Rival watch

[NSIS]

I've seen it several times, and my feeling is still that he deliberately tackles through Shaw, using his left leg in a definite backward motion to make sure he takes him out.

For me, it was a penalty and a red card.

 

[PowerSpurs]

I've seen it several times, and my feeling is still that he deliberately tackles through Shaw, using his left leg in a definite backward motion to make sure he takes him out.

For me, it was a penalty and a red card.

Oddly the Laws make no reference to whether the action was deliberate they simply require the offence to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off
The difference between the last two is completely subjective unless you think that the fact a serious injury has occurred proves excessive force was used.
And a pedant might observe that if you deliberately trip someone up in a gentle way you can't be acting 'carelessly' so no foul has been committed!

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Oddly the Laws make no reference to whether the action was deliberate they simply require the offence to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off
The difference between the last two is completely subjective unless you think that the fact a serious injury has occurred proves excessive force was used.
And a pedant might observe that if you deliberately trip someone up in a gentle way you can't be acting 'carelessly' so no foul has been committed!

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
etc.

 

[NSIS]

Oddly the Laws make no reference to whether the action was deliberate they simply require the offence to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off
The difference between the last two is completely subjective unless you think that the fact a serious injury has occurred proves excessive force was used.
And a pedant might observe that if you deliberately trip someone up in a gentle way you can't be acting 'carelessly' so no foul has been committed!

Yes, but it was in the penalty area. So a question of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity arises.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Yes, but it was in the penalty area. So a question of denying a clear goal scoring opportunity arises.

Absolutely but Howard Webb didn't even think it was a foul and neither did the referee in the match. If it was a foul it likely deserved two red cards! One for denying a goalscoring opportunity and one for excessive force.

 

[Spurm]

Here's a question i'm a bit vague on the answer to...... If you attempt to hit someone its a red regardless of whether you actually hit them or you swing and miss. If you use excessive, reckless force but don't actually commit a foul, is that still a red?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Here's a question i'm a bit vague on the answer to...... If you attempt to hit someone its a red regardless of whether you actually hit them or you swing and miss. If you use excessive, reckless force but don't actually commit a foul, is that still a red?

You can commit a foul without actually making contact with anyone. Contact isn't necessarily relevant.

 

[Spurm]

You can commit a foul without actually making contact with anyone. Contact isn't necessarily relevant.

yeah, but would it be a red considering the red card offence (the force used) didn't actually affect anyone? Logic says it should, as no-contact punches and headbutts do.
If that is the case then you could argue that it was a red purely for that, especially as there clearly was contact. Anything that is forceful enough for a double leg fracture (other than freak incidents) is surely excessive?

 

[NSIS]

I think it's reckless endangerment. So yes, if the tackle is liable to have placed the opposing player in danger of serious injury, it's a red card.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

So does this mean pundits might actually mention Danny Rose as a potential England left back now?

 

[NSIS]

Absolutely but Howard Webb didn't even think it was a foul and neither did the referee in the match. If it was a foul it likely deserved two red cards! One for denying a goalscoring opportunity and one for excessive force.

To my recollection, the first part of the tackle took the ball. However, he followed through with his left leg high to make sure that he took the player down - a penalty and a red card, surely.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

So does this mean pundits might actually mention Danny Rose as a potential England left back now?

Hopefully not. He doesn't seem fit enough to play regularly for us, so England can get by without him.

 

[PowerSpurs]

yeah, but would it be a red considering the red card offence (the force used) didn't actually affect anyone? Logic says it should, as no-contact punches and headbutts do.
If that is the case then you could argue that it was a red purely for that, especially as there clearly was contact. Anything that is forceful enough for a double leg fracture (other than freak incidents) is surely excessive?

