Two Footed Tackles

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe · by **Smoking Kills Dancing Doe** » 28 Dec 2007 15:46

Didn't know where else to put this.

Graham Poll in The Mail today says Bryn should be banned for 8 games.

I almost crashed on the way home from West Ham hearing Stan Collymore going on about how 10 years ago no one tackled with 2 feet.

So is this a nasty part of the modern game as the media seem to think? Or like me, do you remember the 70's and 80's when tackles were 100x worse than they are today?

Imo this is all because Ronaldo and Drogba have stopped diving and the papers need to fill their column inches. The problem is, we're going to keep seeing players sent off for nothing tackles and game after game is going to be ruined.

The worse thing is, this is not going to stop. Because for some reason people actually listen to idiots like Alan Green and the Motd crew and not people like Coppell, who actually know what they are talking about.

Katie Marsden · by **Katie Marsden** » 28 Dec 2007 15:56

Sorry, you can't defend tackles like we saw from Gunnarrson and Carvalho on Boxing Day.

Certain fans are quick to call divers cheats, yet often the same people think two footed challenges are part of the game.

The reason English football had little top foreign players in the past was down to attitudes like that.

chilipepper91 · by **chilipepper91** » 28 Dec 2007 16:13

Like hand-ball, where do you draw the line? If the tackler gets the ball? If the other player is lying in a heap with his leg broken in two?

Two-footed tackles are impossible to control. IMO, straight red, 3 game ban. Not 8 like Poll seems to want. 8 is ridiculous.

Compo's Hat · by **Compo's Hat** » 28 Dec 2007 16:41

As it's the most likely way of ending someones career or putting them on the sidelines for a while, it should be an instant red and three match ban, which is long enough i reckon.

Arch · by **Arch** » 28 Dec 2007 16:44

Although Bryn's talking about getting back to playing quickly, in effect a three match ban has a 50/50 chance of turning into a long stay in the wilderness. If Cisse nails that spot down, Bryn may be back to cameo roles because of that tackle.

bobby1413 · by **bobby1413** » 28 Dec 2007 16:44

Compo's Hat wrote:As it's the most likely way of ending someones career or putting them on the sidelines for a while, it should be an instant red and three match ban, which is long enough i reckon.

Yep, I agree. I also think the FA should be more involved with decisions. E.g. Like when bryn was sent off - that's a fair decision, but I think if it was malicious, and there was malice there, the FA should have give suitable punishment.

E.g.

No malice like bryn - red card, couple game ban or something
Malicious and not even going for the ball - 5+ game ban

As you said, we are, in the extreme circumstances, talking about ending someone's career with a thoughtless/irresponsible challenge.

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe · by **Smoking Kills Dancing Doe** » 28 Dec 2007 16:47

But what's changed this season to make a tackle that was a yellow at most, a straight red card?

There just seems to be a nasty obsession with the modern media to villanise a certain aspect of the game. Last season it was diving, now it's two footed tackles. What will it be next?

I want to see common sense prevail and refs to understand the difference between a two footed tackle and a dangerous tackle.

Compo's Hat · by **Compo's Hat** » 28 Dec 2007 16:57

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe wrote:But what's changed this season to make a tackle that was a yellow at most, a straight red card?

There just seems to be a nasty obsession with the modern media to villanise a certain aspect of the game. Last season it was diving, now it's two footed tackles. What will it be next?

I want to see common sense prevail and refs to understand the difference between a two footed tackle and a dangerous tackle.

One of the roles of the referee is to protect the players. If you look over the past month compared to last season i think you'll find that there has been a sharp increase in these kind of tackles.

Diving is still going on and referees have a difficult job deciding weather contact was made in some incidents. Personally if it's 100% clear that the player dived, then the FA video review panal should ban them for a game. Diving would quickly become less likely to happen then.

soggy biscuit · by **soggy biscuit** » 28 Dec 2007 17:17

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe wrote:But what's changed this season to make a tackle that was a yellow at most, a straight red card?

