"Vincent Kompany and FA inconsistencies" on the blog

[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!?

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.

take a look at what i wrote on the previous page, while you're right, it does not say implicitly that a 2 footed challenge = a red card, a red will (should) always be given for one

 

[sh249]

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.

But again that is entirely besides the point. I'm not upset one way or another, it was just an observation which, again, I've made clear I'm willing to be corrected on if anyone can do so. If a City player did what Rooney did, then I certainly wouldn't admire it. I obviously wouldn't be 'upset', as I'm not entirely impartial in my perspectives on City and other teams - that's being a fan. The point I made was that there is a difference between Mancini waving the card (as far as I can see after the fact, you say otherwise) from 50 yards away, and Rooney sprinting up to the referee, during the game and before a decision had been made, to influence the decision. If the two involved were Ferguson and Dzeko respectively, then yes, I would still consider there to be a huge difference in their conduct.

 

[Matty]

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.

take a look at what i wrote on the previous page, while you're right, it does not say implicitly that a 2 footed challenge = a red card, a red will (should) always be given for one

Which means that officials are, on a consistent basis, ignoring what the rules actually say. If a two footed challenge, on any occasion, must result in a red card, then the laws would explicitly say so. As they don't the laws have left the decision up to the referee to assess the situation. The FA's interference in the matter (by applying pressure to referees to red card any two footed challenge they witness) is in direct opposition to what the rules actually state, they are stripping the decision making away from the person supposedly trained in the application of the laws.

 

[es1]

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.

take a look at what i wrote on the previous page, while you're right, it does not say implicitly that a 2 footed challenge = a red card, a red will (should) always be given for one

Which means that officials are, on a consistent basis, ignoring what the rules actually say. If a two footed challenge, on any occasion, must result in a red card, then the laws would explicitly say so. As they don't the laws have left the decision up to the referee to assess the situation. The FA's interference in the matter (by applying pressure to referees to red card any two footed challenge they witness) is in direct opposition to what the rules actually state, they are stripping the decision making away from the person supposedly trained in the application of the laws.

good point that

I'd not be surprised if they make the law amendment for next season in the law book to clarify things once and for all, albeit too late.

 

[Matty]

take a look at what i wrote on the previous page, while you're right, it does not say implicitly that a 2 footed challenge = a red card, a red will (should) always be given for one

Which means that officials are, on a consistent basis, ignoring what the rules actually say. If a two footed challenge, on any occasion, must result in a red card, then the laws would explicitly say so. As they don't the laws have left the decision up to the referee to assess the situation. The FA's interference in the matter (by applying pressure to referees to red card any two footed challenge they witness) is in direct opposition to what the rules actually state, they are stripping the decision making away from the person supposedly trained in the application of the laws.

good point that

I'd not be surprised if they make the law amendment for next season in the law book to clarify things once and for all, albeit too late.

I don't know about that. It's the FIFA rule book we're talking about here, so FIFA would have to make the amendment. Also I'd be interested if it was every FA that deemed a two footed tackle as a red card offence or just certain European ones. Is it a red card in Brazil? Or in Angola? They all have to follow the same rule book at the end of the day.

 

[kidkyle]

First let me apologise for my previous post with the poor quality pics. all I can say is I am a football fan and I make mistakes, proving I am human, but, I will not be influenced by any comments, because I am (not really) human :-)

The points I was attempting to make are as follows:
1. By watching the clips, can you be certain Foy had a clear view of the incident, taking into account, not only his position, but also his body language, and reaction. If he did clearly see a dangerous tackle, why did it take him so long to blow the whistle? (his reaction time) and why was he on the turn to follow play? (his body languauge).

2. I am not convinced Rooney was calling for a red card, just simply demanding a free kick, something that happens at least 5 times in every game, his arms are outstretched, not waving the imaginary card. What I am convinced of is the actions of Carrick, and to a lesser degree Wellbeck. Remember the next time one of yours gets sent off, disptedly, some of our lot know how to use twitter as well.

