I have no problem with a red here. I've never been a fan of the same bad behavior be judge upon the result and not the action itself.
I know that decisions shouldn't be based on injury inflicted but apparently the guy is going to be out of action a few weeks due to the injury he sustained in the tackle, guess that mean there was actual contact. Here's a link -> http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11750/7536869/Hunt-I-didn-t-feign-injury
I have a problem with calls on behalf of players who step into a tackle a fraction late and get hit. It's a predictable outcome of the decision not to let up. But after looking at the replay a couple of times, I realize the ball is running away from Delap and by the time he actually catches up to it, it is he that is a fraction late and on the foot of Hunt. Great call, not sure if it's a red, but the rescission is really dumb.
That's why I love this board. That's why I love the game. I'm convinced it's not even a foul, and others a strongly sticking to the red. Lot's of good give and take.
I don't know if EVERYONE does. I know I do. And we all SHOULD. The sport IS inherently dangerous. But there's no reason to accept that tackles like this one will always be made. Tackles like this make the sport much more dangerous, and I don't see enough value in allowing tackles like this to remain in what we all like to call The Beautiful Game. Great clip. An absolute horror tackle and definitely shows how different the game is now, 30 years later. My personal style as a referee is to let the players play. I like to see crunching tackles, physical play, and all that -- as long as it is fair, players trying to win the ball in a safe manner, etc. I have no problem letting the game be played in a much more physical manner than most other referees I see. Even so, I have a strong distaste for tackles like this Delap one. It's a crap challenge. That's not a safe way to make a slide tackle. Does it look like a slam-dunk red card to me? No. I'm a bit undecided on what I think the punishment should be. As Jayhonk astutely pointed out, 1 angle makes it look like a clear red card and another angle makes it look like nothing. It's definitely not as bad as some of the other straight-leg, studs up tackles we discuss on these forums. But it certainly wasn't the right way to try and win that ball, no matter in what country the game was played.
Rufus, I think you give too much credit to professional players. I don't care who the player is making that sort of challenge -- he is putting the opponent at risk. Delap has no way to be 100% sure, or even a high degree of probability, of making the challenge without injuring the opponent. By the very nature of the way he comes in -- so hard, straight toward/thru the other player (and yes, I realize the ball is there too, but at some point that's not enough), studs up and well off the ground, sliding all the way thru the zone where the ball and opponent are located...it is a recipe for disaster. The fact that he did NOT catch the player studs square into the shin, with full force, and snap the bone, was due to LUCK, not skill. Just because a player is 'always going to be first' to the ball does NOT mean he has license to go in any way he pleases. I love hearing the English commentators use phrases like that, but I don't always agree that it absolves a player of responsibility or guilt. Nor does it mean it is the opponent's fault for being the 2nd man into the challenge. He has every right to contest for a ball that is not in anyone's possession. Are there times when it is dumb to challenge for a ball, when you put yourself in harm's way? Sure. But I don't see this example as one. What this challenge WAS an example of, was an aggressive, intimidation-type challenge designed to get other players to back away from 50/50 balls out of fear their leg might be snapped in half if they go in. And that bothers me. In my view, there is very very little gained by allowing tackles like this to continue being a part of this sport. As for the Everton/Chelsea Phil Neville challenge, I watched most of that match and I think I remember that tackle and was thinking during live play it was NOT a foul. There are some heavy, aggressive challenges that are ok in my book, and some that aren't. The Delap one was not ok.
You know, it didn't dawn on me until after I posted that the retaliation would be a 100% red card now today, too. It's pretty much exactly like the red card that Rooney got sent off for against Montenegro. So in this clip we have what are now a 100% SFP tackle and a 100% VC retaliation. Both would earn 3-match bans today. Both would probably also result in 5-6 players crowding the referee and demanding the red for each offence. I don't think it's absurd to say that this incident would start a mass confrontation in most top leagues around the world if it happened right now. In this clip, we get 1 yellow card and one half-hearted protest (from the player booked). Everyone walks away and play restarts. Is the game safer because we take a harder line today? Yes. Is it more enjoyable to watch? That's probably where the real debate lies. I think it is a fact that our instructions and the greater likelihood there is for us to make red card decisions have been partly--if not greatly--responsible for the increase in play-acting, referee crowding, and appealing for cards. If we're going to keep the hardline that's been established on tackles and retaliation, then we have to figure out a way--collectively, with support from the top--to start stamping out all the ugly by-products that have come with it.
