Red card / yellow card / foul / no foul?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 43869
  • Start date


gipetto said:
A contact sport in what sense though? You often see this banded about to defend over the top challenges. It's not a contact sport in the sense you can go straight through a player and smash into their foot with your boot.
Click to expand...

If you get the ball and wipe the bloke out through your momentum in winning the ball, that should be fair enough.
 
That’s a good challenge.

He clearly takes the ball and then his follow through takes the man.

Richarlison wasn’t injured was he?

Injuries often aren’t down to the severity of the challenge, as the Harvey Elliot injury proved. That was also never a red card.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I think it's fair. Isn't from behind, he isn't out of control (doesn't have both feet off the ground), gets the ball. If the ref thinks it's excessively strong (not sure that's in the laws mind) then I suppose I could see why he'd blow for a free kick, but it certainly isn't worth a card.

@Thunder Road what would you give?
Click to expand...

I personally think it's a red. It's the type of tackle that needs to be stopped.
He has went in with the intention of putting one on Richarlison and could have broken his leg very easily.

Excessive force is a red card offence in the laws of the game
 
Thunder Road said:
I personally think it's a red. It's the type of tackle that needs to be stopped.
He has went in with the intention of putting one on Richarlison and could have broken his leg very easily.

Excessive force is a red card offence in the laws of the game
Click to expand...

Looks to me like his intention was to get there as quick as possible to avoid being done for pace by the faster player.
 
Scunny Dan said:
May as well be a non-contact sport. "Excessive force" ffs.
Click to expand...

It's the way it is. He didn't need to go in the way he did and could have easily injured the opponent
Edinburgh Black Cat said:
Looks to me like his intention was to get there as quick as possible to avoid being done for pace by the faster player.
Click to expand...

Only the player will know but that's how I saw it.
 
Last edited:
DieselBert said:
Exactly. I grew up watching Kevin Ball and John Kay, I loved them. When I played I used to thunder into tackles. 10 years after I last kicked a ball I've still got scars all over my shins but that tackle is meant to put one on him.
It's so much easier to jockey him down the line. Its like a last ditch lunge when a player has a shooting opportunity. It just seems odd to do that when he's on the touchline
Click to expand...
Thunder Road said:
It's the way it is. He didn't need to go in the way he did and could have easily injured the opponent
Click to expand...

When Tarkowski goes in, he knows what he's doing and he could not say that he may not do some serious damage. This stuff was lauded in the 80's (and worse prior to that like RItchie's tackle in '73 Final). It was even happening in 90's with Kevin Ball but 20 years later it's a lot tamer.

Looking at the the laws again, how much Tarkowski endangered Richarlison needs to considered.

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.

I'll put one thing to bed and that's who got the ball as some people are saying Tarkowski clearly got the ball. They're completely mistaken as it's Richarlison who kicks it onto Tarkowski's foot who is still about a yard away so fuck knows what they are watching this on (Nokia 3310 perhaps?) 🤪 So that's one thing to consider overall which is just how far Tarkowski is away from the ball when it's played and it's a probably a yard.

Logon or register to see this image


This is yet another slowed down gif below but I will explain it in more detail as to what I see. Tarkowski has gone in with a straight leg leading with his studs up going in at an angle above ankle height to the point he'd meet Richarlison. The straight leg means the force of his momentum is going to be hard if he hits something. Given Tarkowski is in no way 100% sure he wouldn't clatter into Richarlison and this is the 2nd thing to consider.

The last thing to consider is that Richarlison's right leg is nearly straight after kicking the ball. He actually pulls his right foot back as he's anticpating contact as Tarkowski comes flying in. If Richarlison just planted his foot down then Tarkoswki would have hit Richarlison hard and we've seem what can happen. Tarkoswki doesn't know Richarlison is going to pull away or plant his foot.

Logon or register to see this image


This is another angle to show the ball being kicked by Richarlison and the height of Tarkowski's foot. This is probably why people think Tarkowski got the ball as the ball is coming directly to camera so it doesn't seem to move but above gifs clearly show a different perspective as to the timing of the tackle.



So as mentioned above, it's clear in this above gif if Richarlison had planted his foot rather than retract it just how high Tarkowski would have clattered into Richarlison's planted leg above the ankle. It's not about the possible outcome, it's about the intention, the actions etc. Given the timing of the tackle, the excessive force with outstretched straight leg at above ankle height which is clearly endangering Richarlison then it's a red card for me. Given the position of the players, was the tackle even neccesary in that wa as why not just go in but with foot a bit lower and not directly into player? It could have been a lot worse and there's no way Tarkowski could have known the consequences of his actions but he knew he was gonna go in hard.

Aye it's a long winded explanation some may scoff at but it's showing that the reason why these kinds of tackles aren't really part of the game any more as it's not the 1980's ;)
 
It comes down to what you want from football. Some people don't seem to want to see the best footballers thrive in modern football, they'd rather see them hacked down and hark back to days gone by where a challenge like that one may be deemed fair. They almost see advocating challenges like that as a badge of honour.

That's fine if you want the quality of football to suffer, but it's not something I want.
 
AC Mack said:
It comes down to what you want from football. Some people don't seem to want to see the best footballers thrive in modern football, they'd rather see them hacked down and hark back to days gone by where a challenge like that one may be deemed fair. They almost see advocating challenges like that as a badge of honour.

