The Kompany decision is only controversial because people don't understand the rules and guidance given to referees.
If the rules are so understandable why don't you explain in your own words why it qualifies as a red card offence.
There are too many sheep jumping on the bandwagon and shouting, 'two footed challenge equals red card'.
I'm not fully convinced Kompany's tackle was a 'two footed challenge' as the force of his body was not on both his feet and his feet were not going towards the player in a dangerous or reckless manner.
If the rules are so understandable why don't you explain in your own words why it qualifies as a red card offence.
There are too many sheep jumping on the bandwagon and shouting, 'two footed challenge equals red card'.
I'm not fully convinced Kompany's tackle was a 'two footed challenge' as the force of his body was not on both his feet and his feet were not going towards the player in a dangerous or reckless manner.
I don't need my own words. Dermot Gallagher has already done it for me.:)
And not many ex players have been referees either, and players can't be biased?
Players have a reputation of hating referees and referees have a reputation of sticking up for their own which is why most of us form our own opinions.
Dermot Gallagher is/was a very good referee, with whom I've had the pleasure to talk to a couple of times, and had him explain decisions to me on those occasions after the game. Whilst as with any other human he's made some mistakes, I'll go with his words and not those of some writer or who ever on the actual decision itself.
That perhaps the interpretation of Law 12 needs altering is another issue, based on what we've got today in the rule book, it was a red card.
The ban stays at 4, and doesn't get lifted or added to. Let's move on and concentrate on tonight's and tomorrow's Carling Cup semi finals now.
Ive no bias one way or the other, and I don't think the decison was funny at all, but is very sad.
Anyone who properly loves football, and can see past the blue or red mist of club bias, should be concerned that this tackle was and is deemed deserving of a red card.
The ability to tackle is being regulatd out of the game. It is a slippery slope now whereby the authorities will regulate increasingly against physical challenges. If allowed to contnue in this vein, the great game will be neutered, and will very soon become essentially a non contact sport.
P.S. Reading posts from those that thought it did deserve a red, justification was that he had both feet of the ground, was not fully in control of his body and although he did not injure an opponent, he might have done.
On this basis, Wellbeck should have been sent of, because when he scored he had both feet well off the ground, did not have control of his body and , although he did not seriously injure anyone in executing the kick , he was in a crowded penalty area and could have done so - and even more so, could have caused a serious head injury.
Yes , that is plainly ridiculous, but just how far from ridiculous are we going to get if refereeing continues along it's current path and with the sort o decisions we now se on a more regular basis?
Yes , that is plainly ridiculous, but just how far from ridiculous are we going to get if refereeing continues along it's current path and with the sort o decisions we now se on a more regular basis?
It's not the fault of the referees though! The FA instruct them to produce red cards when a player goes in with two feet. If you want to take issue with that then fine, but direct it towards the FA, not the ref who has merely done his job in accordance with the guidelines provided by his employer.
Talking of consistency, Kompany should really have had his ban extended by an additional match as there was no prospect of the appeal being successful.
Ive no bias one way or the other, and I don't think the decison was funny at all, but is very sad.
Anyone who properly loves football, and can see past the blue or red mist of club bias, should be concerned that this tackle was and is deemed deserving of a red card.
The ability to tackle is being regulatd out of the game. It is a slippery slope now whereby the authorities will regulate increasingly against physical challenges. If allowed to contnue in this vein, the great game will be neutered, and will very soon become essentially a non contact sport.
P.S. Reading posts from those that thought it did deserve a red, justification was that he had both feet of the ground, was not fully in control of his body and although he did not injure an opponent, he might have done.
On this basis, Wellbeck should have been sent of, because when he scored he had both feet well off the ground, did not have control of his body and , although he did not seriously injure anyone in executing the kick , he was in a crowded penalty area and could have done so - and even more so, could have caused a serious head injury.
Yes , that is plainly ridiculous, but just how far from ridiculous are we going to get if refereeing continues along it's current path and with the sort o decisions we now se on a more regular basis?
Fair point about the Welbeck tackle, but surely there is a difference?
Kompany: Nani was in-control and dribbling so Kompany attempted a tackle
Welbeck: Ball was mid-air, Welbeck attempted a shot.
Are they experts in the rules and guidelines under which referees operate?
You don't know how any of the pundits/sports writers/ex players would have reacted under the pressure much like how you can't claim Dermot Gallagher would have given a red if he was in Foy's position.
The letter of the law says yes, but the letter of the law is a pile of crap. Should't be a red but don't care about his ban.
Hear hear. I find the fact that Kompany misses 4 games as a result of what I and the majority believe a fair and forceful tackle absolutely scandalous.
The irony is that the FA were perfectly happy to support Rooneys appeal to get his ban reduced for what was a blatant kick at an opponent
You don't know how any of the pundits/sports writers/ex players would have reacted under the pressure much like how you can't claim Dermot Gallagher would have given a red if he was in Foy's position.
