This is a really interesting discussion for me.
I'm finding it very hard to get over my initial reaction of "What a great tackle - he won the ball".
As I said before: the sending off was right since those are the rules - there can be no argument there.
But I do have to say as well that where the real argument is (or should be): whether or not two-footed tackles per se should be red-card offences, is very finely balanced in my mind. The arguments put here that these sorts of challenges should be red-cards are pretty convincing.
But still I just can't get over "But he won the ball! And it never looked like he was going to hurt him!". That was my instant reaction and it still is. I find it very hard to see why a man should be sent off in those circumstances.
Basically the argument has to boil down to: Should refs have discretion? I say that humans with (even limited) intelligence produce better outcomes than the rigid following of rules.
One way in which rules in football have been introduced to try to deal with a sort of behaviour and instead had unintended consequences due to a hard-and-fast rule needing to be applied : the "professional foul". Now when Vinnie Jones wrote about it there was a great fuss and Something Had To Be Done.
What we were left with was a rule whereby any foul committed by the last defender was a "professional foul" even if it was an honest attempt to get the ball, the defender clips the heels of the attacker etc - not JUST the act of cynically taking someone out cos you can see they'll score otherwise.
Not only that but by doing this you're blinding yourself to all the other examples of a "professional foul" - most obviously the cynical hacking down of someone when they're on a break and you happen to not quite be the last defender. Commentators even say how the cheat in question "had to take one for the team" or whatever - it's virtually praised! It's a professional foul!
For me the blanket assumption that ALL tackles where the tackler's feet are in front are red-cards is just not helpful.
I'm finding it very hard to get over my initial reaction of "What a great tackle - he won the ball".
As I said before: the sending off was right since those are the rules - there can be no argument there.
But I do have to say as well that where the real argument is (or should be): whether or not two-footed tackles per se should be red-card offences, is very finely balanced in my mind. The arguments put here that these sorts of challenges should be red-cards are pretty convincing.
But still I just can't get over "But he won the ball! And it never looked like he was going to hurt him!". That was my instant reaction and it still is. I find it very hard to see why a man should be sent off in those circumstances.
Basically the argument has to boil down to: Should refs have discretion? I say that humans with (even limited) intelligence produce better outcomes than the rigid following of rules.
One way in which rules in football have been introduced to try to deal with a sort of behaviour and instead had unintended consequences due to a hard-and-fast rule needing to be applied : the "professional foul". Now when Vinnie Jones wrote about it there was a great fuss and Something Had To Be Done.
What we were left with was a rule whereby any foul committed by the last defender was a "professional foul" even if it was an honest attempt to get the ball, the defender clips the heels of the attacker etc - not JUST the act of cynically taking someone out cos you can see they'll score otherwise.
Not only that but by doing this you're blinding yourself to all the other examples of a "professional foul" - most obviously the cynical hacking down of someone when they're on a break and you happen to not quite be the last defender. Commentators even say how the cheat in question "had to take one for the team" or whatever - it's virtually praised! It's a professional foul!
For me the blanket assumption that ALL tackles where the tackler's feet are in front are red-cards is just not helpful.
