Celtic

[Digs]

18 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Completely lost on how bending your non standing leg in the air is going to snap your ACL.

You have given footballing reasons why you may want to challenge in a certain way, the laws don’t care and rightly so, they also rightly don’t care wether it’s an attempted block, attempted tackle or anything else.  The only interest is if what you’re doing is going to meet criteria for dangerous play.

His momentum isn’t any excuse either, he’s entirely generated his own momentum and it’s his responsibility to ensure he’s moving at a pace where he’s going to be able to control his body going into the contact.

Well I’m going to assume if his legs in the air he’s going to plant it at some point and not hop around for the rest of the game? His leg wouldn’t be bent in mid air in the scenario you describe as you can easily get injured letting a ball hit a hanging leg that isn't extended, I've seen it happen more than once, and again, you can’t stop safely on a bent knee. 

All the rest of what you said is true in reality but as you said, they’re footballing reasons and the laws of the game are supposed to promote better football as well as safety, and going back to my original thoughts, the ‘danger’ they are trying to eradicate with rules like this just isn’t there enough to warrant this nannying of the game. 

I don’t suggest going back to the days of the 70’s where you could absolutely annihilate someone and get away with it, in no way am I saying that. 

Im saying punishing instances where players come together with red cards is unnecessary sanitized nonsense and I suppose is a result of years of seeing players rolling about on the deck for the slightest of touches trying to con the ref. 

This wasn’t a ‘reckless challenge’, it was an accident that wouldn’t have been a foul had Maeda been a second later or earlier. I reiterate, the defenders swing of his follow through took it into his studs. That's all that happened. It's easy to tell when a player is out to 'do' someone and this wasn't that.

[Grant]

4 hours ago, Digs said:

It wasn't ****e technique though, and it certainly wasn't a ****ebags tackle 🤣 How else are you supposed to block a ball? It was an accident, not a tackle, he wasn't trying to tackle him! The follow through made the contact and it was an accident. That's it, that's all that happened. If the defender had his foot planted or Meida had his other foot off the ground, I'd agree with you but none of that is the case, and no-one will ever convince me that that was a red card. 

I was being kind saying it was ****e technique, it wasn't even that good. Do you genuinely reckon that was textbook from Maeda? That he's taken the safety of his opponent into consideration? 

It doesn't matter if he wasn't trying to tackle him, it ends up in a tackle due to his ****e technique. If I go out and drive my car I'm not trying to crash, but if I end up wrapping the car around a lamppost that's exactly what it is. 

The follow through made contact, but in the situation the defender "following through" is always going to happen because he's just kicked the ball, that's totally reasonable. What isn't reasonable is an opposition player having a straight legged, studs up attempt at a block which has got nothing of the ball and instead is now halfway up your shin. 

It's absolutely a red, it absolutely should be a red. Times change and this is a good one. 

[Digs]

Who said anything about textbook? You keep missing the point that it wasn’t a tackle, it was an attempted block, ie he’s just trying to get in the way of the ball, mistimed it and there’s a collision. It was an accident nothing more and those shouldn’t be red cards. The boy got up and played the rest of the game as if nothing happened, he wasn’t even limping after it. If it was half as bad as you’re saying he’d have been done for the night. He wasn’t. Collisions happen, it’s part of the game. 

[Grant]

1 minute ago, Digs said:

Who said anything about textbook? You keep missing the point that it wasn’t a tackle, it was an attempted block, ie he’s just trying to get in the way of the ball, mistimed it and there’s a collision. It was an accident nothing more and those shouldn’t be red cards. The boy got up and played the rest of the game as if nothing happened, he wasn’t even limping after it. If it was half as bad as you’re saying he’d have been done for the night. He wasn’t. Collisions happen, it’s part of the game. 

I'm not missing that point, I even addressed it in the last post, regardless of whether he went in with the intention of blocking the ball, he's caught him halfway up his shin with his studs up with a straight leg, that's not half of anything, that's what happened. 

A massively high proportion of red cards are accidents, it's not like players are going into tackles with the intention of getting sent off, they'll be trying to get the ball, they'll miss the ball, twat the player which in turn endangers his safety so they get sent off. 

