"That" Daniel Ayala challenge

[Howson is now! 0]

So watching a stream online in real time I thought "he''s won the ball! There''s no way a defender could not win the ball that much closer to it than the striker."

Then watching the replays I thought "How on earth has he managed to go over the ball there? All he had to do was connect and it''s job done."

Now I''ve seen it from all angles and all the jazz that the tv cameras have to offer and I don''t think it was a red card simply because his left leg was nowhere near the player ( so not a two footed lunge?) and it just looked to be unbelievably clumsy rather than "excessive force" which would deem it a red.

Yet on MOTD, and goals on Sunday everyone seems to think it was a definite red, he''s lucky to still be on the pitch, and in Dennis Wise''s case ( yeah he should know the filthy get!) it was a leg breaker.

What do you guys think? I''ve tried to be as unbiased as possible and I think the ref got it right with a pen and a yellow for being reckless.

[Trent Canary 0]

Definite yellow for me. Crap tackle rather than malicious. Ayala didnt even need to leave his feet on this one.However MOTD did highlight the fact that it does not matter whether it is 1 or 2 footed, so by the letter of the law it does not make a difference and it could easily have been a Red; Although I think in that instance the ref decided a penalty was enough - If you watch Uniteds penalty yesterday it was a clear Red card but the ref didnt even book him.Incidentally it is very hard to perform a slide tackle with only 1 foot, would rather players just stayed on their feet, in the event that they lose the tackle then they are on their ass and not much use to anyone.

[Move Klose 303]

If he had of been given a red i don''t think we could of had any complaints. But the way last week went with Kompany & Glenn Johnson then who knows. Different refs see things differently than others. Its a matter of opinion. But that Glenn Johnson against Man City was pretty X-rated.

[Tim Dawson 0]

Didnt even think it was a yellow, he won the ball fairly, amazed at the fuss i really am

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Tim Dawson"]Didnt even think it was a yellow, he won the ball fairly, amazed at the fuss i really am[/quote]

He won the ball? Are we talking about the same tackle?

[Buncey 1]

It is considered a foul if and only if the tackle is either careless (a tackle without consideration for the opposing player), reckless (a tackle which has a possibility of seriously injuring a player) or is made with excessive force. Daniel Ayala''s tackle was none of those, and it was an incorrect decision.

[Howson is now! 0]

I couldn''t agree more Trent with regards to leaving his feet. All he had to do was stay strong and it was job done. Just make sure you kick harder than the other player.

Tim - you really think he won the ball? Hahaha.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Fellas"]It is considered a foul if and only if the tackle is either careless (a tackle without consideration for the opposing player), reckless (a tackle which has a possibility of seriously injuring a player) or is made with excessive force. Daniel Ayala''s tackle was none of those, and it was an incorrect decision.[/quote]Fellas - Did you mean to say booking/sending off rather than foul?

[Tim Dawson 0]

Watch it again in slow motion he touches the ball before the player, not even a foul, im gobsmacked you havent noticed, i can see why the ref gave a pen as first viewing and seen only once by him it looked bad, but defo won the ball

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Tim Dawson"]Watch it again in slow motion he touches the ball before the player, not even a foul, im gobsmacked you havent noticed, i can see why the ref gave a pen as first viewing and seen only once by him it looked bad, but defo won the ball[/quote]Your right he does slightly touch it, so by that token it was not a foul. But I am not sure we can argue that it was not a ''Careless'' tackle given he followed through right onto their player. By the letter of the law it was a definite penalty in my view and lucky not to be a Red. Whether I agree with the laws or not is an entirely different matter.Lets put it this way, if it was the other way round and it was not given then I am sure our away fans would be up in arms.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="Fellas"]It is considered a foul if and only if the tackle is either careless (a tackle without consideration for the opposing player), reckless (a tackle which has a possibility of seriously injuring a player) or is made with excessive force. Daniel Ayala''s tackle was none of those, and it was an incorrect decision.[/quote]Fellas - Did you mean to say booking/sending off rather than foul?[/quote]Checked the definition of a foul - Sorry you are right.Either way, I personally think it was Careless and pretty Reckless. Especially given he barely got the ball. As I said earlier, no need to even go off hs feet.

[Howson is now! 0]

I''ve just watched it again and he catches the ball with his calf after he''s already gone up over the ball and his foot is about 1ft past the ball. That''s not winning the ball in my opinion. That''s catching it after you''ve already flown past it and into a player.

I did think the sameness you the first time I saw it Tim as I said "he''s won the ball" because even in real time you see it bobble up in the air. But, As his foot has gone past the ball and into the player, it makes it a reckless tackle, a worthy yellow card, and not enough to warrant a red. In my opinion :-)

[NWC 240]

The thing for me is that it wasn''t as bad as Zak Knight''s challenge on Wellbeck yesterday. Knight only got a yellow as well.Saying that, I said at the time, and stick by it - Ayala should have walked for that poor, poor challenge.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

It''s not often I agree with SAF, but in his interview afterwards yesterday, he was spot on. The FA, or refs association or whoever need to put out a statement re exactly what is and what is not allowed, and refs should stick to it and be consistent.

 

The very fact that this thread exists and we are having this debate proves that clarification is needed urgently.

[BW 0]

It was a red and we were lucky end of

[Gingerpele 0]

From first view, I was surprised Ayala wasn''t sent off. It was a really reckless challenge, why did he go in with his foot out straight? Went over the top of the ball, maybe caught the ball a little before he made contact, but there is no way on earth you can say that was not a foul.

Didn''t deserve a red card though, yellow and penalty was fair.

If this had happened to one of our players, I bet a lot of people would have said it should have been a red and no one would have said it wasn''t a foul....