What has that got to do with anything? Dermot Gallagher stated the decision was correct, nothing to do with how the referee reacted or how anyone else would have reacted.
What has that got to do with anything? Dermot Gallagher stated the decision was correct, nothing to do with how the referee reacted or how anyone else would have reacted.
Dermot Gallagher's opinion means f@ck all. He ain't the be all and end all of the game.
After the event he can pretty much say whatever he wants, it's his opinion and it certainly does not make it fact. It's not like he never made a mistake.
Dermot Gallagher's opinion means f@ck all. He ain't the be all and end all of the game.
After the event he can pretty much say whatever he wants, it's his opinion and it certainly does not make it fact. It's not like he never made a mistake.
It means a hell of a lot more than pundits and ex-players.
Comments
If the rules are so understandable why don't you explain in your own words why it qualifies as a red card offence.
There are too many sheep jumping on the bandwagon and shouting, 'two footed challenge equals red card'.
I'm not fully convinced Kompany's tackle was a 'two footed challenge' as the force of his body was not on both his feet and his feet were not going towards the player in a dangerous or reckless manner.
I don't need my own words. Dermot Gallagher has already done it for me.:)
Dermot Gallagher is not Chris Foy.
He knows what he's talking about and he also knows the rules and guidance better than most people and he said it was a red card and correct decision.
There are just as many reputable pundits/sports writers/ex players who have said it wasn't a red card offence.
As we are assessing whether the referee acted correctly, I would suggest that the opinion of a very experienced referee would carry more weight.
Not always, many referees never even played the game so in some instances an ex player's opinion may carry more weight.
Not to mention with referees there can always be a bit of bias.
And not many ex players have been referees either, and players can't be biased?
Players have a reputation of hating referees and referees have a reputation of sticking up for their own which is why most of us form our own opinions.
Ha Ha.
That perhaps the interpretation of Law 12 needs altering is another issue, based on what we've got today in the rule book, it was a red card.
The ban stays at 4, and doesn't get lifted or added to. Let's move on and concentrate on tonight's and tomorrow's Carling Cup semi finals now.
Ive no bias one way or the other, and I don't think the decison was funny at all, but is very sad.
Anyone who properly loves football, and can see past the blue or red mist of club bias, should be concerned that this tackle was and is deemed deserving of a red card.
The ability to tackle is being regulatd out of the game. It is a slippery slope now whereby the authorities will regulate increasingly against physical challenges. If allowed to contnue in this vein, the great game will be neutered, and will very soon become essentially a non contact sport.
P.S. Reading posts from those that thought it did deserve a red, justification was that he had both feet of the ground, was not fully in control of his body and although he did not injure an opponent, he might have done.
On this basis, Wellbeck should have been sent of, because when he scored he had both feet well off the ground, did not have control of his body and , although he did not seriously injure anyone in executing the kick , he was in a crowded penalty area and could have done so - and even more so, could have caused a serious head injury.
Yes , that is plainly ridiculous, but just how far from ridiculous are we going to get if refereeing continues along it's current path and with the sort o decisions we now se on a more regular basis?
It's not the fault of the referees though! The FA instruct them to produce red cards when a player goes in with two feet. If you want to take issue with that then fine, but direct it towards the FA, not the ref who has merely done his job in accordance with the guidelines provided by his employer.
Talking of consistency, Kompany should really have had his ban extended by an additional match as there was no prospect of the appeal being successful.
Fair point about the Welbeck tackle, but surely there is a difference?
Kompany: Nani was in-control and dribbling so Kompany attempted a tackle
Welbeck: Ball was mid-air, Welbeck attempted a shot.
Are they experts in the rules and guidelines under which referees operate?
You don't know how any of the pundits/sports writers/ex players would have reacted under the pressure much like how you can't claim Dermot Gallagher would have given a red if he was in Foy's position.
I wonder why that is then?;)
Hear hear. I find the fact that Kompany misses 4 games as a result of what I and the majority believe a fair and forceful tackle absolutely scandalous.
The irony is that the FA were perfectly happy to support Rooneys appeal to get his ban reduced for what was a blatant kick at an opponent
The worlds gone mad.
What has that got to do with anything? Dermot Gallagher stated the decision was correct, nothing to do with how the referee reacted or how anyone else would have reacted.
Dermot Gallagher's opinion means f@ck all. He ain't the be all and end all of the game.
After the event he can pretty much say whatever he wants, it's his opinion and it certainly does not make it fact. It's not like he never made a mistake.
It means a hell of a lot more than pundits and ex-players.
Correction, to you it means a hell of a lot more, not the majority on this thread.
The view that if Dermot said it it must be true is rather short sighted.
I only involved pundits/sports writers/ex players to counter Dermot's views, like many others I have formed my own opinion.