Dave Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? Because he got the player as well, hence why the player went to ground. He didn't trip over thin air. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Although it was a good tackle, it could easily have gone wrong. Nee chance of it getting rescinded. It's not about whether he won the ball or how close he is to the player, it's about the INTENT in which he went flying in, off the ground. It was like a f***ing karate kick. This, however, is balls. His intent was what he executed: take advantage of a loose touch by jumping in front of the player and hooking the ball. It was still dangerous, however. If it goes wrong then you send him off. It's like any tackle man. If you slide in the box and win the ball, it's no penalty. If you slide in the box and miss the ball, it is a penalty. There's no, "Oooh, but he might have got the timing wrong let's give a penalty anyway". Same should apply here imo. What about if you elbow/punch someone and don't make contact? Eh? But that's clearly intent to hurt the other player. There was no intent whatsoever on Tiote's part to hurt their player, he didn't hurt their player, and he won the ball cleanly. It's the act which gets punished, not the outcome though. So all tackles should be a yellow or red card? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Although it was a good tackle, it could easily have gone wrong. Nee chance of it getting rescinded. It's not about whether he won the ball or how close he is to the player, it's about the INTENT in which he went flying in, off the ground. It was like a f***ing karate kick. This, however, is balls. His intent was what he executed: take advantage of a loose touch by jumping in front of the player and hooking the ball. It was still dangerous, however. If it goes wrong then you send him off. It's like any tackle man. If you slide in the box and win the ball, it's no penalty. If you slide in the box and miss the ball, it is a penalty. There's no, "Oooh, but he might have got the timing wrong let's give a penalty anyway". Same should apply here imo. What about if you elbow/punch someone and don't make contact? Eh? But that's clearly intent to hurt the other player. There was no intent whatsoever on Tiote's part to hurt their player, he didn't hurt their player, and he won the ball cleanly. It's the act which gets punished, not the outcome though. Look at Ronaldo's red card against Man City a few years back on YouTube. Ronaldo was nowhere near winning the ball and the City player had to jump to avoid the challenge. Nothing like the Tiote tackle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Although it was a good tackle, it could easily have gone wrong. Nee chance of it getting rescinded. It's not about whether he won the ball or how close he is to the player, it's about the INTENT in which he went flying in, off the ground. It was like a f***ing karate kick. This, however, is balls. His intent was what he executed: take advantage of a loose touch by jumping in front of the player and hooking the ball. It was still dangerous, however. If it goes wrong then you send him off. It's like any tackle man. If you slide in the box and win the ball, it's no penalty. If you slide in the box and miss the ball, it is a penalty. There's no, "Oooh, but he might have got the timing wrong let's give a penalty anyway". Same should apply here imo. What about if you elbow/punch someone and don't make contact? Eh? But that's clearly intent to hurt the other player. There was no intent whatsoever on Tiote's part to hurt their player, he didn't hurt their player, and he won the ball cleanly. It's the act which gets punished, not the outcome though. So all tackles should be a yellow or red card? Yes. Yes they should. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Although it was a good tackle, it could easily have gone wrong. Nee chance of it getting rescinded. It's not about whether he won the ball or how close he is to the player, it's about the INTENT in which he went flying in, off the ground. It was like a f***ing karate kick. This, however, is balls. His intent was what he executed: take advantage of a loose touch by jumping in front of the player and hooking the ball. It was still dangerous, however. If it goes wrong then you send him off. It's like any tackle man. If you slide in the box and win the ball, it's no penalty. If you slide in the box and miss the ball, it is a penalty. There's no, "Oooh, but he might have got the timing wrong let's give a penalty anyway". Same should apply here imo. What about if you elbow/punch someone and don't make contact? Eh? But that's clearly intent to hurt the other player. There was no intent whatsoever on Tiote's part to hurt their player, he didn't hurt their player, and he won the ball cleanly. It's the act which gets punished, not the outcome though. So all tackles should be a yellow or red card? Where does he say that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 His intent was clearly to win the ball, the outcome was that he clearly did win the ball. The opponent wasn't hurt. I would hope an appeal based on that would have a decent chance. Why? Not every potential leg-breaker is because the player is fucking evil or out to kill the opponent. People are clumsy, they're over-eager, etc. The end result of a over-eager tackle which breaks a leg is the same as the Roy Keane leg-breaking type of tackle. So are you saying we should judge the tackle on the intent? Or the outcome? Or all possible potential outcomes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 His intent was clearly to win the ball, the outcome was that he clearly did win the ball. The opponent wasn't hurt. I would hope an appeal based on that would have a decent chance. Why? Not every potential leg-breaker is because the player is fucking evil or out to kill the opponent. People are clumsy, they're over-eager, etc. The end result of a over-eager tackle which breaks a leg is the same as the Roy Keane leg-breaking type of tackle. So are you saying we should judge the tackle on the intent? Or the outcome? Or all possible potential outcomes? If it's dangerous, it's dangerous regardless of intent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamunigeordie Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I'd genuinely give up my lass if it meant this got rescinded!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. No you didn't, man, ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Okay, I definitely haven't seen it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. You need to go to Specsavers. ASAP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 There has been quite an amount of tackles these days where the player wins the ball and also takes down the player without being punished, this is no different. This is another case of the momentum taking the player down, he clearly wins the ball. You can put every penny you own on it not being turned over though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. You can be punished on intent rather than on what actually happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Put it this way... Tiote wins ball cleanly, player unhurt - red card Coloccini slides in, takes the striker out, nowhere near ball - yellow card How should that be right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Can we not get Kai to do one of his frame-by-frame analyses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? Because he got the player as well, hence why the player went to ground. He didn't trip over thin air. Its a contact sport... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. You can be punished on intent rather than on what actually happens. The intent was to win the ball without hurting their player. He did what he intended to do. Where's the red card offence there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Put it this way... Tiote wins ball cleanly, player unhurt - red card Coloccini slides in, takes the striker out, nowhere near ball - yellow card How should that be right? Tiote left the ground about 20 seconds before the player got there though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 It's nowt to do with intent. If I bollock a five-year old for mindlessly waving a knife around, it's not because I think his 'intent' is to stab his sister: it's because it's dangerous, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now