There just seems to be a nasty obsession with the modern media to villanise a certain aspect of the game. Last season it was diving, now it's two footed tackles. What will it be next?

I want to see common sense prevail and refs to understand the difference between a two footed tackle and a dangerous tackle.

It is one of the focusses that referee's have this season. They have things that they will focus on more each season and 2 footed tackles was one for this season. All Premier League & Football league officials attend conferences in the summer where they go over these things and they watched video's of the kind of things to look out for. It was stated that if a player has both feet off the ground then he is no longer in control of himself and it is a dangerous tackle resulting in a red card.

Officials also visit every club during pre season to go over these things so managers and players are well aware of the consequences before they commit a foul like this.

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe · by **Smoking Kills Dancing Doe** » 28 Dec 2007 17:36

I just don't think we'd see the reactions to these tackles if it wasn't for media hype.

Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way.

I just don't understand how people think it's a modern thing.

Maybe it's because players are bigger and stronger and these tackles have a greater effect.

Still think it's an interesting debate and one we only seem to hear one side of from the media..

floyd__streete · by **floyd__streete** » 28 Dec 2007 18:25

Smoking Kills Dancing Doe wrote: Graham Poll in The Mail today says Bryn should be banned for 8 games.

Graham Poll reinventing himself as a rent-a-quote pundit is one of the less gratifying aspects of his otherwise very welcome retirement. Once upon a time an excellent referee who believed his own hype and became a bit of a joke in his last year of officialdom. He'll be disappointed to be told that he is no great loss to the game, just as his opinions are of no great interest.

Tredder · by **Tredder** » 28 Dec 2007 18:48

It doesn't matter whether refs are given this tackle as one to watch or not, the bottom line is, it's a career threatening challenge and i agree with Kitson, it's one of a coward.

From Despair To Where? · by **From Despair To Where?** » 28 Dec 2007 19:05

There needs to be an panel to review dangerous challenges and bookings. Unfortunately, the FA are too busy making judgements on the really important issues like whether the ball brushing the defender's arse on the way in makes it an own goal or not. Dubious goals or dubious challenges? What's more important?

shadesrwrf · by **shadesrwrf** » 28 Dec 2007 20:45

Suddenly everyone's doing them.

No, guess what, they've always been done and are not uncommon. This has the potential to become farcical.

Tredder · by **Tredder** » 28 Dec 2007 20:52

Maybe not, but are they right?

shadesrwrf · by **shadesrwrf** » 28 Dec 2007 20:58

Tredder wrote:Maybe not, but are they right?

Well, commonsense says no. But I've got this niggling thought at the back of my head that says it's not quite as clear cut as it seems.

readingbedding · by **readingbedding** » 28 Dec 2007 21:02

If it banned, it's banned.

No loss really, not too many great defenders come to my mind who were famous for their two footed tackles.

It reeks of frustration.

The point for me is whether the Referees will be as consistent as possible with two footed tackles in future.

Tredder · by **Tredder** » 28 Dec 2007 21:18

shadesrwrf wrote:
Tredder wrote:Maybe not, but are they right?
Well, commonsense says no. But I've got this niggling thought at the back of my head that says it's not quite as clear cut as it seems.

Two feet directly aimed at the ball/players legs = not right

Two feet off the ground aimed directly at the ball/players legs = 10 match ban

72 bus · by **72 bus** » 29 Dec 2007 00:08

Anything below Knee height is ok

Arch · by **Arch** » 29 Dec 2007 00:25

Tredder wrote:
shadesrwrf wrote:
Tredder wrote:Maybe not, but are they right?
Well, commonsense says no. But I've got this niggling thought at the back of my head that says it's not quite as clear cut as it seems.
Two feet directly aimed at the ball/players legs = not right

Two feet off the ground aimed directly at the ball/players legs = 10 match ban

How about two feet aimed directly at the balls?