Kompany

[Budgie 0]

Hopefully my graphic will sort the arguments between some people saying he went in 2 feet with one tackle but not the other and can''t agree which one.

Clearly both tackles were pretty much identical so the debate should be whether it is a red card tackle or not. We should not be debating that one was and the other wasn''t.

[AJ 1,221]

Have to agree on second viewing neither is a red card. But the problem is at first glance, the only viewing the referee gets, your immediate reaction was that he was in trouble. He DOES lunge and DOES make contact with the player - sadly in this day and age that means a red card.

As for the one on BJ, doesn''t look to be too much wrong with that, he wins a 50/50 and clearly gets the ball. Rightly allowed to play on IMO

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="judderman"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It doesn''t have to be two footed to be a sending off. They''ve messed about with so many rules. If the ref thought that was excessive force then I think he can send him off. Obviously the ref at our game thought differently. It seems this rule is completely down to the refs discretion.

 

 

[/quote]
i agree with that, while i personally don''t think the challenge on Johnson was that bad, i probably shouldn''t say a foul at worst because a referee probably could have given a yellow if he thought the studs showing made it a bit reckless.

but the debate i was responding to was whether it was 2 footed. a few said it was on this thread, when it very clearly wasn''t.
[/quote]

 

Agreed. Neither was two footed but it doesn''t have to be two footed to be a red card. If Man City win the appeal it will be because they are a big club and won''t do refs any favours in the future. The refs are doing their jobs while the pundits, like many on here, are calling it how they like football to be played rather than what the laws state.

 

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent 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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

“Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.

“A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred .

 

The referee decided there was nothing wrong with Kompany''s tackle on Johnson but another referee decided yesterday''s was a red card. They are both probably right because the law surely invites them to have an opinion and isn''t black and white.

 

 

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Regardless, neither should have been red cards[/quote][Y]

[Muffles 8]

I actually think were both really good tackles, good, strong and took the ball.

 

But once again, it highlights the sheer inconsistency in top flight referees again.

 

The penalty at West Ham for example, yes it was a penalty, yet those incidents are over looked week after week.

[Gingerpele 0]

Both were good tackles, but against the rules.

Doesn''t matter what your opinion on tackling is, its about the rules. Lunged in studs up.

I was having a discussion with a ManC fan who thought Bassong should have been sent off for his challenge, they showed me a still image of Bassong sliding and Nasri up in the air. You watch that challenge properly, I don''t know if Bassong even makes contact with Nasri, just the ball, but because both are moving in opposite directions and Bassong is stronger, Nasri went flying after he couldn''t cope with Bassong''s power when winning the ball.

I''m almost certain that both those Kompany tackles were red card incidents based on the current rules.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="judderman"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It doesn''t have to be two footed to be a sending off. They''ve messed about with so many rules. If the ref thought that was excessive force then I think he can send him off. Obviously the ref at our game thought differently. It seems this rule is completely down to the refs discretion.

 

 

[/quote]
i agree with that, while i personally don''t think the challenge on Johnson was that bad, i probably shouldn''t say a foul at worst because a referee probably could have given a yellow if he thought the studs showing made it a bit reckless.

but the debate i was responding to was whether it was 2 footed. a few said it was on this thread, when it very clearly wasn''t.
[/quote]

 

Agreed. Neither was two footed but it doesn''t have to be two footed to be a red card. If Man City win the appeal it will be because they are a big club and won''t do refs any favours in the future. The refs are doing their jobs while the pundits, like many on here, are calling it how they like football to be played rather than what the laws state.

 

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent 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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

“Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.

“A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred .

 

The referee decided there was nothing wrong with Kompany''s tackle on Johnson but another referee decided yesterday''s was a red card. They are both probably right because the law surely invites them to have an opinion and isn''t black and white.

