Tackle “from behind”

[Rob Cully]

Had an incident today where “blue” right back receives the ball facing his own goal, “yellow” winger comes in from behind, wraps his leg round the side of him, clearly gets the ball but also gets the player. The contact with the player is from the side not through the back of him, although “yellow” got the ball he had to make contact to get it so I gave the foul, nothing else as I didn’t feel it was endangering “blues” safety as contact was from the side. Obviously I got a gob full from the parents, but just a question at the end about it by the blue coach asking if it should have been red card, player jumped up and got on with it.

My question I suppose is how do you decide if the tackle from behind might be endangering the players safety, and if it’s from the behind but coming around the player is it always endangering their safety?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Of course we need to see the tackle(s) to make our decisions

Without being set in stone, my own interpretation is along lines of,

general foul tackle from back where gets ball but not in a dangerous way, a kinda, natural contact tackle......foul
tackle from back where I think, its not jumping out at me as red but its a clear foul and enough force/speed to make me think about a card...yellow
tackle from back where all and sundry go "oft" , am not caring at that point about ball, I don't care at that point if the defender jumps str8 back to feet, is slightly hurt, or indeed is comatose, am going red.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Back in the day....... PLAY ON!!!!

 

[Big Cat]

No reference to tackle from behind in the LOTG, although I understand there once was

 

[PinnerPaul]

Amongst many idiotic (and eventually abusive) comments shouted from the sidelines yesterday was this gem " Doesn't matter if he got the ball, you can't tackle from behind"

 

[RobOda]

No reference to tackle from behind in the LOTG, although I understand there once was

I think the resident librarian @Peter Grove will have all the details and can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I could find dated back to 1998:

The International Football Association Board, holding its 112th meeting in Paris, decided upon the following addition to Law XII :

A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Acts of serious foul play are punishable by a red card.

I think its still sort of there today but they removed the direction of the tackle for the first clause so that it's simply about safety;

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

My question I suppose is how do you decide if the tackle from behind might be endangering the players safety, and if it’s from the behind but coming around the player is it always endangering their safety?

The speed of the challenge is the key thing for me, but also look for the height of the defender's leg and the force impacted. If it's a raised foot challenge, it likely is red (for me) even if no injury occurs, as the risk of a studding into the back of the leg, heel or foot is high. If it's from the behind-side, I'd be looking to see if it's a scissor action. I wouldn't say a tackle from that direction is always a red, but they're likely to be reckless at the very least and would need to be an exceptional (sliding) tackle to get away without committing a foul.

 

[Peter Grove]

I think the resident librarian @Peter Grove will have all the details and can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I could find dated back to 1998:

I think its still sort of there today but they removed the direction of the tackle for the first clause so that it's simply about safety;

That's right - mention of a tackle from behind was introduced in 1998 and removed in 2005. The 2005 wording simply removed the words "from behind" from the clause, so it then read:

A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play

 

[Ben448844]

That's right - mention of a tackle from behind was introduced in 1998 and removed in 2005. The 2005 wording simply removed the words "from behind" from the clause, so it then read:

I remember the laws about tackling from behind changing (I was a 14 year old playing for my local junior team and county team). The younger guys on here will find this hard to comprehend but tackles from behind went unpenalised if you got the ball. I'm not sure if that was law but that's how it was applied. The game benefited hugely from the change in the law. Receiving the ball at your feet with your back to goal now is no problem. Back then you knew that the were going to get clattered, it was easier just to run in behind for the long ball for your own safety! I think the back pass rule came in a few years previous too. This is the best law change to date.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I might be wrong and I dont have the facts to back it up, Mr Grove might, was the "tackle from the back" clamp down not introduced at the 98 World cup as folk were sick fed up as above, the more skillful players being targeted and hacked out the game?

Coincidence this was also Scotlands last appearance at the finals !!

 

[Ben448844]

I might be wrong and I dont have the facts to back it up, Mr Grove might, was the "tackle from the back" clamp down not introduced at the 98 World cup as folk were sick fed up as above, the more skillful players being targeted and hacked out the game?

Coincidence this was also Scotlands last appearance at the finals !!

I think you may well be correct. Without it's introduction and the subsequent crack downs on tackling and persistent infringements, football wouldn't be the possession based game it is today at the top level. It's a far better game than it used to be especially at junior and top levels.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

And again, without me having the cast iron facts, its usually a tournament where these directives are rolled out, so the whole world can see them
I don't think it took long for the message to get across and indeed is why we have the game we do today
Which begs the question ,could dissent be wiped out, or at least more regulated, with a "clamp down"

I feel it could. It just needs the powers to be to take the stance they did with the tackles..

Think about it...big tournament, players cautioned left right and centre for dissent and of course worse..
Then all we do at grass roots is carry it out, as footballers will have seen what happens on tv, so can't have any complaints when the same fate befalls them...

 

[Martiju]

The speed of the challenge is the key thing for me, but also look for the height of the defender's leg and the force impacted. If it's a raised foot challenge, it likely is red (for me) even if no injury occurs, as the risk of a studding into the back of the leg, heel or foot is high. If it's from the behind-side, I'd be looking to see if it's a scissor action. I wouldn't say a tackle from that direction is always a red, but they're likely to be reckless at the very least and would need to be an exceptional (sliding) tackle to get away without committing a foul.

Agreed. I also take into consideration the likelihood of making a fair challenge (ie. are they making a 'genuine' attempt to tackle) but also the level of control. This is then related to the standard test of 'reckless' or 'excessive force'.

 

[RustyRef]

It was brought in to get rid of the challenges where the defender comes straight through the back of the player, usually stud first and often causing serious Achilles and other injuries. As recently as the late 90s player's careers were frequently ended or shortened by such challenges that went unpunished or were just yellows and would be straight reds today.

 

[Ben448844]

"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.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

"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.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

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'!!!

 

[one]

And again, without me having the cast iron facts, its usually a tournament where these directives are rolled out, so the whole world can see them
I don't think it took long for the message to get across and indeed is why we have the game we do today
Which begs the question ,could dissent be wiped out, or at least more regulated, with a "clamp down"

I feel it could. It just needs the powers to be to take the stance they did with the tackles..

Think about it...big tournament, players cautioned left right and centre for dissent and of course worse..
Then all we do at grass roots is carry it out, as footballers will have seen what happens on tv, so can't have any complaints when the same fate befalls them...

The difference, clamp down on hacking kept the star players in the game and more money for the coffers from sponsors. Clamping down on dissent will put the stars out of the game and revolt from sponsors.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

The difference, clamp down on hacking kept the star players in the game and more money for the coffers from sponsors. Clamping down on dissent will put the stars out of the game and revolt from sponsors.

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.

 

[Peter Grove]

I might be wrong and I dont have the facts to back it up, Mr Grove might, was the "tackle from the back" clamp down not introduced at the 98 World cup as folk were sick fed up as above, the more skillful players being targeted and hacked out the game?

Well, it was introduced in 1998, just in time for the France '98 World Cup, so the first time most people would have seen the rule change being implemented was at that World Cup.

The 1998 IFAB Meeting minutes don't give a specific reason why it was introduced but I imagine it was indeed because the footballing authorities were fed up with the deleterious effects that the tackle from behind was having on the game.

 

[bloovee]

Amongst many idiotic (and eventually abusive) comments shouted from the sidelines yesterday was this gem " Doesn't matter if he got the ball, you can't tackle from behind"

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?