By your definition of accidental mistimed collisions not being reds this shouldn't have been a sending off. 

But it was, because regardless of what Talbots intentions were going in for the tackle (and the video has him making a tit of a clearance) the end result had him studs up, with a straight leg, endangering the opponent. We're talking the extreme end of the scale, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm fairly content if challenges like last night are punishable with a red. 

[parsforlife]

49 minutes ago, Digs said:

Who said anything about textbook? You keep missing the point that it wasn’t a tackle, it was an attempted block, ie he’s just trying to get in the way of the ball, mistimed it and there’s a collision. It was an accident nothing more and those shouldn’t be red cards. The boy got up and played the rest of the game as if nothing happened, he wasn’t even limping after it. If it was half as bad as you’re saying he’d have been done for the night. He wasn’t. Collisions happen, it’s part of the game. 

So you accept he's made an error in his timing and probably his technique?   Is your argument that unless you set out to hurt someone regardless of how poorly you time/execute what you were trying to do then free kicks are the biggest punishment you should receive?  Not for me, timing and technique are vital parts of the game and if you don't get them right creating a risk of injury then it needs punished,  can't just turn round and say I didn't mean it.

I really don't get this distinction you are trying to make between block and tackle,  it doesn't change anything, you have the same responsibility to be considering the safety of your opponent.  There's players rightly sent off trying to control a ball.

And the 'well it didn't result in an injury therefore there was nothing wrong' is very bizarre.  Its the risk of serious injury that's to be considered,  not what actually occurs.

[Boston Red Sox]

One of those things where its a split second reaction when travelling at speed. Definitely not malicious or intending to injure just committed. I don't recall having the time to risk assess and plan every tackle I've ever made playing football, that's why I'm probably better suited to playing rugby.

[Digs]

12 hours ago, Grant said:

I'm not missing that point, I even addressed it in the last post, regardless of whether he went in with the intention of blocking the ball, he's caught him halfway up his shin with his studs up with a straight leg, that's not half of anything, that's what happened. 

A massively high proportion of red cards are accidents, it's not like players are going into tackles with the intention of getting sent off, they'll be trying to get the ball, they'll miss the ball, twat the player which in turn endangers his safety so they get sent off. 

By your definition of accidental mistimed collisions not being reds this shouldn't have been a sending off. 

But it was, because regardless of what Talbots intentions were going in for the tackle (and the video has him making a tit of a clearance) the end result had him studs up, with a straight leg, endangering the opponent. We're talking the extreme end of the scale, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm fairly content if challenges like last night are punishable with a red. 

That example was extremely unlucky and I actually thought of this too because I also argued the same here. He goes to blast the ball clear and the guy nicked it off his toe a split second before he got there. I don't know if you've ever missed the ball when you are about to hit it full power but if there is no contact to stop the momentum, it is extremely difficult if not nigh on impossible to stop your foot travelling in that situation or control what happens when it goes beyond the point of the ball, so no, it wasn't a red IMO. Again, there was no injury here and he played on. He probably got a sore face at the time granted but it's nowhere near as bad as that picture makes it look.

I think there is a common sense distinction to be made as to what is reckless and what is an error. That's not reckless, it's an accidental collision and I don't believe you should be punished for an error. Flying in both feet off the ground at knee height is definitely reckless and needless and deserving of punishment because you know if you make the inevitable contact, the opponent is getting smashed, and most of the time when players smash into someone in a tackle, they are thinking I don't want to come off second best. The nuance here is that the instance above, and the one with Maeda, as that he couldn't possibly have foreseen that the defender would have followed through exactly onto his foot putting his studs into his shin, and in the example above, he clearly wasn't expecting the opponent to get to the ball first. He didn't put his boot into his face to leather the boy, or protect himself, he just misjudged it.

As I keep saying, it's a contact sport, and collisions happen. You get up and get on with it. There is no need to over complicate things and I say this all the time, that the majority of refs have never kicked a ball outfield at any sort of level, that's why they are refs usually, because they weren't good enough to play, and so their interpretation of what they see is usually nothing close to what most players accept actually happened (surrounding the ref to get them sent off and gain an advantage notwithstanding). When you add on these nanny state rules it exacerbates it even more. In their defence though, the players at the professional level don't make it easy for them. You rarely see boys rolling about unless they are actually clattered at the lower levels. 