I'm not sure that is right in all cases. In the match last night, if Moreno had done a completely clean tackle and then Shaw had stepped hard on his shin (which may well have happened as he would not be able to stop) then that could have broken Moreno's leg. But all Shaw would have done was to run at top speed into a gap so how would he have been using excessive force? If NSIS is right that Moreno deliberately took him out with his trailing leg at the speed it was certainly excessive force but if he just misjudged it then it might only be reckless. I don't think you can tell the difference by looking at the consequences.
To make it not a foul at all we have to assume that the tackle was not reckless or even careless and I think that is only justified on the basis that if the attacker is moving fast the defender has a right to move fast too and the consequences of the collision are blamed equally.

Actually I'm more inclined to argue the other way around - remember Adebayor being sent off against Arsenal for a high foot - he caught the guy full in the shin but no harm was done so clearly it wasn't excessive force.

 

[PowerSpurs]

To my recollection, the first part of the tackle took the ball. However, he followed through with his left leg high to make sure that he took the player down - a penalty and a red card, surely.

The law used to say it was a foul only if you touched the player before the ball but that was changed about 5 years ago to the same careless/reckless/excessive force rule that applies to the other six offences (trips, pushing, holding etc). So five years ago it definitely wouldn't have been a foul, Since the change there seems no general agreement on what is a foul and what isn't. When 'pundits' discuss it they generally talk about whether there was 'contact' which is no longer even mentioned in the Laws

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Pochettino called Shaw this morning to offer his support, having watched it on the TV last night.
Nice to see a manager thinking of one of his ex-players, though it's probably pretty normal.

 

[Spurm]

I'm not sure that is right in all cases. In the match last night, if Moreno had done a completely clean tackle and then Shaw had stepped hard on his shin (which may well have happened as he would not be able to stop) then that could have broken Moreno's leg. But all Shaw would have done was to run at top speed into a gap so how would he have been using excessive force? If NSIS is right that Moreno deliberately took him out with his trailing leg at the speed it was certainly excessive force but if he just misjudged it then it might only be reckless. I don't think you can tell the difference by looking at the consequences.
To make it not a foul at all we have to assume that the tackle was not reckless or even careless and I think that is only justified on the basis that if the attacker is moving fast the defender has a right to move fast too and the consequences of the collision are blamed equally.

Actually I'm more inclined to argue the other way around - remember Adebayor being sent off against Arsenal for a high foot - he caught the guy full in the shin but no harm was done so clearly it wasn't excessive force.

If he steps on Moreno as part of his run which is difficult to change at that pace and doesn't stamp down or anything like that then i would class that as a freakish accident. You can't be using excessive force if running, stamping however....

 

[PowerSpurs]

If he steps on Moreno as part of his run which is difficult to change at that pace and doesn't stamp down or anything like that then i would class that as a freakish accident. You can't be using excessive force if running, stamping however....

I agree but that interpretation gives a massive advantage to the attacker as it is barely possible to intercept and tackle a player running through without at least risking the sort of contact that occurred last night.

 

[Spurm]

I can see it both ways. If Shaw had gotten up and carried on most people would say "great tackle". But because he's broken his leg people are looking at the force at which he went in.
Imagine the **** the ref would have got if he'd gone in, won the ball, Shaw got up and then he'd sent him off and given a pen for excessive force!

 

[PowerSpurs]

I can see it both ways. If Shaw had gotten up and carried on most people would say "great tackle". But because he's broken his leg people are looking at the force at which he went in.
Imagine the **** the ref would have got if he'd gone in, won the ball, Shaw got up and then he'd sent him off and given a pen for excessive force!

Which is why Howard Webb and Graham Poll disagree I think: using 'excessive force' is just too subjective to be a sensible Law unless it comes with a very detailed interpretational guide.

 

[NSIS]

Which is why Howard Webb and Graham Poll disagree I think: using 'excessive force' is just too subjective to be a sensible Law unless it comes with a very detailed interpretational guide.

Many laws of many games are down to the interpretation of officials, and therefore subjective. In Rugby, for instance, the time given to release the ball after having been tackled can vary from a split second for one referee to a few seconds with another.
In my view, and that of others, Romero deliberately fouled Shaw with his trailing leg to make certain he went down. One referee gives nothing, clearly another would have given a penalty and red card.