Given the angle of the players and the direction/location of the ball, Delap's options for winning the ball were limited. And I think I would agree that going straight-leg to try and get his foot on the ball was the most likely way for him to 'win the challenge' -- *IF* we define winning the challenge as 'getting to the ball first' and not worrying about possession should the ball go into touch, nor worrying about being called for a foul or penalized for misconduct. BUT...he did have options. He could've run left of where he did and dragged his right leg thru, trying to catch the ball with his foot or leg, and possibly upending the opponent. He might not have gotten there in time to do it, but even if he had missed the ball and tripped the opponent in this manner I don't think he'd have been looking at a card. This method also might have given Delap a chance to win the tackle even if the opponent touched the ball first. If he had been able to come in closer to perpendicular with the opponent, he could have done this the 'right' way by sliding with his right leg on the ground and the far leg -- the left leg -- coming off the ground, above the right leg -- to block the ball. I suppose I could agree that one of Delap's motives was to get the ball before the opponent played it. But there is clearly a large element of intimidation with tackles like this. Players don't tackle like this every single time. Some players NEVER tackle like this. The reason is because it's a risky thing to do. Injuring the opponent is a very real possibility, and failing to win the ball also is a very real possibility. More than anything, this tackle was meant to intimidate the opponents.
No kidding! At best, the appeal was a partial victory...his team still played short and had to rely on other scoring options with Mr. Long Throw-in off.
Intimidation. Putting fear in the opponents' heads, so they may think twice next time and end up not challenging for a ball because they fear a broken leg.
Agreed. Just looking at it, from the distance he was coming from, I don't think these other two were viable options in this particular case. But I certainly concede this is a grey area and, if he had been any closer, I'd agree completely. I think the real viable option was to just stand his ground and mark his opponent after he distributed it. There was no real need to make a challenge and go to ground at all. Agreed. It just looked/felt to me like Delap was unlucky here and wasn't try to "do" his opponent, as we sometimes say. Felt and looked like an honest challenge, yet a dangerous one and one that he could have chosen to not make. Nothing I am saying here should be construed as believing it's not a foul or not a red card, as Rufusbac has argued. I'm just trying to explore the thought processes of a player who opts to make this challenge. I think this would be our only true disagreement. I think a lot of tackles that look like this are absolutely designed to intimidate opponents foremost. Neither of us can get into Delap's head here, so we're both ultimately guessing, but I just don't think this particular one was primarily made for that reason--or for that reason at all, really.
While I agree Delap probably WAS trying to win the ball, and this one doesn't look as ill-intentioned as many we discuss on these forums, I don't know if I would say he was 'unlucky.' Everybody knows that bad things can happen when a player makes a tackle of this nature. In this case, they did. I think ANY tackle with the general characteristics that this one contained -- speed, distance, direction (going straight thru the other player), intensity, studs, locked knee -- has an element of intimidation. By definition. To me, taking my above statement as true helps to explain WHY Delap chose to go in like this. He had to know there was a decent chance of not winning the ball, or winning the ball but being penalized. He had to know it made a lot of sense to stay on his feet and prevent the opponent from dribbling with penetration. He had to know he could've slid in to the tackle in other, safer ways if he was dead-set on trying to tackle and win the ball. And yet, he chose to make a very aggressive slide tackle anyway. Why? In my opinion, because the element of intimidation carries enough value to make it worth tackling like this sometimes. If there was no value in intimidating opponents, then there would be less reason to challenge like this. By itself, the chance of Delap getting there first and knocking the ball over the touch line so the other team can take the throw-in really isn't enough reason to tackle like he did. Without the intimidation factor, it makes no sense to tackle like this.
I would say there are probably 5-6 tackles like this in every pro match. I'm not going to continue arguing about right or wrong here because some of you have been very convincing and to be honest, I'm slightly busy today. Again, I like this board a lot. And a whole bunch of you have parsed this better than I can. Therefore, I'm leaving it as is for now. Thanks for all the responses, and thanks for the tone of the discourse. However, I still miss Liquid Yogi. When is his ban up?
My guess is that he gets caught up in chasing the ball, and as he realizes it's slipping away he feels he must "do something". Tactically it seems a pointless challenge, so it's either that or, as bluedevils says, intimidation.