Spa - Eng

[Sheffields Finest]

In all honesty I wouldn't have carded for this at my level (although I understand the modern reasoning that its reckless as per current LOTG). Its not really our business to disagree with the laws only to impose them....I've seen far worse than this, far far worse. A card just isn't expected if you take the ball first!!! Right or wrong, thats how it was!!!

 

[JH]

In all honesty I wouldn't have carded for this at my level (although I understand the modern reasoning that its reckless as per current LOTG). Its not really our business to disagree with the laws only to impose them....I've seen far worse than this, far far worse. A card just isn't expected if you take the ball first!!! Right or wrong, thats how it was!!!

I agree it isn't expected and I probably wouldn't be carding at Sunday league but I think that is just us pandering to players and managers. They are the ones who don't expect a card here and that shouldn't really influence the decision.

 

[JamesL]

Part of the reason they dont expect it is because there are still referees who point at the ball followi g "robust" challenges.
This is an area that needs a mindset change so that it becomes expected.

 

[one]

Part of the reason they dont expect it is because there are still referees who point at the ball followi g "robust" challenges.
This is an area that needs a mindset change so that it becomes expected.

And I see it in EPL too. And some also actually say "he got the ball" . Other referees see this and learn from it and we go round and round. That's where "I got the ball ref" comes from.

The solution is really simple. There is an appeal and you don't think it's a foul. Just yell out "fair challenge" (forget about the ball).

 

[RustyRef]

And I see it in EPL too. And some also actually say "he got the ball" . Other referees see this and learn from it and we go round and round. That's where "I got the ball ref" comes from.

The solution is really simple. There is an appeal and you don't think it's a foul. Just yell out "fair challenge" (forget about the ball).

Agree, if I'm observing and see referees point at the ball to say it was a fair challenge I pick them up on it as that is sending out the wrong message. By all means shout fair challenge, but don't point at the ball as the next time the player might win the ball but then snap his opponent in half.

 

[JH]

Agree, if I'm observing and see referees point at the ball to say it was a fair challenge I pick them up on it as that is sending out the wrong message. By all means shout fair challenge, but don't point at the ball as the next time the player might win the ball but then snap his opponent in half.

Never thought of that. Very guilty of pointing to the ball, because it works most of the time and sells the decision. Good point though.

 

[RustyRef]

Never thought of that. Very guilty of pointing to the ball, because it works most of the time and sells the decision. Good point though.

Sells that one decision but sets you up for a fall on the next one when the player wins the ball but you penalise him for a foul.

 

[Ben448844]

Yep. And the trailing leg going through the player was 100% unnecessary

Whilst I agree that in the modern laws, it was a foul and a reckless tackle, it's more for the nature of the studs showing for me. I am thinking like a player here (not always a bad thing imo), but the whole issue with the 'trailing leg' in modern football is a bit of a falicy. Having slid to win the ball, at some point the trailing leg has to come through, it's just natural movement of your body to get both legs pointing the same way as your coming to a stop! You don't stop a slide tackle from front on with one leg pointing forward and one not, it just isn't how your body reacts.

To reiterate, it's a foul and a yellow card for the reckless tackle but I'm not having the trailing leg argument that seems to be popular these days. Scissor tackles from the side (deliberate bring through of the trailing leg) absolutely should be harshly treated but the danger in the tackle like Maguires is nothing to do with the trailing leg, it's the front leg that will cause injury. Having made Many of them tackles when you could do so,you don't even consider your back leg at all, it's all about the first impact on the ball/player

 

[RustyRef]

Whilst I agree that in the modern laws, it was a foul and a reckless tackle, it's more for the nature of the studs showing for me. I am thinking like a player here (not always a bad thing imo), but the whole issue with the 'trailing leg' in modern football is a bit of a falicy. Having slid to win the ball, at some point the trailing leg has to come through, it's just natural movement of your body to get both legs pointing the same way as your coming to a stop! You don't stop a slide tackle from front on with one leg pointing forward and one not, it just isn't how your body reacts.