I partially agree, but would submit it is moreso that coaches and players have decided to use referee's increased likelihood to sanction for these offenses within a game strategy, particularly when they're dealing with a defender already on a yellow. It's also that we as referees tolerate the crowding, etc. but that's a totally different, 100-post thread. The part I didn't bold about how to deal with it is, IMO, spot-on but will be interesting to implement.
Yep. But not just refs. It's also that we as a community (refs, players, coaches, boards, fans) tolerate the crowding... The first 99 of those posts will mention rugby
Obviously we can only make decisions based on what we know. When I saw the tackle, I thought: "Very scary, if he had made more (any?) contact, it could have been tragic." Then I start to go through the process of "What level of risk/reward is acceptable...." to decide if it's a foul, yc, rc. (Frankly, I see plenty of grey area. For me, it's probably a yellow. But I understand the "let the pros play" arguement.) If the newpaper can be believed (dunno, just saying, let's assume it can), then the full contact was there all along. It's just hard to see. Rufus, as the voice for no foul, does this change anything for you? 1) I assume that if you knew he broke a bone at that moment, you would say red. 2) But no one knew that. No one COULD know that. So, does anything change? 3) BTW, he says he had a puncture wound and blood all over his sock. Well, maybe the ref SHOULD have known THAT! (It might have been particularly embarrassing for me. Run in. Pull a yellow to show my displeasure with the risky tackle. Attend to the injured player and see blood all over him. Oops. Sorry folks. I pulled the wrong card. My mistake. Pull the red.)
Wonder what the FA has to say about that? When they rescinded the red card, does anyone know if they had a press release that said why?
OH YEAH!!!! I almost forgot about THAT!!! "Take that, you stupid ref! You give reds for artful tackles where there isn't even any contact. HOW INCOMPETENT! We are going to overrule you post-game and remove any shred of on-field authority you might have had left!" HAHAHAHA! MIKE10 was RIGHT! OK. Had to get that out of my system. Just kidding. The ref should now be allowed to rescind the FA's decision. What a mess.
Ref Crowding isn't something that is a new phenomenon. People think that it is only a recent development. It's been around for a while. See this. MassRef posted this on another thread and said that crowding the referee isn't something that just started happening. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVYWbDNEBT8&feature=player_embedded"]1985 F.A Cup Final - Man Utd 1 Everton 0 - Whiteside Wonder Goal - YouTube[/ame] Go look at the 1990 World Cup Final. One thing people forget is that we almost never see contact with officials in the Professional game anymore. In the old days it was a common phenomenon.
You're right that it's not a completely new phenomenon. And I did, indeed, point that out on another thread. But the two examples in your post are the first ever red card in an FA Cup Final and the first (and second) ever red card in a World Cup Final. Those are, I hope we agree, extraordinary moments in the sport's history. It's not a completely new phenomenon, but it's increased greatly in the last, say, 15 years. And it has seemed to coincide with changes to the Laws and our instructions that make us more likely to produce red cards. Maybe it has something to do with society and how things have changed overall, too. I'm sure there's a whole host of reasons. But I do think the pure increased likelihood of send offs has changed player behavior in this regard somewhat. And I don't think contact with referees was "common," years ago. You may be right, but it would take a lot of video evidence for me to accept that.
If Delap pulls out of thast tackle, do his teammates and manager think less of him? So, I think he has to make that tackle. Might not be what you want to hear, but I bet if we paneled a bunch of players on here, that's what they would say.
So what? OK, that's a bit excessively flip. But seriously, that can't be our criteria for deciding what is or is not permissible. Teammates and coaches might think less highly of a player for not knocking down a ball with his hands to prevent a developing attack, too -- but that's hardly a reason we don't give a yellow for the tactical foul. If he needs to do something unacceptable to the Game to earn the respect of his teammates, he also has to suffer the consequences of that decision.
Forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse, but.... If his teammates all knew he broke a bone in the guys foot, wouldn't they also agree he has to go? As long as the issue is in the subjunctive (he took a risk that "could have injured" his opponent), I see where "let the big boys play" can apply. Once it becomes the indicative (he took a risk and "did injure" his opponent), all arguements like "they are good enough to pull this off safely" or "they are willing to accept the risk" go out the window. Again, I'm not trying to trap you. Cuz no one on that field "knew". Just wondering if it colors your thinking at all.