3. What is the official timeline for lodging an appeal, collecting a defence, and conducting the hearing, I take the FA was closed on Sunday for taking appeals. It all just seemed very quick to me. Did the club rush into this, did they have a bit longer to gather evidence?, was anybody from the club actually there at the hearing? Lessons to be learnt.

4. Controvery reigns over who got who sent off, who was trying to get who sent off. The way I see it is when Foy finally blew, no other input was required from any player on that field, but I don't blame Rooney, I blame Carrick. By simply watching the clip and monitoring each players reaction to the actual build up to the tackle through to Foy pulling the Red. The term cheat is used by many, but, only the players themselves can change this, by changing their reactions. There should be a law that when a ref blows, any player, other than the team captain, who approaches, crowds, or makes comments to the ref, should automatically receive a yellow card, if this law exists, why is it not applied?

5. Every manager in the premiership has at some point during a season, had a gripe with referees. Mancini said not red, Ferguson said definate red, Kenny midweek took the Wenger line, I did not see it. Imagine all these moaning high profile managers coming out with Mancini not red, Ferguson definate foul but very harsh red in his opinion, Kenny said Johnsons was not red, but after seeing many replays he thinks Kompanys was not red either. Thats right 3 very high profile managers standing shoulder to shoulder against the FA, how long before Harry, Wenger, O'Neill, AVB, and the rest want to join the gang. Things are not changed individually, together we stand, divided we fall.

6. How do referees feel about technolgy to assist them, not pundits, not clubs management, not the FA, but YOU, YES YOU REFEREES, you are the ones that are taunted with biased, corrupt you don't know what you are doing and everything else. Come on Referrees, grow some, stand up to the FA, get the technology, then, I dare you all to come to our place, stand in the centre circle with microphones, singing at us, the moaning, clueless and paranoid crowd "NOW WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING".

 

[es1]

First let me apologise for my previous post with the poor quality pics. all I can say is I am a football fan and I make mistakes, proving I am human, but, I will not be influenced by any comments, because I am (not really) human :-)

The points I was attempting to make are as follows:
1. By watching the clips, can you be certain Foy had a clear view of the incident, taking into account, not only his position, but also his body language, and reaction. If he did clearly see a dangerous tackle, why did it take him so long to blow the whistle? (his reaction time) and why was he on the turn to follow play? (his body languauge). of course he had a clear view, he wouldnt give it otherwise, he wouldnt be guessing and he certainly would not be listening to advice from carrick/wellbeck/rooney. how you can come close to telling from pics/vids is beyond me!

2. I am not convinced Rooney was calling for a red card, just simply demanding a free kick, something that happens at least 5 times in every game, his arms are outstretched, not waving the imaginary card. What I am convinced of is the actions of Carrick, and to a lesser degree Wellbeck. Remember the next time one of yours gets sent off, disptedly, some of our lot know how to use twitter as well.thei actions were dispicable but i've seen city players do it recently so not got much problem with it

3. What is the official timeline for lodging an appeal, collecting a defence, and conducting the hearing, I take the FA was closed on Sunday for taking appeals. It all just seemed very quick to me. Did the club rush into this, did they have a bit longer to gather evidence?, was anybody from the club actually there at the hearing? Lessons to be learnt.new 'fast track' disciplinary procedure has been in place since last season which, now, will almost guarentee a players hearing will be heard before his next possible match. who knows who was rpesent from city, but i'd imagine we were adequately represented

4. Controvery reigns over who got who sent off, who was trying to get who sent off. The way I see it is when Foy finally blew, no other input was required from any player on that field, but I don't blame Rooney, I blame Carrick. By simply watching the clip and monitoring each players reaction to the actual build up to the tackle through to Foy pulling the Red. The term cheat is used by many, but, only the players themselves can change this, by changing their reactions. There should be a law that when a ref blows, any player, other than the team captain, who approaches, crowds, or makes comments to the ref, should automatically receive a yellow card, if this law exists, why is it not applied?players always have and always will appeal for decisions, some more verciferously than others, does the law on this need changing, yes, will it...not likely in the near future