Things is, in the context of the rules, you are right, and I can see why you're saying that for that reason, but IMO, there has to be an element of common sense applied because when you talk about endangering an opponent, and mistiming and accidental collisions shouldn't matter, you're basically saying don't tackle, because you are always at risk of an unseen circumstance, or a mistime and if you are saying that players should take that into account, removing tackling is the only way to be sure which frankly ruins the game. It's part of defending and part of the game and if we accept it's a contact sport, we accept that sometimes accidents happen, and punishments should be measured by the outcome rather than what might have happened when 95/100 nothing serious does. How often do players actually get carried off or go off injured relating to a challenge? Nowhere near as often as excessive punishments for 'endangering an opponent' are handed out. Being sent off because of what might have happened when it's clear what they were trying to do is ludicrous. As the old saying goes, 'if my auntie had baws she'd be my uncle'.

[parsforlife]

8 hours ago, Boston Red Sox said:

One of those things where its a split second reaction when travelling at speed. Definitely not malicious or intending to injure just committed. I don't recall having the time to risk assess and plan every tackle I've ever made playing football, that's why I'm probably better suited to playing rugby.

Rugby players are also finally finding out that just going in as hard as you can without good technique is going to result in a few early showers 

5 hours ago, Digs said:

That example was extremely unlucky and I actually thought of this too because I also argued the same here. He goes to blast the ball clear and the guy nicked it off his toe a split second before he got there. I don't know if you've ever missed the ball when you are about to hit it full power but if there is no contact to stop the momentum, it is extremely difficult if not nigh on impossible to stop your foot travelling in that situation or control what happens when it goes beyond the point of the ball, so no, it wasn't a red IMO. Again, there was no injury here and he played on. He probably got a sore face at the time granted but it's nowhere near as bad as that picture makes it look.

I think there is a common sense distinction to be made as to what is reckless and what is an error. That's not reckless, it's an accidental collision and I don't believe you should be punished for an error. Flying in both feet off the ground at knee height is definitely reckless and needless and deserving of punishment because you know if you make the inevitable contact, the opponent is getting smashed, and most of the time when players smash into someone in a tackle, they are thinking I don't want to come off second best. The nuance here is that the instance above, and the one with Maeda, as that he couldn't possibly have foreseen that the defender would have followed through exactly onto his foot putting his studs into his shin, and in the example above, he clearly wasn't expecting the opponent to get to the ball first. He didn't put his boot into his face to leather the boy, or protect himself, he just misjudged it.

As I keep saying, it's a contact sport, and collisions happen. You get up and get on with it. There is no need to over complicate things and I say this all the time, that the majority of refs have never kicked a ball outfield at any sort of level, that's why they are refs usually, because they weren't good enough to play, and so their interpretation of what they see is usually nothing close to what most players accept actually happened (surrounding the ref to get them sent off and gain an advantage notwithstanding). When you add on these nanny state rules it exacerbates it even more. In their defence though, the players at the professional level don't make it easy for them. You rarely see boys rolling about unless they are actually clattered at the lower levels. 

Things is, in the context of the rules, you are right, and I can see why you're saying that for that reason, but IMO, there has to be an element of common sense applied because when you talk about endangering an opponent, and mistiming and accidental collisions shouldn't matter, you're basically saying don't tackle, because you are always at risk of an unseen circumstance, or a mistime and if you are saying that players should take that into account, removing tackling is the only way to be sure which frankly ruins the game. It's part of defending and part of the game and if we accept it's a contact sport, we accept that sometimes accidents happen, and punishments should be measured by the outcome rather than what might have happened when 95/100 nothing serious does. How often do players actually get carried off or go off injured relating to a challenge? Nowhere near as often as excessive punishments for 'endangering an opponent' are handed out. Being sent off because of what might have happened when it's clear what they were trying to do is ludicrous.'.

