The Nasri penalty claim

[BigJoe#1]

If that's a foul I've lost all hope with tackling in the English game.

In the first foto have both his feet left the ground? yes

Is he travelling with momentum. Yes

Is he "in control"? No

A foul, plain and simple,.

 

[cheddar404]

If that's a foul I've lost all hope with tackling in the English game.

In the first foto have both his feet left the ground? yes

Is he travelling with momentum. Yes

Is he "in control"? No

A foul, plain and simple,.

Both his feet have left the ground but one of them is reaching round Nasri to get to the ball. In a sport as intense and quick as football, to make a challenge, both your feet sometimes have to leave the ground. He went for the ball and got it; never a foul. It was last ditch and desperate but sometimes great defending is like that.

 

[BlueTG]

If that's a foul I've lost all hope with tackling in the English game.

In the first foto have both his feet left the ground? yes

Is he travelling with momentum. Yes

Is he "in control"? No

A foul, plain and simple,.

Both his feet have left the ground but one of them is reaching round Nasri to get to the ball. In a sport as intense and quick as football, to make a challenge, both your feet sometimes have to leave the ground. He went for the ball and got it; never a foul. It was last ditch and desperate but sometimes great defending is like that.

But the tackle was from behind, therefore a foul by the letter of the law.

I'm happy to let it go, as I think they are ridiculously punished and he did win the ball, but if the referees are not applying the rules correctly or consistently then it raises the same issues with refereeing standard.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In the first foto have both his feet left the ground? yes

Is he travelling with momentum. Yes

Is he "in control"? No

A foul, plain and simple,.

Both his feet have left the ground but one of them is reaching round Nasri to get to the ball. In a sport as intense and quick as football, to make a challenge, both your feet sometimes have to leave the ground. He went for the ball and got it; never a foul. It was last ditch and desperate but sometimes great defending is like that.

But the tackle was from behind, therefore a foul by the letter of the law.

Only if he goes through Nasri to get the ball or he is considered to have endangered him, even if he gets the ball first. To be fair to Webb, he only had a second to make a decision while we're still arguing about it. But he was probably never going to give it anyway so it's a moot point.

 

[blueinsa]

Final word. From behind, in the box with the player about to shoot and yes, he gets a foot to the ball but it isnt to clear it, he barely touches it and if you look carefully, it only goes to the keeper off Nasri's legs as he is falling over because the defender has cleaned him out from behind.

Red card and fucking penalty and those living in 1970 need to realise its 2013!

Thanks ;-)

 

[dennishasdoneit]

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.

by the letter of the law webb got the decision wrong. you cannot tackle from behind.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

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.

Exactly. The whole point of the no tackle from behind rule is to avoid the challenges/lunges that come in and the player on the ball cannot take evasive action because he does not see the tackle coming.
everyone loves a good robust "block tackle" where two players go head to head,usually with the side of the foot and the more powerful block wins..thats fair, as both can decide how hard to go in or weather to tackle at all....when a player is tackled from behind , in a dangerous manner the recipient has no chance..hence the rule...no tackle from behind, dangerous or not

off topic slightly is the issue of the old "sliding tackle" now rarely seen in the game, a centre halves fav, esp. on the muddy pitches of the 70,s...now probably too close to being reckless for most players to bother with.Paul lake used to be excellent at catching up with a breaking opponent ,running alongside him for a couple of steps before going to ground and whipping the ball away from under his feet and out of touch...used to be a great sight that when lake was in his hey-day.<br /><br />-- Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:16 pm --<br /><br />

Clear penalty and sending off for me. The right foot tackle did not "win" the ball. It made contact with it that's all, but Nasri remained on his feet, in possession of the ball with a clear scoring chance. Sandro's left foot then followed through from behind and right through Samir to take him down. We are thus dealing with two tackles, not one, the second of which was a clear foul, reckless and out of control.

well said.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

15 or 20 years ago that would have been a superb challenge from Sandro, perfectly timed, took the ball, excellent. However this isn't 15 or 20 years ago, it's 2013 and I'm sorry but the pundits who agreed it was a fine challenge are simply demonstrating that they aren't really up to date with modern football. Yes, he played the ball first, but he did so in full knowledge that he was going to slide straight through the back of Nasri and clean him out. The "tackle from behind" rule interpretation was introduced to prevent injuries caused from just such a challenge. It's a foul, wherever it occurs on the pitch.

It's also worth noting that, whilst Sandro did indeed play the ball, he didn't clear the ball away from the danger area, he simply poked it a couple of foot ahead of Nasri. If he hadn't then continued his clide and brought Nasri down then he would still have had the opportunity to reach the ball and have a shot. So the fact he took Nasri out with the follow through has actually prevented a goalscoring opportunity.

i think this post, developing a point made earlier, is spot on.

 

[homerdog]

15 or 20 years ago that would have been a superb challenge from Sandro, perfectly timed, took the ball, excellent. However this isn't 15 or 20 years ago, it's 2013 and I'm sorry but the pundits who agreed it was a fine challenge are simply demonstrating that they aren't really up to date with modern football. Yes, he played the ball first, but he did so in full knowledge that he was going to slide straight through the back of Nasri and clean him out. The "tackle from behind" rule interpretation was introduced to prevent injuries caused from just such a challenge. It's a foul, wherever it occurs on the pitch.

It's also worth noting that, whilst Sandro did indeed play the ball, he didn't clear the ball away from the danger area, he simply poked it a couple of foot ahead of Nasri. If he hadn't then continued his clide and brought Nasri down then he would still have had the opportunity to reach the ball and have a shot. So the fact he took Nasri out with the follow through has actually prevented a goalscoring opportunity.

i think this post, developing a point made earlier, is spot on.

Quite, and the point most people who say it was a great tackle are missing, is that the real debate is regarding consistency of interpretation, not just by different referees, but by the same referees on different parts of the pitch - it would definitely have been given as a free kick anywhere else on the pitch, but Webb bottled it because he would have to give a penalty and red card.

I'm all for allowing those types of challenges, as long as the refs are consistent.

 

[blueinsa]

15 or 20 years ago that would have been a superb challenge from Sandro, perfectly timed, took the ball, excellent. However this isn't 15 or 20 years ago, it's 2013 and I'm sorry but the pundits who agreed it was a fine challenge are simply demonstrating that they aren't really up to date with modern football. Yes, he played the ball first, but he did so in full knowledge that he was going to slide straight through the back of Nasri and clean him out. The "tackle from behind" rule interpretation was introduced to prevent injuries caused from just such a challenge. It's a foul, wherever it occurs on the pitch.

It's also worth noting that, whilst Sandro did indeed play the ball, he didn't clear the ball away from the danger area, he simply poked it a couple of foot ahead of Nasri. If he hadn't then continued his clide and brought Nasri down then he would still have had the opportunity to reach the ball and have a shot. So the fact he took Nasri out with the follow through has actually prevented a goalscoring opportunity.

i think this post, developing a point made earlier, is spot on.

Quite, and the point most people who say it was a great tackle are missing, is that the real debate is regarding consistency of interpretation, not just by different referees, but by the same referees on different parts of the pitch - it would definitely have been given as a free kick anywhere else on the pitch, but Webb bottled it because he would have to give a penalty and red card.

I'm all for allowing those types of challenges, as long as the refs are consistent.

Only this.