Red card / yellow card / foul / no foul?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 43869
  • Start date
Ah reet, so Richarlison kicking the ball onto Tarkowski's foot is what getting the ball means even though that wasn't really Tarkowski's intention?

OK, just jesting and aye I'll agree that I worded that bit incorrectly as it's more along the lines of get the ball first which some people think means it's an OK challenge regardless. I expanded on it a bit more in my piss take of the non existent rule of "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent"

Tarkowski 'blocking' Richarlison's kick still means sweet FA in regards the way Tarkowski went in as it's obvious he wasn't going in for a block anyway.

To me, yes. If he slides in and the ball hits him before he hits the player it's not a foul. There's enough fouls that get given for 'contact with the player' when no challenge at all is made that the reverse has to apply or how does anyone actually defend?

I've never said 'gets to the ball first' and meant the defender hits the ball before the attacker. I've said get to the ball first to mean the defender hits the ball before hitting the attacker. Those are two distinct things.

If intention matters which I've never agreed it should necessarily then a player just standing still as an attacker runs into him shouldn't be given as a foul but in the top leagues always is. And players like Bruno Fernando's should be booked as soon as they walk on the field. You know he intends to dive. He says as much in interviews. Therefore book him straight away
I meant not in the direct that the player was going in, which indicates it wasn't exactly a clean tackle.

It looped up over richarlisons head and went out almost directly behind him.

So it depends on your definition of a clean tackle
 


I'd agree but fans have to accept that referees will make awful decisions due to having to make quick decisions at 100 mph, usually from a shit angle, often with a restricted view and under considerable pressure from fans and players. Half the time they have no choice but to guess.

It’s based on what you see.
There used to be penalties given for things they assumed happened, one in particular I can remember was Suarez diving. Things like that cannot happen now I suppose.
How far into VAR are we now and there’s still plenty talking points.

Let’s see where it takes us today.
 
This! Some people still think it's the 80's 🤪 It's not whether Tarkowski gets close to the ball amd barely touched the opponent, it's how the tackle is done and this is wreckless as another fraction of a second come mean serious injury.

Logon or register to see this image

On that picture, yellow. He's clearly played the ball well before any contact. and it's nowhere near too footed.
 
Also there are times when the ref gets it right as he's closer than the fans who think they are right. Mike Dean for example last night got it spot on when Almiron dived. The half wits in the stand ganin beserk

Not sure what Ive posted is relevant but it was a chance to have a dig at those twats so I took it.
Aye that was a good spot yet the ref missed the clear penalty for Leeds (baffling why VAR ignored it). That's because it's impossible to see everything in real time and from one unique viewing angle and the ref will sometimes make assumptions. This is often a different view when compared to what you can see from numerous camera angles in slow motion.

However even this incident gives a different perspective depending on camera angle as one angle makes it look like Tarkowski played for and cleared the ball away yet another shows how far away he is when Richarlison plays the ball and it simply deflects off Tarkowski.

To me, yes. If he slides in and the ball hits him before he hits the player it's not a foul.
For you maybe it's not even a foul but this thinking isn't a specific rule anywhere in the laws of the game.

On that picture, yellow. He's clearly played the ball well before any contact. and it's nowhere near too footed.
He plays the ball but that's because Richarlison has kicked it off him.

Going in 1 footed can still be seen as endangering an opponent within the laws of the game. The follow up of the straight leg with studs up towards an opponent's leg at height with speed and force is what should be considered.
 
A absolutely perfectly executed tackle taking ball and man, he has thundered in and if he missed a red card would be dished out, he has not missed he got the ball and then nailed the man with the follow through to me that’s perfect, you cannot just stop your momentum when you tackle after you have touched the ball
 
A absolutely perfectly executed tackle taking ball and man, he has thundered in and if he missed a red card would be dished out, he has not missed he got the ball and then nailed the man with the follow through to me that’s perfect, you cannot just stop your momentum when you tackle after you have touched the ball
Richarlison played the ball when Tarkowski was a yard away so a mistimed tackle in my opininon.

Again as I said earlier I'm yet to see the rule that states "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent". The rules these days are all more about how much the player clatters into the opponent and far less, if anything of him getting the ball.
 
Richarlison played the ball when Tarkowski was a yard away so a mistimed tackle in my opininon.

Again as I said earlier I'm yet to see the rule that states "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent". The rules these days are all more about how much the player clatters into the opponent and far less, if anything of him getting the ball.
Richarlison played the ball when Tarkowski was a yard away so a mistimed tackle in my opininon.

Again as I said earlier I'm yet to see the rule that states "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent". The rules these days are all more about how much the player clatters into the opponent and far less, if anything of him getting the ball.
Ok so where do we draw the line? Your not allowed to touch a opponent when you tackle them? There is no way of measuring how hurt a opponent is by how much of a follow through there is, so it’s all the same to me if your not allowed to go in 100 percent your not allowed to make contact at all?
 
Last edited:
Ok so where do we draw the line? Your not allowed to touch a opponent when you tackle them? There is no way of measuring how hurt a opponent is by how much of a follow through there is, so it’s all the same to me if your not allowed to go in 100 percent your not allowed to make contact at all?
You can touch an opponent of course but if you look at the laws of the game it's about excessive force or endangering an opponent. It all comes down to opinion but looking at the timing of the challenge, the height of the foot, the force applied and the fact Richarlison pulled his leg away to protect himself then it's not exactly a perfectly executed tackle at all.

