RefSix

Tackle “from behind”

#22
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.
And yet other sports with big, big money involved don't corrupt themselves like that and don't have the culture of abuse. Amazing.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#23
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?
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.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#25
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.
There is now.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#27
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?
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.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#29
There was before, while and after the tackle from behind class was in the laws.
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.

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.
It's not selective if we're talking about when the phrase came into being.

And I think this from FIFA shows that the phrase did originate with the 1998 amendment. 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.
https://www.fifa.com/development/news/y=1998/m=3/news=fifa-crack-down-tackle-from-behind-70380.html
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
#30
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.
This got me interested.
I have a 2002 version and a 1997 version. It does not appear in 1997. It's in 2002 version for both tackle from behind and in the addition guidelines section at the back as part of defining SFP which is very similar to the current definition.
I know that tackle from behind was introduced in 1998. I couldn't tell when the current definition for SFP was included.
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
#31
Correct. Introduced in 1998 to coincide with the world cup. A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of a player is considered SFP. Football is a much better game because of this law change.
 
#32
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.
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.
 
#33
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'!!!
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.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#35
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
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)
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#36
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


To be fair, without the occasional dodgy tackle here, we would have no game!
 
#38
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.
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)?
 
Last edited:
#39
"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.
I have, on appropriate occasions, answered with "you did--that's why I didn't caution you."

But I don't think getting the ball has become irrelevant--not getting the ball makes it more likely something was a foul and more likely that it was reckless. Yes, it's different than the vision players sometimes have that touching the ball is a get out of jail free card, but it isn't wholly irrelevant.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#40
Despite it not being a factor (in Law) whatsoever, we all know winning the ball has a significant influence on the referee's decision
 
Top