 

 

[/quote]

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The one thing that blights our game more than anything else is a lack of consistency. It is an impossible aim but they should be looking to achieve as much consistency as possible in every area. To excuse mistakes by referees by saying that it was their opinion is an easy way out. My take on the two incidents for what it''s worth. Both were one-footed tackles. In the Arsenal game, Kompany was stationary and let studs first with his left foot which was on the ground. At the point of impact, the right foot was some way from the ball. Against Norwich, he was running at speed, lost control of the ball and launched himself forwards. He took the ball and the player, again with studs raised, and this time with his right foot some way above the ground when making contact.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Both were good tackles, but against the rules. Doesn''t matter what your opinion on tackling is, its about the rules. Lunged in studs up. I was having a discussion with a ManC fan who thought Bassong should have been sent off for his challenge, they showed me a still image of Bassong sliding and Nasri up in the air. You watch that challenge properly, I don''t know if Bassong even makes contact with Nasri, just the ball, but because both are moving in opposite directions and Bassong is stronger, Nasri went flying after he couldn''t cope with Bassong''s power when winning the ball. I''m almost certain that both those Kompany tackles were red card incidents based on the current rules.[/quote]

Did Bassong have his studs up?

[Gingerpele 0]

No he did not.

[ZLF 274]

It does not even have to be studs up,   there is an element of excessive force but the key thing is having both feet off the ground - if you do you cant not be in control of the force of the challenge and that to me seems to be the key thing - the tackler needs to be in control,   and if both feet are off the ground then you cant control what happens at impact as its all about momentum.

 

I thought both were hard but firm tackles however under current laws I interpret both as fouls. 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="judderman"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It doesn''t have to be two footed to be a sending off. They''ve messed about with so many rules. If the ref thought that was excessive force then I think he can send him off. Obviously the ref at our game thought differently. It seems this rule is completely down to the refs discretion.

 

 

[/quote]
i agree with that, while i personally don''t think the challenge on Johnson was that bad, i probably shouldn''t say a foul at worst because a referee probably could have given a yellow if he thought the studs showing made it a bit reckless.

but the debate i was responding to was whether it was 2 footed. a few said it was on this thread, when it very clearly wasn''t.
[/quote]

 

Agreed. Neither was two footed but it doesn''t have to be two footed to be a red card. If Man City win the appeal it will be because they are a big club and won''t do refs any favours in the future. The refs are doing their jobs while the pundits, like many on here, are calling it how they like football to be played rather than what the laws state.

 

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent 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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

“Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.

“A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred .

 

The referee decided there was nothing wrong with Kompany''s tackle on Johnson but another referee decided yesterday''s was a red card. They are both probably right because the law surely invites them to have an opinion and isn''t black and white.

 

 

[/quote]

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The one thing that blights our game more than anything else is a lack of consistency. It is an impossible aim but they should be looking to achieve as much consistency as possible in every area. To excuse mistakes by referees by saying that it was their opinion is an easy way out. My take on the two incidents for what it''s worth. Both were one-footed tackles. In the Arsenal game, Kompany was stationary and let studs first with his left foot which was on the ground. At the point of impact, the right foot was some way from the ball. Against Norwich, he was running at speed, lost control of the ball and launched himself forwards. He took the ball and the player, again with studs raised, and this time with his right foot some way above the ground when making contact.

[/quote]

 

Agreed it''s a ridiculous statement. but unfortunately it describes perfectly a rule which is reliant on individuals interpretation. If you leave decisions to individuals opinions then you will never have the consistency you crave. And that''s nothing new is it Webbo? For as long as I''ve been going to football referees have been inconsistent. In fact they are probably more consistent now than they''ve ever been. The only reason it looks like they are not is because every incident in every premier league game is available for comparison.

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]No he did not.[/quote]

 

Are you sure?

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="judderman"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It doesn''t have to be two footed to be a sending off. They''ve messed about with so many rules. If the ref thought that was excessive force then I think he can send him off. Obviously the ref at our game thought differently. It seems this rule is completely down to the refs discretion.