I watch the EPL, La Liga, Serie A, and the Champions League on a regular basis and, apart from the EPL, those leagues/competitions don't seem to have a problem with tackling and horrible challenges on a week to week basis like the EPL. The type of tackle that Delap and others in the past month have made in the EPL almost never happen in Spain, Italy or in Europe on a weekly basis like in England. When they do the player get's sent off and there really is no complaint from anyone. Forget the fact whether this tackle is a red card or not, why is no one asking the question why did Delap even have to go to ground? It's not a promising attack or anything. If he makes a clean tackle all it will be is a throw in to the other team. What is he gaining from going in like that in that part of the pitch? It might be cliche and stereotyping soccer in continental Europe, but it is true to an extent. Players in Spain, Italy, Germany don't go in like Delap on a regular basis as they do in England. When they go to ground in the middle of the park they try to knick the ball to gain possession and start a promising attack or try to hook the ball away from the side. They don't try to clear the ball into the bleachers with their tackle like in England. Every week in England there is a player just taken out and people are debating whether it should be a red card or not. These debates don't arise in Spain or Italy or in the Champions League. In Italy there would be zero debate from coaches, and players about Delap's tackle being a red card. Yet Tony Pulis has to go and scream like a buffon. Why wasn't one of the coaches tossed for irresponsible behavior? One stepped well onto to the field demanding a red and Pulis almost got into a fight with the Crawley manager. Is there some rule in England where managers or people in the technical area can not be dismissed? Just like a player somehow can not get a red card for abusive language.
Not taking Rufusbac's side, but I do want to debate this honestly (and from a player's perspective). I don't think he can make that tackle without the knee locked and not without the foot raised initially. What I'm saying is, to reach the ball before his opponent plays it, he has to really stretch to get there in time. And that involves extending your body to the fullest, which means his knee is going to be locked and his leg is going to be raised as he starts the challenge. The studs showing are a bit of a different story; it's probably natural to have your foot in that position, but you can discipline yourself to lower your toe... it's just that, at that point, you feel less protected yourself and less prepared for contact. None of that is to say I defend the tackle. The simple answer should be obvious: if you can't get there without making that sort of challenge, then don't make a sliding challenge at all. But I do think it's unrealistic and it furthers the disconnect between us and players when we say "he can make that tackle..." and then put a bunch of stipulations in. That tackle's goal was to get the ball before the opponent played it and, given the distance and timing involved, there really was only one way to make it. The question isn't how to make it differently, it's whether he should make it at all in the first place.
I disagree. A player is best to judge if and when he can or should make a tackle. It is his responsibility to do it in accordance with the rules. We, as officials, have to power to determine the latter, but not the former.
I'm not sure we disagree--at least not now, with what you said. All I'm saying is that no professional player would go into that situation with a sliding tackle unless he made it like Delap did. He barely got to the ball in time as it was... there would be no point to even make a sliding tackle if you knew you weren't going to get there. And adding the conditions that you initially had (no locked knee, no raised leg) would have made it impossible to get there and I think any professional player would recognize that. Of course a player is best to judge if he can make a legal tackle and whether he could. But the post you made which I was responding to declares that he could have made a legal tackle in this case and I don't believe that's true--at least not an effective one, which defeats the purpose of making a slide tackle in the first place. Reading your post, I think the confusion is that you think I was implying, as a referee, that I don't believe he should make a tackle there. That's not what I was saying at all. Just trying to be realistic about how players see things like this. If they know they won't get to the ball, then they're not going to slide (unless they really have nefarious motives): there's no point in committing yourself to ground if you know you're not going to get the ball.
Yes, they most likely do. But as someone else already pointed out...so what? If he's gonna tackle like that, he needs to be prepared to face the consequences. Which type of players are you referring to? You mean folks on the BigSoccer boards who play the game? Specifically players who do NOT referee? Many of us referees are/were players, and some of us played at a pretty good standard. I wonder how different the answers might be coming from players who also referee vs. players who don't referee. The only reason Delap 'has to make' that tackle in that manner is *if* he, his teammates, and/or his manager feel that the benefit of making that sort of intimidating challenge in the middle third of the field outweighs the risk of what could happen if he is penalized. In this case, I'd say he gambled and lost.
And then won. Perhaps some of those "players" who want to see this sort of challenge were on the review panel?