To reiterate, it's a foul and a yellow card for the reckless tackle but I'm not having the trailing leg argument that seems to be popular these days. Scissor tackles from the side (deliberate bring through of the trailing leg) absolutely should be harshly treated but the danger in the tackle like Maguires is nothing to do with the trailing leg, it's the front leg that will cause injury. Having made Many of them tackles when you could do so,you don't even consider your back leg at all, it's all about the first impact on the ball/player

Times have changed whether you like it or not, and wiping someone out with the trailing leg makes the challenge at minimum careless, and when it is done at high speed like Dier does it becomes reckless.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

John Fleck did one of these last season, the referee got dogs abuse all game but he won the ball but completely cleaned the man out and got sent off. Old school challenges don’t wash anymore unfortunately.

 

[markref]

I almost got to the point of sending off a fellow referee because of exactly this point!

His team were playing the top team in the league. One of their players had the ball, and was challenged from the side by the opposition hard man - nasty piece of work. He jumped in to the challenge with straight legs, two footed. The right leg took the ball, while the left was aimed at the player's ankle, and took him hard on the ball of the joint. His team all shouted out "great challenge!" because he obviously got the ball first. I was 5 yards away and he obviously intended to hurt the player because of the way he jumped in to the challenge. He thought as long as he got the ball first he could break the opponent's legs. He was walking all day long. The player was badly injured, and required an ambulance / hospital treatment.

After the game the goalkeeper, who is a qualified referee, came up to shake my hand but put in "I thought that was harsh - he clearly took the ball! I'm a referee, so I know!" when his team mate had been badly injured. Even though I explained that merely playing the ball does not allow you to break a player he wasn't having it, and got so heated about it that I had to get his captain in to remove him before he got to the point where I had to send him off. He was young and newly qualified, and I think he'd seen other refs who thought this so believed it himself.

He obviously asked other referees about it, because when I saw him a few months later he understood.

 

[Ben448844]

Times have changed whether you like it or not, and wiping someone out with the trailing leg makes the challenge at minimum careless, and when it is done at high speed like Dier does it becomes reckless.

I understand that times have changed and I'm all for it. That wasn't my point.

My point was that the trailing leg issue which my original comment was referring to is a red herring in these types of tackles

 

[RustyRef]

I understand that times have changed and I'm all for it. That wasn't my point.

My point was that the trailing leg issue which my original comment was referring to is a red herring in these types of tackles

No it isn't. With a challenge at that speed if you make contact on the opponent with your leading leg you almost certainly walk, whack the opponent with the trailing leg and it will be almost impossible to avoid a caution. Dier himself has since said that he knew he was doing wrong and just wanted to "leave a marker", and Southgate needs to have a word with him. You can't have a hard tackling midfielder getting a stupid caution for tacking an opponent where there is no danger as he is in his own area.

 

[Ben448844]

Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't a reckless challenge. I fully agree that it was a yellow card as a minimum. I highlighted the issue on a previous post regarding trailing leg. When u watch the tackle, all the danger is with the front leg there, it's possibly even a red card for excessive force imo but I'm happy with the yellow. Dier lunged with the front leg to "leave a marker" and you can't lunge at that speed and from that distance without your traling leg following. But there's no danger with the trailing leg and I'm concentrating on the front leg with the studs up on whether to give a yellow or red card.

 

[RustyRef]

Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't a reckless challenge. I fully agree that it was a yellow card as a minimum. I highlighted the issue on a previous post regarding trailing leg. When u watch the tackle, all the danger is with the front leg there, it's possibly even a red card for excessive force imo but I'm happy with the yellow. Dier lunged with the front leg to "leave a marker" and you can't lunge at that speed and from that distance without your traling leg following. But there's no danger with the trailing leg and I'm concentrating on the front leg with the studs up on whether to give a yellow or red card.

