The Nasri penalty claim

[Dubai Blue]

Was an excellent clean tackle for me. He clearly gets the ball first and then clatters Nasri. The 'no tackle from behind' rule was brought in to stop defenders going through the man first to get to the ball, something that used to be perfectly legal.

If Sandro's tackle is technically against the laws of the game, then the laws need changing. He should have seed red later on in the game though.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's a difficult one. On the one hand there's no doubt he got a foot on the ball. But that's all he does. He doesn't clear it or otherwise take the ball away from Nasri. Then he goes through the back of him with both legs and brings him down.

As others have said, that would have been a free kick anywhere else on the pitch. Therefore it's a penalty and a red card. Another decision bottled by Webb yesterday.

 

[mcfcphil]

Great challenge,won the ball and momentum obviously carried him into Nasri.

I'd hate to think such good defending could be lost from the game through fear of unwarranted punishment - Webb wasn't great yesterday but he got that decision right.

I agree but at the same time disagree. I don't think that tackle should be a penalty either but the fact of the matter is it should have been.
You can't tackle from behind anymore. You say it was his momentum that took him into nasri and that's exactly the point - you cant tackle from behind - even if you get the ball - without also taking out the man in order to get to the ball.

Sad state of affairs in many ways but it should have been a penalty all the same

 

[Dubai Blue]

It's a difficult one. On the one hand there's no doubt he got a foot on the ball. But that's all he does. He doesn't clear it or otherwise take the ball away from Nasri.

That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of.

I'm undecided again now!

 

[cheddar404]

This is what's wrong with modern football. If he gets the ball, it's not a foul. None of this "out of control" or "excessive force bollocks. It's a rough sport, get on with it. Then again, I live in 1987.

 

[dave_blue12]

It's a difficult one. On the one hand there's no doubt he got a foot on the ball. But that's all he does. He doesn't clear it or otherwise take the ball away from Nasri. Then he goes through the back of him with both legs and brings him down.

As others have said, that would have been a free kick anywhere else on the pitch. Therefore it's a penalty and a red card. Another decision bottled by Webb yesterday.

Sandro's touch on the ball was minimal. If he hadn't made contact with Nasri there is every chance that Nasri would still have had the shooting opportunity. It was a foul.

Clear penalty and red card. Sandro led a charmed life yesterday and should have seen red/second yellow on numerous occasions.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Actually Law 12 states;
"A direct free kick will be awarded if a player makes contact with the opponent before touching the ball". So under this rule, it's probably OK.

But there is supposed to be an automatic red card for serious foul play, where a tackle from behind endangers the safety of an opponent. Sandro piled into the back of Nasri recklessly (in my view) therefore under this rule it's irrelevant whether he got the ball or not.

 

[Dakeb]

According to law 12

Tackling (not fouling) an opponent is illegal if the referee considers it to be careless, reckless or using excessive force

A tackle that endangers an opponent (doesn't have to touch him) is serious foul play.

A tackle with excessive force from any direction using one or both legs is serious foul play.

There is no rule that specifically says you cannot tackle from behind.

So the only questions that need to be answered are

1) was it careless, reckless, or excessive force used
2) was Nasri endangered

 

[blueinsa]

Actually Law 12 states;
"A direct free kick will be awarded if a player makes contact with the opponent before touching the ball". So under this rule, it's probably OK.

But there is supposed to be an automatic red card for serious foul play, where a tackle from behind endangers the safety of an opponent. Sandro piled into the back of Nasri recklessly (in my view) therefore under this rule it's irrelevant whether he got the ball or not.

But refs dont ref to the law anymore.

Anywhere else on the pitch its a foul with everyman and his dog claiming he is off his feet, not in control, yes he got the ball but he got the man, cant do that from behind blah blah blah.

Penalty and a red and you will see a penalty and a red numerous times this year for the exact same offence.

 

[tonea2003]

According to law 12

Tackling (not fouling) an opponent is illegal if the referee considers it to be careless, reckless or using excessive force

A tackle that endangers an opponent (doesn't have to touch him) is serious foul play.

A tackle with excessive force from any direction using one or both legs is serious foul play.

There is no rule that specifically says you cannot tackle from behind.

So the only questions that need to be answered are

1) was it careless, reckless, or excessive force used
2) was Nasri endangered

no in both questions, great tackle, remove this from the game and we are done for