Re: Kompany's red card and appeal? (merged)

[Thaksinssoldier]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

The fact is foy got bollocked over the lampard one last week so he went from one extreme to the other.

Should be struck off the list.

 

[MCC]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

If Foy was the ref for the Lampard tackle then we have no fucking chance.

 

[Fame Monster]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

The rules are subservient to the administration of justice.

The two-footed tackle rule, whatever it is and however it is worded, exists not for any aesthetic measure, but purely to outlaw dangerous play.

In most cases, where the player has his studs up and feet together to create a concentrated area of pressure to the extent that it is capable of breaking someone's leg, then that player needs to be sent off to ensure the game is played safely.

However, in this case, Vincent won the ball with his instep and his second leg was so far removed from the position of his ball-winning leg as to be irrelevant.

The tackle was not dangerous, the player is not dangerous, and the decision should be overturned.

 

[Vic]

No even a yellow yesterday. Chris Foy you can be proud. You got the job done.

First time I've seen that since being at the game.

Horrific challenge that was done 100% to injure the player with no attempt whatsoever to play the ball.

FFS, its just a shit tackle, he's trying to get the ball and fails (too f**king slow), should be a foul and a yellow for a mis-timed tackle, but "done 100% to injure the player" ?

Worse tackle than Kompany's, and you have to ask why, soon after an opponent had been sent off for "lunging" at a player, Giggs thought (or knew) he'd get away with that.

 

[tufc27]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

also ask why the linesman who had a clear view didnt wave his flag

Because the assistant referee isn't meant to wave his flag every time there's a foul. If I waved my flag for every foul when I'm on the line week in week out, I wouldn't be getting many games. That particular decision is 100% the referee's to make.

-- Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:38 pm --

The fact is foy got bollocked over the lampard one last week so he went from one extreme to the other.

Should be struck off the list.

Shows how much you know

The ref for the Chelsea vs Wolves game was Peter Walton.<br /><br />-- Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:39 pm --<br /><br />

If Foy was the ref for the Lampard tackle then we have no fucking chance.

He wasn't.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

also ask why the linesman who had a clear view didnt wave his flag

Because the assistant referee isn't meant to wave his flag every time there's a foul. If I waved my flag for every foul when I'm on the line week in week out, I wouldn't be getting many games. That particular decision is 100% the referee's to make.

-- Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:38 pm --

The fact is foy got bollocked over the lampard one last week so he went from one extreme to the other.

Should be struck off the list.

Shows how much you know

The ref for the Chelsea vs Wolves game was Peter Walton.

My bad last time I'll take the word of talksport.

 

[Soulboy]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

Not a chance we'll win an appeal.

But at least it's better than sitting on our arses and taking it quietly...

 

[kevodevo]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

The rules are subservient to the administration of justice.

The two-footed tackle rule, whatever it is and however it is worded, exists not for any aesthetic measure, but purely to outlaw dangerous play.

In most cases, where the player has his studs up and feet together to create a concentrated area of pressure to the extent that it is capable of breaking someone's leg, then that player needs to be sent off to ensure the game is played safely.

However, in this case, Vincent won the ball with his instep and his second leg was so far removed from the position of his ball-winning leg as to be irrelevant.

The tackle was not dangerous, the player is not dangerous, and the decision should be overturned.

There was really no risk to nani from that tackle . There was definitely risk to Aguero's ankle and Micah's chin for that matter from Giggs's two footed challenge and evra's blatant elbow - where is consistency ffs.

 

[Chris in London]

I've been having a look at the laws of the game this afternoon (beats working).

The laws of the game are actually very simple: they say that you get sent off for serious foul play. Nothing about two footed challenges, nothing about intent, nothing about challenges from behind. Just 'serious foul play', without more.

Then there is guidance issued by FIFA for referees. This is not part of the law, but is used by ref's to help them decide what serious foul play actually is. This says that

"a player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality".
I don't think there is any suggestion of brutality by VK, so we are simply dealing with 'excessive force'.

This has been commented on in this thread previously, and is mentioned in the article on the Football 365 website referred to about twenty pages ago.

What I don't think is mentioned anywhere in the thread is that there is a 'definitions' section in the FIFA guidance. This divides fouls into three categories of increasing seriousness: careless, reckless and using excessive force. 'Careless' simply means a lack of attention or consideration and does not require a further sanction (ie a card).

"Reckless" means that the player has acted with 'complete disregard to the danger to, or the consequences for, his opponent.' Pretty serious stuff, but 'reckless' only warrants a caution. 'Excessive force' is defined as meaning that the player has "far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."

It is this phrase 'far exceeded the necessary use of force' which is why I think the appeal should succeed. "Reckless" fouls are described in fairly clear terms. For it to be the excessive use of force we are talking about using force which goes some way beyond a foul that is committed with 'complete disregard to the danger to, or the consequences for, his opponent'.

By making the tackle in the way he did, did VK show a complete disregard for any danger to Nani or to the possibility he might hurt him? Probably he did. Okay, yellow card, free kick to them. But does he 'far' exceed the necessary use of force? Was his challenge, in which he won the ball cleanly, way way beyond what was reasonably necessary to win the ball? I don't think so, and if they look at the rules - sorry, the guidance - properly, I don't think the panel will either. Sorry, I don't think the panel should either.

This is also why the slip becomes important. If you go in hard, you might warrant a yellow card, but if your standing foot slips when you are tackling with the result that what was supposed to be a one-footed tackle becomes a two footed lunge, can you really be said to have 'far' exceeded the necessary use of force? Again, it's pretty harsh to treat in exactly the same way the player who dives in two-footed, studs showing, 12 inches off the ground making contact with the opponent around the knee area, and the player whose standing foot simply and accidentally slips while he is making a one-footed tackle.

Red card for slipping? Shouldn't be upheld.<br /><br />-- Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:54 pm --<br /><br />

I mean, going back to the 'careless/reckless/excessive distinction, by reason of the simple fact that Giggs wasn't booked, this must be a tackle which in the ref's opinion was 'careless' rather than 'reckless'. How then can it be said that VK's challenge 'far exceeded' the necessary force?

 

[marco]

Re: whoever represents us at the appeal

if this was a court case it would be chucked out with rooneys remarks etc,lets see if the fa have any balls to hand vincent justice