But that is the point I am making where I think you are wrong in this respect. If you only watch the front leg and deem that to be safe, you risk missing the trailing leg which is the one that causes the damage. The whole argument here from many pundits and spectators is he won the ball, which he did with his lead leg, but his trailing leg then totally wiped out Ramos. You can't just concentrate on the leading leg, you have to look at the challenge in its entirety.

 

[Ben448844]

But that is the point I am making where I think you are wrong in this respect. If you only watch the front leg and deem that to be safe, you risk missing the trailing leg which is the one that causes the damage. The whole argument here from many pundits and spectators is he won the ball, which he did with his lead leg, but his trailing leg then totally wiped out Ramos. You can't just concentrate on the leading leg, you have to look at the challenge in its entirety.

I certainly haven't deemed it to be safe. In this instance the foul is for a reckless challenge from the front leg. The early point to which i replied was regarding the trailing leg, which is a complete non entity in this instance imo

 

[Big Cat]

I certainly haven't deemed it to be safe. In this instance the foul is for a reckless challenge from the front leg. The early point to which i replied was regarding the trailing leg, which is a complete non entity in this instance imo

I can see the point you're making, but your extensive experience and insight as a player won't count for much on here. I'd assert that the law makers are not ex-players, which is a shame for the game

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I certainly haven't deemed it to be safe. In this instance the foul is for a reckless challenge from the front leg. The early point to which i replied was regarding the trailing leg, which is a complete non entity in this instance imo

How is the trailing leg a non entity when it's the trailing leg that cleans him up?

. I am thinking like a player here (not always a bad thing imo), but the whole issue with the 'trailing leg' in modern football is a bit of a falicy. Having slid to win the ball, at some point the trailing leg has to come through, it's just natural movement of your body to get both legs pointing the same way as your coming to a stop! You don't stop a slide tackle from front on with one leg pointing forward and one not, it just isn't how your body reacts.

1)The front and rear legs weren't really pointing the same way. Sliding properly, the bottom leg should be mostly underneath your body, not leaving much behind. This one, the trailing leg is completely behind the body, sticking right out behind. It's either a highly incompetent challenge, or a deliberate and cynical foul
2) it's the defender's responsibility to make the challenge safely. All these 'natural movement' comments of yours....no, defender's responsibility.
3) Also, no reason for the defender to be sliding in that direction facing away from the attacker. Had he faced towards the attacker (as you usually would on a slide), there's no trailing leg problem.

 

[Ben448844]

1) it is a deliberate foul, i couldnt have been clearer on that

2) I don't disagree, it is impossible for your trailing leg not to come through when you've extended your front leg fully, unless you're made out of elastic

3) the danger is the studs up. He misses the ball it's a potential broken leg, it's certainly going to be painful. When you see studs up you immediately leave the floor to lessen any blow, that's just instinct. Its incredibly rare to get an injury from a trailing leg from a front on tackle, mainly because you're in the air avoiding the front foot.

Again, to repeat myself, I fully endorse the laws regarding these types of challenges and absolutely agree that it's at least a yellow card (I'm not sure things been read or fully understood). My issue, as highlighted in my original response, is regarding the over emphasis on the trailing leg on these types of tackles. Its an afterthought and it's far less dangerous than the main force of the challenge, which is the front leg with the studs up.

Big Cat, my playing experience is extensive and I've played supply league and never really got anywhere, and I've played about 1000 games at amateur level, most of it at the upper echelons. I've won 2 county cups so I had a decent enough amateur career but I wouldn't like people to believe I've had any sort of 'career' as a footballer. 95% of the time I was paying to play, not the other way around lol.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

1
2) I don't disagree, it is impossible for your trailing leg not to come through when you've extended your front leg fully, unless you're made out of elastic
.

Nonsense, trailing leg should be mostly underneath the top leg, tucked underneath. And that still doesn't address the other comments I made - the trailing leg is an issue and one you need to be very well aware of.

Even IF the trailing leg is an afterthought, that's STILL the defender's fault - afterthought doesn't mean it's not careless at minimum. In fact 'not thinking about it' would seem to fit the definition of careless