"Vincent Kompany and FA inconsistencies" on the blog

[Comrade Buka]

While the law does not specifically say 'a 2 footed challenge = a red card' in all circumstances, in this day and age a ref will, 100% of the time, award a red card for a two footed challenge, assuming he sees it

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The moment ball is played forward, position or Foy, Position of Carrick, Foy runnining direction.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

2 players blocking Foys Clear view



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As city move the ball out, foy in the motion of turning with play, check his legs, Rooney all of a flap.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The walk of shame by Foy, being screamed at in his ear by Carrick, who has run from his own end, watch the clip.

Are you trying to prove that Foy's view was blocked? If so you are failing miserably.

 

[es1]

While the law does not specifically say 'a 2 footed challenge = a red card' in all circumstances, in this day and age a ref will, 100% of the time, award a red card for a two footed challenge, assuming he sees it

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The moment ball is played forward, position or Foy, Position of Carrick, Foy runnining direction.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

2 players blocking Foys Clear view



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As city move the ball out, foy in the motion of turning with play, check his legs, Rooney all of a flap.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The walk of shame by Foy, being screamed at in his ear by Carrick, who has run from his own end, watch the clip.

you can't come close to seeing from those pics if Foy had a clear view or not!!

I can't watch the video as I'm at work

I do not for one second beleive that rooney/carrick/wellbeck changed the refs mind/made his mind up for him to send VK off

 

[Helmet Cole]

I understand the reasons for Kompany going, but it's always going to be difficult to accept a straight red for a tackle that wins the ball cleanly without making contact with the opposing player. If the FA try and legislate for possible consequences of trying to play the ball under pressure, then surely jumping up to score a headed goal from a corner carries an inherent risk of nutting / elbowing a defender and causing a serious head injury - straight red!?

 

[es1]

I understand the reasons for Kompany going, but it's always going to be difficult to accept a straight red for a tackle that wins the ball cleanly without making contact with the opposing player. If the FA try and legislate for possible consequences of trying to play the ball under pressure, then surely jumping up to score a headed goal from a corner carries an inherent risk of nutting / elbowing a defender and causing a serious head injury - straight red!?

The point I made at the refs meeting was of a goalkeeper coming to punch a corner. IF he mis-times his punch, does not jump high enough etc, he could punch an opponant, or team-mate in the head, this would certainly be a case of endangering a players safety and a punch of any sort in this situation could have large consequences!

Obviously this was me playing devils advocate but it was interesting to hear peoples views on it and how they would deal with it should that incident occur!

 

[Comrade Buka]

I understand the reasons for Kompany going, but it's always going to be difficult to accept a straight red for a tackle that wins the ball cleanly without making contact with the opposing player. If the FA try and legislate for possible consequences of trying to play the ball under pressure, then surely jumping up to score a headed goal from a corner carries an inherent risk of nutting / elbowing a defender and causing a serious head injury - straight red!?

Whether he won the ball cleanly or not is irrelevant. The rules don't say anything about winning the ball cleanly. They do however state that two footed tackles are dangerous and should be treated as such.

The question here is not whether Johnson's or Kompany's tackles were in breach of the rules. The question is why the referees are so inconsistent. And why the FA seems to have no problem with the inconsistency.

 

[Helmet Cole]

I understand the reasons for Kompany going, but it's always going to be difficult to accept a straight red for a tackle that wins the ball cleanly without making contact with the opposing player. If the FA try and legislate for possible consequences of trying to play the ball under pressure, then surely jumping up to score a headed goal from a corner carries an inherent risk of nutting / elbowing a defender and causing a serious head injury - straight red!?

Whether he won the ball cleanly or not is irrelevant. The rules don't say anything about winning the ball cleanly. They do however state that two footed tackles are dangerous and should be treated as such.

The question here is not whether Johnson's or Kompany's tackles were in breach of the rules. The question is why the referees are so inconsistent. And why the FA seems to have no problem with the inconsistency.

The referees are inconsistent because either they did not see properly, share my discomfort with a straight red for a contact-less ball winning tackle, have been pressurized to make a snap /wrong decision, or are bent. Take your pick.

 

[sh249]

Not at all because Kompany was entirely in control of his tackle and knew he would get the ball before Nani. He took it with his instep. Nani knew Kompany would get the ball first which is why he pulled back and spun around to chase it. There was absolutely no contact with the player.

Johnson's was as bad as Taylor on Eduardo except Eduardo was a bit too quick for him.

Problem with your logic is that according to the letter of the law, both were equally serious offences. So what Kompany or Johnson thought, no idea how you can read peoples minds, is irrelevant.

Were they worthy of red cards? Not so much.

The problem is not the rule, the problem is the varying levels of refereeing. If the intention is two do away with two footed tackles with leading studs, the refs have to be consistent.