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.
 
You can touch an opponent of course but if you look at the laws of the game it's about excessive force or endangering an opponent. It all comes down to opinion but looking at the timing of the challenge, the height of the foot, the force applied and the fact Richarlison pulled his leg away to protect himself then it's not exactly a perfectly executed tackle at all.

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.
Excessive force is a kop out, to get the ball he had to be going in at that speed our he would not of got a touch on the ball, if we are saying we are not allowed to tackle like that because it was hard then ok I’ve no problem as long as every tackle that has a bit of umph about it is a sending off, there would be a game of 7 a side going on some weeks if that’s the case.
You cannot not put a tackle in because you might hit the player, if football ever gets to that stage then I feel sorry for the people watching as the game week in week out at the top level
 
For what it's worth, a hard but fair challenge for me. To tackle without making contact is very difficult, and these days the matter is complicated by players making a meal of it and pretending to be hurt ( we have seen a lot of this in our games in Div 1 ) Ricarlison must go down 'injured' 5 or 6 times per game. Once the balance of a game is altered, in this case favouring attackers, the whole game becomes different. The advantages given to batters in T20 has resulted in a quite different contest and I believe for the worse. Old school probably, but hard tackling is an integral part of the game, otherwise we'll end up with a larger version of five-a-side.
 
Aye that was a good spot yet the ref missed the clear penalty for Leeds (baffling why VAR ignored it). That's because it's impossible to see everything in real time and from one unique viewing angle and the ref will sometimes make assumptions. This is often a different view when compared to what you can see from numerous camera angles in slow motion.

However even this incident gives a different perspective depending on camera angle as one angle makes it look like Tarkowski played for and cleared the ball away yet another shows how far away he is when Richarlison plays the ball and it simply deflects off Tarkowski.


For you maybe it's not even a foul but this thinking isn't a specific rule anywhere in the laws of the game.


He plays the ball but that's because Richarlison has kicked it off him.

Going in 1 footed can still be seen as endangering an opponent within the laws of the game. The follow up of the straight leg with studs up towards an opponent's leg at height with speed and force is what should be considered.

Yes it is. I'm a referee. The specific rule says '
in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force'

In fact if you're talking the actual rule the referee in the game didn't think it was a foul and therefore it wasn't. That's what the rule says
 
A absolutely perfectly executed tackle taking ball and man, he has thundered in and if he missed a red card would be dished out, he has not missed he got the ball and then nailed the man with the follow through to me that’s perfect, you cannot just stop your momentum when you tackle after you have touched the ball
If he's taking ball and man then, whether you like it or not, it's a clear foul.
Yes it is. I'm a referee. The specific rule says '
in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force'

In fact if you're talking the actual rule the referee in the game didn't think it was a foul and therefore it wasn't. That's what the rule says
No rules.
 
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 ;)
Actually from this angle, you're right.
 
I genuinely thought Richarlison had flicked the ball away before Tarkowskis foot hit him
You thought correctly

Logon or register to see this image


Yes it is. I'm a referee. The specific rule says '
in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force'
Aye it is and this is what it says in that section.
  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
I quoted the SERIOUS FOUL PLAY part from the SENDING-OFF OFFENCES section as I think it was a red card due excessive force endangering the opponent for the reasons I've said a few times now. If Richarlison had planted his foot rather than pulling it away to protect himself and Tarkowski went through Richarlison's shin then most would be calling a red card and fuck knows what could have happened to Richarlison.

However it's the act of the challenge that is considered regardless of outcome as sometimes a perfectly good challenge can still end up with a player getting injured without a foul.

In fact if you're talking the actual rule the referee in the game didn't think it was a foul and therefore it wasn't. That's what the rule says
This is meaningless when this thread is about debating what should have been the correct decision and not the fact the ref didn't give a foul means it was the correct decision. I guess we should do away with VAR as how can they correct a correct decision? Of course I'm not talking about the correct rule being applied depending on what the referee thought last night.

You say you're a ref and earlier you said "To me, yes. If he slides in and the ball hits him before he hits the player it's not a foul". I'm glad I don't play competitive football anymore if this is the standard of thinking, especially given it was more luck the ball defelected off Tarkowski's foot given the yard away he was when Richarlison played the ball.

He was out of control, no way could he have had any idea if he was going to break his leg or not.

Red
This! It doesn't take much to imagine what would have happened if Richarlison simply planted his foot after kicking the ball rather than pull away to protect himself. I'm outta here now to focus on our game as what you just said is simply but effective ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A absolutely perfectly executed tackle taking ball and man, he has thundered in and if he missed a red card would be dished out, he has not missed he got the ball and then nailed the man with the follow through to me that’s perfect, you cannot just stop your momentum when you tackle after you have touched the ball

You can't just 'thunder in' knowing you're going to go through the man, regardless of whether you get the ball.

That's excessive force, reckless at best and dangerous at worst.

We'll never agree though as your point about 'feeling sorry' for football fans is the polar opposite of the way I see things. I'd feel sorry for football fans who celebrate a challenge like that which requires no real skill or talent of any sort.
 

Back
Top