 

 

[/quote]
i agree with that, while i personally don''t think the challenge on Johnson was that bad, i probably shouldn''t say a foul at worst because a referee probably could have given a yellow if he thought the studs showing made it a bit reckless.

but the debate i was responding to was whether it was 2 footed. a few said it was on this thread, when it very clearly wasn''t.
[/quote]

 

Agreed. Neither was two footed but it doesn''t have to be two footed to be a red card. If Man City win the appeal it will be because they are a big club and won''t do refs any favours in the future. The refs are doing their jobs while the pundits, like many on here, are calling it how they like football to be played rather than what the laws state.

 

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent 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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

“Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.

“A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred .

 

The referee decided there was nothing wrong with Kompany''s tackle on Johnson but another referee decided yesterday''s was a red card. They are both probably right because the law surely invites them to have an opinion and isn''t black and white.

 

 

[/quote]

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The one thing that blights our game more than anything else is a lack of consistency. It is an impossible aim but they should be looking to achieve as much consistency as possible in every area. To excuse mistakes by referees by saying that it was their opinion is an easy way out. My take on the two incidents for what it''s worth. Both were one-footed tackles. In the Arsenal game, Kompany was stationary and let studs first with his left foot which was on the ground. At the point of impact, the right foot was some way from the ball. Against Norwich, he was running at speed, lost control of the ball and launched himself forwards. He took the ball and the player, again with studs raised, and this time with his right foot some way above the ground when making contact.

[/quote]

 

Agreed it''s a ridiculous statement. but unfortunately it describes perfectly a rule which is reliant on individuals interpretation. If you leave decisions to individuals opinions then you will never have the consistency you crave. And that''s nothing new is it Webbo? For as long as I''ve been going to football referees have been inconsistent. In fact they are probably more consistent now than they''ve ever been. The only reason it looks like they are not is because every incident in every premier league game is available for comparison.

 

 

[/quote]

Don''t agree that they are more consistent than they have ever been. One of the problems they have is with what I refer to as "flavour of the month" directives. We have seen this in the past in all sorts of areas, e.g. reversing throw-ins when gaining ground, goalkeepers restricted to six seconds, advancing free kicks when defenders don''t get away from the ball, tackles with studs up and shirt pulling in the penalty area. There are countless other examples. Pressure is put on the officials to such an extent that some of them feel obliged to penalise everything that vaguely resembles a "flavour of the month" offence. If they don''t they are fearful of losing marks from the assessor. In time, it will all be forgotten and the powers that be will move onto something else to amuse themselves.

 

[shefcanary 2,407]

Well, it''s been overturned.  I think they compared it to the Johnson incident and needed to support the decision made there. [;)]

 

Still quite a surprise from the fuddie duddies at the FA. 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

It''s no surprise that Man City got it overturned...

 

 

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]No he did not.[/quote]

 

Are you sure?

[/quote]

Yes I am very sure. I watched the tackle three times after you asked that. Studs were not up. At the ball anyway. His studs obviously weren''t glued to the ground, but he made contact with the ball with the top/side of his boot, not the bottom.

[dpit 1]

Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

I feel part of it was that Dean, like me, was getting a bit concerned in the back of his mind with the frequency with which Wilshire it appeared was being rather heavily fouled by the ManCity players. It seemed almost as if they were doing him in turn so as not to get sent off.

 

No stats to support. Just my feeling at the time.

 

OTBC

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

WARNING NOTE TO NCFC CBs AND CMs!!

 

Do not do a Kompany in the next few matches.

 

You will not survive - neither a red card nor an appeal.

 

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

WARNING NOTE TO NCFC CBs AND CMs!!

 

Do not do a Kompany in the next few matches.

 

You will not survive - neither a red card nor an appeal.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

[Y]

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="dpit"]Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.[/quote]

 

I have no liking for Man City at all and think they and some others generally receive favourable treatment. It was not, however, a two-footed tackle. At the time the left foot made impact with the ball, the right foot was some distance away and bent away from the opponent. If you want to see what a real two-footed tackle is like, just take a look at Abdoulaye Faye for Hull against Sheffield Wednesday.