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="NWC"]The thing for me is that it wasn''t as bad as Zak Knight''s challenge on Wellbeck yesterday. Knight only got a yellow as well.Saying that, I said at the time, and stick by it - Ayala should have walked for that poor, poor challenge.[/quote]Must have missed the booking on that one - Either way that was the very definition of a goalscoring opportunity and I have no idea how it was not a red. Safe to say that if United had not won Fergie would have been apoplectic.Watched the Ayala one again just now, definite penalty again for me. 1 - He won the ball with his thigh way after his feet had missed it. 2 - His studs on his right foot were up and he was very lucky not to go right into the players shins. 3 - He dived in with a lot of force. So for me a very reckless and careless tackle. But agree to disagree with anyone who thinks it was not a foul.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Eric PicklesPie Supplier"]

The very fact that this thread exists and we are having this debate proves that clarification is needed urgently.

[/quote]I agree, but I dont think these things can ever be truly clarified. Take this thread - We have watched the highlights many times, and we can''t agree. A referee has no chance on one viewing.MOTD highlighted several incidents last night, you can be guaranteed that if you showed them to 10 different managers/refs/fans with slow-mo replays and as much thinking time as they like they would give different opinions. Speaking as a big rugby fan, I just wish the media, managers and players would just let the ref do their job.

[Europe_93 11]

Depends which side you support I guess. For me he clearly makes contact with the ball first, it use to be that ball then player was the perfect challenge. However, he has hit and then gone over the top of the ball, it isn''t really the sort of challenge you would want to be on the receiving end of, therefore you could argue dangerous / wreckless, thus worthy of a red.

How they can call what they showed on MOTD last night ''The Law'' is beyond me, there is so much ambiguity in that statement no wonder the ref''s struggle to implement it.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="Fellas"]It is considered a foul if and only if the tackle is either careless (a tackle without consideration for the opposing player), reckless (a tackle which has a possibility of seriously injuring a player) or is made with excessive force. Daniel Ayala''s tackle was none of those, and it was an incorrect decision.[/quote]Fellas - Did you mean to say booking/sending off rather than foul?[/quote]Checked the definition of a foul - Sorry you are right.Either way, I personally think it was Careless and pretty Reckless. Especially given he barely got the ball. As I said earlier, no need to even go off hs feet.

[/quote]It was a poor tackle. The trouble is, considering the ref deems it a foul and so a penalty, he de facto makes it serious foul play and has to send him off (i.e. the "lunging" rule). I didn''t really think it was worth a red card, and so couldn''t be seriously foul play. My thought process was in effect a bit of cheating though, and refs don''t have the benefit of such hindsight. I''m quite glad that not much has been made of this though, I feel that is a good thing. Like you say, I wish there was less complaining about decisions. The rules book is very open to interpretation, and the beauty of the game is that no second of a match is ever repeated, and that extends to tackles. All the refs can do is go out and apply the laws as best they can. I get frustrated when they make simple decisions wrong (i.e. sending off Barnett against stoke), those mistakes are the inexcusable ones.

[AJ 1,221]

Some refs would have given a red for that, and we were fortunate, no need to lunge in the box to be fair. I don''t get why he doesn''t stay on he bloody feet!

Nevertheless, despite the critism, I feel he played rather well yesterday.

[William Darby 0]

For me it was careless, correct decision yellow.  Ayala ballsed up.  Misjudged the ball, skimmed the top of the ball with his studs and hit the oppo player.

[Jacko 0]

Very poor challenge. Certain penalty, definitely didn''t get the ball. He got it on the follow through having already ploughed into the man. The tackle was over the top of the ball and I have definitely seen refs reach for the red card in those circumstances. Particularly in the current climate you would almost expect it.

We were fortunate but then again we were denied a clear penalty and West Brom should have been down to 10 men at Carrow Road in September when Tamas decided to rearrange Vaughan''s face in the area. So it is swings and roundabouts I guess.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

It was a challenge that had to be made and had to made right.Ayale got the the first part right!

 

A definate penalty and a yellow card for the clumsey challenge was justified!

 

Ayala was lucky to stay on the pitch cause he should have been booked in the 1st half for blatantly kicking the ball away!

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

I think the correct decision was made, simple as that. Looking at the various reports today few mentioned it more than being a clumsy challenge, hardly any seemed to think it was a red - it seems classic of our supporters to dwell on it.

But even if it was a red and we had got away with it, then so what? After what happened to Vaughan (and following one of the softest pens I''ve ever seen given to WBA) in the home fixture, surely we could be forgiven for thinking we might be owed something by the footballing gods.

[Hutcherby46 0]

fantastic player.frigging awful challenge !! could of seriously hurt the west brom player,imagine our responses had the shoe of been on the other foot? should of been a red but hes young he will learn from his mistake and he will bounce back!!

[William Darby 0]

I hope you''ll learn it''s ''should have'' [;)]

[fellowyellow 0]

From the Norwich support end it looked like a fair challenge as Ayala was clear favourite to get to the ball first. I was amazed to see TV replays show it was a clumsy challenge and he was probably lucky to stay on the pitch. Not at his best yesterday, but I''ll take 3 points over a clean sheet any day.

[Howson is now! 0]

Branston Pickle - It''s hardly dwelling on it. Surely if you go to the pub after the games or somewhere where there are other people you would discuss what had happened in a game?

Isn''t that what these message boards are for?

I believe this is the "Main Discussion" board. This is in fact a discussion.

[William Darby 0]

I find it dead interesting that, we''ve all seen it what? at least twice on TV and there''s 1 or 2 differing views how the tackle was made and ended.  The ref sees it once in a split second and has to make a decision... hell who''d be a ref eh?