienced referee did not react properly to Mathieu Flamini of Arsenal committing a two-footed reckless challenge with excessive force on Bournemouth’s Dan Gosling in the early stages of this game.

Kevin ignored the sanction required in law and produced a yellow card, not the red that this challenge fully deserved.

Referees when faced with making the big decisions must demonstrate courage.

Please, for the good of the game, ensure that these two-footed challenges receive the appropriate sanction.

 

[Jacko]

Where does it say in law two footed challenges must be a red card?

Kevin showed courage producing a yellow imo.

 

[DB]

He's stating its a reckless challenge made using excessive force. I completely agree.

 

[Jacko]

He's stating its a reckless challenge made using excessive force. I completely agree.

He got the first bit right, second part has contradicted himself.

How can a challenge be reckless and use excessive force?

 

[PinnerPaul]

He got the first bit right, second part has contradicted himself.

How can a challenge be reckless and use excessive force?

Exactly - straying into MOTD pundits territory there!

 

[SM]

I hate having an opinion which is supported by Hackett. I must have been wrong...

 

[DB]

Of course you can do something recklessly whilst applying excessive force. Think about it...

"Yeah sorry player, although you went in beautifully, that was excessive".
"Okay player, that was careless but you put a lot of force into the challenge"
"You've been reckless in your attempt to get the ball, in doing so you have gone off the floor, both feet off the ground and body weight behind your feet, leading excessively into that players femur"...

I could drive recklessly and slowly. That slow speed will make impact lighter.
I could drive recklessly but because I'm going at speed, the force behind my car would therefore be excessive".

Think about it chaps. The LOTG seperate three types of challenge which fall into the realms of a stern talking to, a caution or a sending off offence. Of course you can combine the two types, ultimately you make a decision on the one you are going to go for.

That's the point I'm making; it appears to some he may be contradicting himself and I can see where your coming from. But reckless and excessive can certainly be carried out at the same time.

It's quite hard to explain exactly what I'm trying to say, but if you think about the words, their meanings and the interpretations of the actions, you can certainly combine them. How many times have we seen people reflect on their card decisions after the game? "Yeah I booked him for a reckless challenge but should have sent him off as I deemed it excessive"... In some instances, it's hard to differentiate between the two but other times, it's clear as day. If you are going in two footed, you are always going to exert more force than one footed, especially in a game of football.

 

[Padfoot]

No.

They can't be the same at all.

When reckless is committed with excessive force, it becomes dangerous, hence the red card.

Anyway, it was barely reckless.......won the ball cleanly, ball was never under control or even within playing distance of Gosling.

 

[DB]

I still think your account has been hacked....

 

[RegalRef]

**Debate CLOSED**

PADFOOT HAS SPOKEN

 

[Padfoot]

**Debate CLOSED**

PADFOOT HAS SPOKEN

 

[McTavish]

No.

They can't be the same at all.

When reckless is committed with excessive force, it becomes dangerous, hence the red card.

Ohhh, yes they can!

From the LOTG:

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

I think it is clear that most tackles which use excessive force are also reckless, I suppose that if you are deliberately trying to injure an opponent then you have taken into account the danger to, or consequences for the opponent and have acted accordingly so strictly speaking not reckless...

However, I also agree that someone like Hackett should be careful about his use of the word "reckless" as it has a specific meaning in the laws, one which is often mis-understood. How many times have you heard, "the tackle was clearly reckless so he has to get a red"?

 

[Padfoot]

Ohhh, yes they can!

From the LOTG:

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

I think it is clear that most tackles which use excessive force are also reckless, I suppose that if you are deliberately trying to injure an opponent then you have taken into account the danger to, or consequences for the opponent and have acted accordingly so strictly speaking not reckless...

However, I also agree that someone like Hackett should be careful about his use of the word "reckless" as it has a specific meaning in the laws, one which is often mis-understood. How many times have you heard, "the tackle was clearly reckless so he has to get a red"?

Hence it becomes "dangerous".......

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Correct.

However, my consideration if a tackle is 2 footed is that the player cannot possibly be in control of his actions, either force, trajectory or point of impact.

That's why two feet is a massive consideration in this particular case for me.

I've seen plenty of 2 footed tackles which are still conducted wholly as a slide. People automatically think '2 footed = jumping', which is just incorrect.

Even then though, the player has less control and if they get the player, are likely to hit harder with a bigger point of impact (and the bigger surface area facing the player means contact is more likely). That, and studs are showing as well. All things worth considering, but the argument that some on here put forwrd that 2 footed = red, even without contact, is simply incorrect.