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 don't like to see dangerous tackles, so I'm happy for refs to err on the side of caution with them and red card players if they feel there is an serious element of danger to them. Tonight we will see a team who persistently and cynically foul us at White Hart Lane. I so hope the ref gets on top of this game and cracks down of the negative, horrible play we too often see from Everton. They may not go in two footed, but the fouling and time-wasting they rely on, leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, and is anti-football. I hope we have a ref who allows Spurs to play football, by cracking down on what I'm sure will be a 'less than sporting' approach from the Toffees.
There is no 'last defender rule', the issue is whether there's a clear goal scoring opportunity. Similarly, there is no 'two footed studs up tackle rule' or whatever way one wants to phrase it, the issue is whether the tackle constitutes serious foul play, due to its reckless/dangerous nature. Refs will look to evidence such as the 'last defender' and whether the player has one foot on the ground or none, for example. But in the end they often use 'discretion/common sense/interpretation' in their rulings, they have to because the laws of the game are framed in a way such as to give them a last call on many such matters.
First highlighted part - completely agree. Second highlighted part - completely agree. This is sort of the point I'm making. Phil Neville's constant, niggly fouls and being able to make sure you can stop the team breaking away just before you become the last man is professional fouling*. In the spirit of when the "preventing goalscoring opportunity" thing that came in after all the hoo-ha about professional fouls in the 80s they too should be red. As it is that law (or was it just a new directive?) has become interpreted in very limited ways. I appreciate your point that the rules themselves are not as prescriptive as I and others are complaining about. I'm guilty of listening to commentators/journalists/managers too much perhaps. Because definitely how the rules are used and how people do conceive them is as being hard and fast: that two-footed is not just a type of bad tackle - it has to legally be a red card. Trouble is that if we let referees have discretion and see that this two-footed challenge is a straight red and this one is not you will get idiots whining about consistency... * To be fair I used to HATE Scott Parker for doing this sort of thing before he became an honourable, courageous, honest Spur.
Gallas injured, King injured, Sandro (just playing his way into a beast of a midfield partnership with Parker - the sort of set-up that would have been perfect for a game away at City) injured, Parker missing (late fitness test before the game tonight)... Just to clarify a little.
Oh Christ yes - forgot about that. Reason number 546 why he won't be signing a permanent deal this January. Balls.
Lidl is right, though. Spurs' prospects are looking better by the day. I can tell that because this is a day. And as such Spurs are looking better. Tomorrow there will almost certainly be another day. So Spurs should look pretty bloody tasty then too.
Hopefully, Parker, King maybe even Sandro/Gallas could be ready in time. It is still a week and a half away.
I thought Gallas and Sandro had hamstring tears. You thinking of getting Eileen Drury in? I don't think that when someone limps off like Sandro did (before he'd even cooled down and the injury really hurts) they are a person who will be playing football any time soon.
I didn't even think that it would be worth checking the OS but as it happens it says there, for tongiht's team news, that both Gallas and Sandro have "calf strains". I'd love to be able to say that cos the OS says it it must be accurate but who knows?
If I remember correctly, then he wouldn't be able to play against City anyway, even if we did sign him permanently in January. I'm almost certain that the rule preventing you playing against your parent club if you're on loan still applies, even if you subsequently make a permanent transfer. Sounds wrong, I know.
Yes - it does sound very wrong. But so wrong that if you're saying it at all you must have good reason. Forgive me if I don't quite believe it just yet, though.