That's fine if you want the quality of football to suffer, but it's not something I want.
Click to expand...

You think football is more entertaining because tackling is almost outlawed? Couldn't disagree more.
 
MackemX said:
When Tarkowski goes in, he knows what he's doing and he could not say that he may not do some serious damage. This stuff was lauded in the 80's (and worse prior to that like RItchie's tackle in '73 Final). It was even happening in 90's with Kevin Ball but 20 years later it's a lot tamer.

Looking at the the laws again, how much Tarkowski endangered Richarlison needs to considered.

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.

I'll put one thing to bed and that's who got the ball as some people are saying Tarkowski clearly got the ball. They're completely mistaken as it's Richarlison who kicks it onto Tarkowski's foot who is still about a yard away so fuck knows what they are watching this on (Nokia 3310 perhaps?) 🤪 So that's one thing to consider overall which is just how far Tarkowski is away from the ball when it's played and it's a probably a yard.

Logon or register to see this image


This is yet another slowed down gif below but I will explain it in more detail as to what I see. Tarkowski has gone in with a straight leg leading with his studs up going in at an angle above ankle height to the point he'd meet Richarlison. The straight leg means the force of his momentum is going to be hard if he hits something. Given Tarkowski is in no way 100% sure he wouldn't clatter into Richarlison and this is the 2nd thing to consider.

The last thing to consider is that Richarlison's right leg is nearly straight after kicking the ball. He actually pulls his right foot back as he's anticpating contact as Tarkowski comes flying in. If Richarlison just planted his foot down then Tarkoswki would have hit Richarlison hard and we've seem what can happen. Tarkoswki doesn't know Richarlison is going to pull away or plant his foot.

Logon or register to see this image


This is another angle to show the ball being kicked by Richarlison and the height of Tarkowski's foot. This is probably why people think Tarkowski got the ball as the ball is coming directly to camera so it doesn't seem to move but above gifs clearly show a different perspective as to the timing of the tackle.



So as mentioned above, it's clear in this above gif if Richarlison had planted his foot rather than retract it just how high Tarkowski would have clattered into Richarlison's planted leg above the ankle. It's not about the possible outcome, it's about the intention, the actions etc. Given the timing of the tackle, the excessive force with outstretched straight leg at above ankle height which is clearly endangering Richarlison then it's a red card for me. Given the position of the players, was the tackle even neccesary in that wa as why not just go in but with foot a bit lower and not directly into player? It could have been a lot worse and there's no way Tarkowski could have known the consequences of his actions but he knew he was gonna go in hard.

Aye it's a long winded explanation some may scoff at but it's showing that the reason why these kinds of tackles aren't really part of the game any more as it's not the 1980's ;)
Click to expand...


That's what I wanted to say but couldn't be arsed to find the gifs!
 
MackemX said:
When Tarkowski goes in, he knows what he's doing and he could not say that he may not do some serious damage. This stuff was lauded in the 80's (and worse prior to that like RItchie's tackle in '73 Final). It was even happening in 90's with Kevin Ball but 20 years later it's a lot tamer.

Looking at the the laws again, how much Tarkowski endangered Richarlison needs to considered.

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.

I'll put one thing to bed and that's who got the ball as some people are saying Tarkowski clearly got the ball. They're completely mistaken as it's Richarlison who kicks it onto Tarkowski's foot who is still about a yard away so fuck knows what they are watching this on (Nokia 3310 perhaps?) 🤪 So that's one thing to consider overall which is just how far Tarkowski is away from the ball when it's played and it's a probably a yard.

Logon or register to see this image


This is yet another slowed down gif below but I will explain it in more detail as to what I see. Tarkowski has gone in with a straight leg leading with his studs up going in at an angle above ankle height to the point he'd meet Richarlison. The straight leg means the force of his momentum is going to be hard if he hits something. Given Tarkowski is in no way 100% sure he wouldn't clatter into Richarlison and this is the 2nd thing to consider.

The last thing to consider is that Richarlison's right leg is nearly straight after kicking the ball. He actually pulls his right foot back as he's anticpating contact as Tarkowski comes flying in. If Richarlison just planted his foot down then Tarkoswki would have hit Richarlison hard and we've seem what can happen. Tarkoswki doesn't know Richarlison is going to pull away or plant his foot.

Logon or register to see this image


This is another angle to show the ball being kicked by Richarlison and the height of Tarkowski's foot. This is probably why people think Tarkowski got the ball as the ball is coming directly to camera so it doesn't seem to move but above gifs clearly show a different perspective as to the timing of the tackle.



So as mentioned above, it's clear in this above gif if Richarlison had planted his foot rather than retract it just how high Tarkowski would have clattered into Richarlison's planted leg above the ankle. It's not about the possible outcome, it's about the intention, the actions etc. Given the timing of the tackle, the excessive force with outstretched straight leg at above ankle height which is clearly endangering Richarlison then it's a red card for me. Given the position of the players, was the tackle even neccesary in that wa as why not just go in but with foot a bit lower and not directly into player? It could have been a lot worse and there's no way Tarkowski could have known the consequences of his actions but he knew he was gonna go in hard.

Aye it's a long winded explanation some may scoff at but it's showing that the reason why these kinds of tackles aren't really part of the game any more as it's not the 1980's ;)
Click to expand...
Fantastic summary imo
 

Back
Top