Nobody is saying don’t tackle at all, it’s that need to be more selective in how you do so, being aware something may be unforeseen can happen and that if a contact is to occur you need to make sure it’s not unsafe and yeah sometimes it means don’t go for some tackles

The only way to ref is on balance of probabilities, otherwise you’re saying the 95 should get away with it and the other 5 should be punished based on nothing more than bad luck, and you don’t stop the reckless challenges cos players will just back their luck.

You’re acting like we see players being sent off all the time for this sort of thing, it’s a once or twice a season thing for every club, not exactly excessive.

‘they’ve never even played the game’ is raging da nonsense and will quite rightly be chucked in the bin.

 

[Digs]

18 hours ago, parsforlife said:

‘they’ve never even played the game’ is raging da nonsense and will quite rightly be chucked in the bin.

 

Not sure what 'raging da nonsense' is but nope. Sorry if that offends you but it's not. Not in the slightest.

I see it week in, week out in the EOS, youth football, and most weeks on TV. In our own senior game, you've got our supposed top ref, Willie Collum who makes baffling decision after baffling decision based on his obvious poor understanding of technique. He's not the only one, just a very obvious example. Like many others I am lumping into this box, he's an administrator of rules rather than a referee and a poor one at that, because that's all he has in his locker and his interpretation of incidents is affected by this lack of knowledge. If he has played any higher than primary school/BB's/Cubs level, I will eat my hat. Most of the good refs I know personally, are ones who have played to a reasonable level alongside or before they became a ref. That is a fact.

Good refs who understand the game, know what is and isn't a foul, alongside as well as within of the laws of the game, that is the difference. 

[parsforlife]

2 hours ago, Digs said:

. Most of the good refs I know personally, are ones who have played to a reasonable level alongside or before they became a ref. That is a fact.

 

Well that’s highly doubtful given that virtually nobody who has played at a decent level has made a successful refereeing career.   It’s not a grand conspiracy that’s keeping them away from achieving that, it’s just that refereeing and playing are completely separate skills.

[Digs]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Well that’s highly doubtful given that virtually nobody who has played at a decent level has made a successful refereeing career.   It’s not a grand conspiracy that’s keeping them away from achieving that, it’s just that refereeing and playing are completely separate skills.

That was my original point. I don't care if you think it's 'highly doubtful' how would you know who I know? 🤣 

The ones I referred to played at semi-pro/junior/pro-youth level, which are by anyone's standards, a decent level. Many, if not most refs though, don't even do that. I just happen to know more than one who have done it.

Sean Murdoch is also another example, who did play professionally if you want objective examples on people I don't know.

 

[parsforlife]

8 minutes ago, Digs said:

Couldn't care less if you think it's doubtful tbh, it's a fact. 

Fact that you know loads of refs who are doing it at a high level that previously played at a good level?  I’d like to see the evidence of that before you just declare it as fact

[Digs]

4 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Fact that you know loads of refs who are doing it at a high level that previously played at a good level?  I’d like to see the evidence of that before you just declare it as fact

I never once said I knew any refs at a 'high' level, nor did I say I knew loads.

[parsforlife]

20 minutes ago, Digs said:

That was my original point. I don't care if you think it's 'highly doubtful' how would you know who I know? 🤣 

The ones I referred to played at semi-pro/junior/pro-youth level, which are by anyone's standards, a decent level. Many, if not most refs though, don't even do that. I just happen to know more than one who have done it.

Sean Murdoch is also another example, who did play professionally if you want objective examples on people I don't know.

 

It’s not who you know, it’s you declaring they were good refs cos they’ve played. If that was the case they’d have shot by all those who haven’t played and be the ones getting champions league ties,  given they aren’t i would think that would suggest those who are actually paid to judge the quality of refereeing don’t agree with your opinion, and it is only your opinion, not a fact as you seem to want to declare

[Digs]

24 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

It’s not who you know, it’s you declaring they were good refs cos they’ve played. If that was the case they’d have shot by all those who haven’t played and be the ones getting champions league ties,  given they aren’t i would think that would suggest those who are actually paid to judge the quality of refereeing don’t agree with your opinion, and it is only your opinion, not a fact as you seem to want to declare

It's obvious you haven't grasped what I said was a fact.