[I am a Banana 0]

Nothing was bad about either challenge! Fully committed, just people expect tough tackles to be called up even if they are well timed!

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="dpit"]Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.[/quote]

 

I have no liking for Man City at all and think they and some others generally receive favourable treatment. It was not, however, a two-footed tackle. At the time the left foot made impact with the ball, the right foot was some distance away and bent away from the opponent. If you want to see what a real two-footed tackle is like, just take a look at Abdoulaye Faye for Hull against Sheffield Wednesday.

[/quote]

 

Having said that, I believe his challenge against Bradley Johnson was dangerous. He lunged at pace with studs raised and took both player and ball. A red card would have been justified (at best, yellow). What did we get? A goal against!

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="I am a Banana"]Nothing was bad about either challenge! Fully committed, just people expect tough tackles to be called up even if they are well timed![/quote]

 

Are you for real or have you fallen on your head after slipping on your own skin?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="dpit"]Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.[/quote]

 

I have no liking for Man City at all and think they and some others generally receive favourable treatment. It was not, however, a two-footed tackle. At the time the left foot made impact with the ball, the right foot was some distance away and bent away from the opponent. If you want to see what a real two-footed tackle is like, just take a look at Abdoulaye Faye for Hull against Sheffield Wednesday.

[/quote]

 

Yes. But he wasn''t sent off for a two footed tackle. The offence doesn''t have to be a two footed tackle. If I was a referee I''d seriously consider taking action against the FA. They make the ridiculous rules in the first place leaving it up to individual referees discretion and then over rule them on a decision which was borderline. There was no need.

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="dpit"]Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.[/quote]

 

I have no liking for Man City at all and think they and some others generally receive favourable treatment. It was not, however, a two-footed tackle. At the time the left foot made impact with the ball, the right foot was some distance away and bent away from the opponent. If you want to see what a real two-footed tackle is like, just take a look at Abdoulaye Faye for Hull against Sheffield Wednesday.

[/quote]

 

Yes. But he wasn''t sent off for a two footed tackle. The offence doesn''t have to be a two footed tackle. If I was a referee I''d seriously consider taking action against the FA. They make the ridiculous rules in the first place leaving it up to individual referees discretion and then over rule them on a decision which was borderline. There was no need.

 

 

[/quote]

 

How do you know that? In the referee''s opinion, he might have thought that it was.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="dpit"]Proof that throwing a toddler strop on the floor can work in your favour....if you play for one of the big clubs. Ridiculous. Two footed challenge. Sending off offence. End of.[/quote]

 

I have no liking for Man City at all and think they and some others generally receive favourable treatment. It was not, however, a two-footed tackle. At the time the left foot made impact with the ball, the right foot was some distance away and bent away from the opponent. If you want to see what a real two-footed tackle is like, just take a look at Abdoulaye Faye for Hull against Sheffield Wednesday.

[/quote]

 

Yes. But he wasn''t sent off for a two footed tackle. The offence doesn''t have to be a two footed tackle. If I was a referee I''d seriously consider taking action against the FA. They make the ridiculous rules in the first place leaving it up to individual referees discretion and then over rule them on a decision which was borderline. There was no need.

 

 

[/quote]

 

How do you know that? In the referee''s opinion, he might have thought that it was.

[/quote]

 

Are you for real Webbo?

 

But you''re probably right. Perhaps he could have been sent off for deliberate handball.

 

 

[Oz Canary 0]

I think Kompany''s tackle of Wilshire was no where near as bad as the one on Johnno and he escaped totally for that one.

Part of me feels that he should have been suspended because his technique in those one on one situations is poor. However, I guess for the good of the game commonsense prevailed over last weeks tackle. Although he did have both feet off the ground by the time that contact came with Wilshire he did have one foot on the ground which clearly got the ball first.

Would have been good to see him suspended as it would have forced him and Manc City to re-look at his tackling style but now the FFA has almost "green lighted" his tackling style and I really fear that he is going to seriously injure someone shortly.