5. Every manager in the premiership has at some point during a season, had a gripe with referees. Mancini said not red, Ferguson said definate red, Kenny midweek took the Wenger line, I did not see it. Imagine all these moaning high profile managers coming out with Mancini not red, Ferguson definate foul but very harsh red in his opinion, Kenny said Johnsons was not red, but after seeing many replays he thinks Kompanys was not red either. Thats right 3 very high profile managers standing shoulder to shoulder against the FA, how long before Harry, Wenger, O'Neill, AVB, and the rest want to join the gang. Things are not changed individually, together we stand, divided we fall.'player/manager power' is not going to change the FA's mind on these matters, its clear, there's been too many instances of these tackles and subsequent red cards for the rules/laws/interpretation to the changed

6. How do referees feel about technolgy to assist them, not pundits, not clubs management, not the FA, but YOU, YES YOU REFEREES, you are the ones that are taunted with biased, corrupt you don't know what you are doing and everything else. Come on Referrees, grow some, stand up to the FA, get the technology, then, I dare you all to come to our place, stand in the centre circle with microphones, singing at us, the moaning, clueless and paranoid crowd "NOW WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING".

as a ref i would love to see some form of video technology involved (in addition to glt) to assist with major decisions, some sort of challenges per half system could be implmented, however i believe such a system is at best years away and in all liklihood wont happen in the forseable future

 

[kidkyle]

@eshiers1

Thank you for taking the time to explain the points, just a couple of clear ups from my point of view. I read the thoughts of the Referees Association regarding this incident on point 1, clear view. The people on that forum seem to be struggling to agree with the decision.

http://footballreferee.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2756

I think perhaps one of the most annoying aspects of refs from a fans point of view is the different styles of handling situations. I have seen referees blow and stand still demanding the offending player comes to him.

I have seen referees blow then pile in as if they are ready for a ruck.

I have seen referees blow, calmly walk over, take the player to one side, explain then card.

I have seen Referees Blow, make their way over shouting at approaching players away, whilst giving a look of Dirty Harry, one more step punk and it won't be a yellow I pull out, it will be a gun.

Then you have Foys approach which was when he blewcalmly walk over, whilst being harrassed by Carrick, Wellbeck and Rooney, Pull the red, and not say a word to Vinny.

I understand there can be no universal characteristics, but how about all refs agree at start of season, when they blow, they give the Dirty Harry look, give a 30 second explanation to the player, then card thus leaving them in no doubt why they get yellow/reds, and they can explain their own conduct to the manager.

Just thoughts, as to putting fans, managers, press etc in no doubts whilst protecting their own integrity.

 

[es1]

@eshiers1

Thank you for taking the time to explain the points, just a couple of clear ups from my point of view. I read the thoughts of the Referees Asspociation regarding this incident on point 1, clear view. The people on that forum seem to be struggling to agree with the decision.

http://footballreferee.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2756

I think perhaps one of the most annoying aspects of refs from a fans point of view is the different styles of handling situations. I have seen referees blow and stand still demanding the offending player comes to him.

I have seen referees blow then pile in as if they are ready for a ruck.

I have seen referees blow, calmly walk over, take the player to one side, explain then card.

I have seen Referees Blow, make their way over shouting at approaching players away, whilst giving a look of Dirty Harry, one more step punk and it won't be a yellow I pull out, it will be a gun.

Then you have Foys approach which was when he blewcalmly walk over, whilst being harrassed by Carrick, Wellbeck and Rooney, Pull the red, and not say a word to Vinny.

I understand there can be no universal characteristics, but how about all refs agree at start of season, when they blow, they give the Dirty Harry look, give a 30 second explanation to the player, then card thus leaving them in no doubt why they get yellow/reds, and they can explain their own conduct to the manager.

Just thoughts, as to putting fans, managers, press etc in no doubts whilst protecting their own integrity.

All refs will deal with incidents differently and at the higher levels will be given a procedure to follow when sending off a player, very rarely these days do you see the ref explain why he's taking action and simply rushing over to issue the card.

At my level I'm expected to confirm to the player what I'm doing, not necessarily why, befote cautioning/dismissing them.