Do I think two footed tackles are dangerous? Yes. Should they be banished from the game? Probably. Not sure a broken leg is worth some idiots in the stands getting a boner from a violent tackle.

If someone tackled Silva, and Silva got ruled out for a year, the way Kompany or Johnson tackled, I am pretty sure your tune would be different.

-- Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:54 pm --

Very good read.

Personally, I think you can go further in stating the differences between Rooney's and Mancini's respective conduct. As far as I could tell - and happy to be corrected on this - Mancini waved the imaginary card AFTER it became clear that Skrtel wasn't getting a red - i.e. in protest at the decision not to send him off (born of the frustration of having just seen Barry sent off for a nothing challenge - though that's no mitigation). There is simply no comparing this to a player, during the game, actively looking to influence a decision prior to it being taken.

A point which that second scouse **** Gerrard seems to have missed as well in his inane ramblings about Mancini last night.

Makes a lot of sense to wave an imaginary card after the fact. Or maybe not...

He waved his hand and apologized after. End of story. Will he do it again? Who knows? Will Rooney try and influence the ref again? Likely. Do we have players in our team who try and influence the ref? Absolutely.

The lack of perspective on our own teams actions is appalling.

Very much missed the point, I think.

In my view, Mancini waved the card after the fact in protest. You obviously think otherwise (though the argument about it 'making sense' doesn't hold for me - it doesn't make any more sense to wave a card at the fourth official some 50 yards away to try and influence the decision on the pitch. I also think Mancini's apology is beside the point - given how he conducts himself, I think he would apologise for anything that could be construed as 'looking bad'). Anyway, that being the case, I don't think there is any comparison whatsoever to be made between Mancini's conduct and Rooney's. I also stated that I was happy to be corrected on when exactly he waved the card, and that still stands if someone can say more definitely. How this constitutes an 'appalling lack of perspective' on City baffles me. All very well trying to be the voice of reason, but perhaps be better to read things more closely before dishing out the criticism.

 

[Comrade Buka]

Very much missed the point, I think.

In my view, Mancini waved the card after the fact in protest. You obviously think otherwise (though the argument about it 'making sense' doesn't hold for me - it doesn't make any more sense to wave a card at the fourth official some 50 yards away to try and influence the decision on the pitch. I also think Mancini's apology is beside the point - given how he conducts himself, I think he would apologise for anything that could be construed as 'looking bad'). Anyway, that being the case, I don't think there is any comparison whatsoever to be made between Mancini's conduct and Rooney's. I also stated that I was happy to be corrected on when exactly he waved the card, and that still stands if someone can say more definitely. How this constitutes an 'appalling lack of perspective' on City baffles me. All very well trying to be the voice of reason, but perhaps be better to read things more closely before dishing out the criticism.

Here is a simple litmus test for you:

1. For everything an opponent does to us, replace said opponent with one our own.
2. For everything one of our own does to another team, replace our own with an opponent.

I.e. replace Mancini with Ferguson. Or Rooney with Dzeko.

If you are equally upset with all scenarios, fine. If not, point in case.

 

[Comrade Buka]

The referees are inconsistent because either they did not see properly, share my discomfort with a straight red for a contact-less ball winning tackle, have been pressurized to make a snap /wrong decision, or are bent. Take your pick.

In that case the only reasonable avenue of action for City would have been to pursue punishment for Johnson's tackle in retrospect. If we do not - because we are "better than that" then we do not have the right to woman about Kompany's red card.

IF the question here is inconsistency?

Fair?

 

[Matty]

I understand the reasons for Kompany going, but it's always going to be difficult to accept a straight red for a tackle that wins the ball cleanly without making contact with the opposing player. If the FA try and legislate for possible consequences of trying to play the ball under pressure, then surely jumping up to score a headed goal from a corner carries an inherent risk of nutting / elbowing a defender and causing a serious head injury - straight red!?

Whether he won the ball cleanly or not is irrelevant. The rules don't say anything about winning the ball cleanly. They do however state that two footed tackles are dangerous and should be treated as such.

The question here is not whether Johnson's or Kompany's tackles were in breach of the rules. The question is why the referees are so inconsistent. And why the FA seems to have no problem with the inconsistency.

No, they don't.

The blog article specifically details the exact wording of the rules, it quite clearly doesn't state that two footed tackles, simply by being two footed, are dangerous. It states that a one OR two footed tackle CAN be dangerous if it is deemed to be a lunge, be excessive force and have endangered the opponent.

It annoys me when people claim the rules state two footed tackles are inherantly dangerous when they state no such thing, it annoys me even more when someone comments on an article which explains why a two footed tackle ISN'T automatically classed as dangerous with comments that are completely inaccurate and have seemingly ignored everythign thats been said.

Let me put it this way, please quote for me the part of the laws of the game that, as you claim, states two footed tackles are dangerous and should be treated as such.