Let's All Laugh At... let's all laugh at United

[Trix]

I always find it strange how many football fans who play the sport don't seem to believe there is a technique to tackling.

"He got the ball" seems to be enough for many. Tackles being studs up, reckless, dangerous etc just don't seem to matter to many.

Pundits the same. Many of them still looking at tackles in the same way as when they were playing back in in the 80's/90's.

Intent is irrelevant, along with playing the ball before man. Fact is if it's dangerous it's going to be a straight red and fans , pundits, players and managers are going to have to get used to and accept that because the laws on the game that govern this are not going to change.

 

[cwy21]

I don't get the argument that it was okay because he was shielding. Whether it's a tackle or shielding, you're taking on an action because an opponent is there. That means you are responsible for your body.

 

[dontcallme]

Pundits the same. Many of them still looking at tackles in the same way as when they were playing back in in the 80's/90's.

Intent is irrelevant, along with playing the ball before man. Fact is if it's dangerous it's going to be a straight red and fans , pundits, players and managers are going to have to get used to and accept that because the laws on the game that govern this are not going to change.

“He’s not that kind of player” is my favourite piece of analysis.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

. Fact is if it's dangerous it's going to be a straight red and fans , pundits, players and managers are going to have to get used to and accept that because the laws on the game that govern this are not going to change.

For me its simply a matter of the difference between reckless and negligence.

When you are reckless, you take an action that you know, or should know, is likely to cause injury. So, tackles where the player leaves his feet, or when a player goes into a tackle with studs up, or boot high - knowing there will be contact with the other player, or the infamous scissors tackle, or a sliding tackle from distance, knowing you will take out the opposing player. These are all conduct that we want to deter - and the harsh sanction of a RC is designed to do just that.

If you watch Rashford's RC - he made an effort to shield the ball - an action we see a dozen times a game, and is not inherently dangerous or reckless. But, Rashford was slow/late with the move, and the Copenhagen player beat him to the spot, so that when Rashford's foot comes down, the Copenhagen player is already there - and Rashford fouls him.

Rashford was negligent - but not reckless. His actions were not "likely" to cause injury - even though that was the end result. And again - what we want to punish are actions, not results. We want to deter players from taking overly risky actions. We can't seriously say that trying to put your body in position to shield the ball is something we do not want players to do - it happens, without incident, a dozen times a game.


A red card is a harsh penalty, and should be reserved for egregious fouls. I don't think Rashford (or Romero) were guilty of egregious fouls for the offenses that generated their RCs. I think Romero probably could have seen Red for his kick out, just prior, but not the actual foul.

 

[Misfit]

“He’s not that kind of player” is my favourite piece of analysis.

The inference being that had the exact same action been done by a player with a different personality type then obviously it's a red. Who you are not what you do is what matters innit.

These people can vote FFS.

 

[cwy21]

For me its simply a matter of the difference between reckless and negligence.

When you are reckless, you take an action that you know, or should know, is likely to cause injury. So, tackles where the player leaves his feet, or when a player goes into a tackle with studs up, or boot high - knowing there will be contact with the other player, or the infamous scissors tackle, or a sliding tackle from distance, knowing you will take out the opposing player. These are all conduct that we want to deter - and the harsh sanction of a RC is designed to do just that.

Sorry to go ref nerd on here but I think it's important to address the word "reckless". It has it's own definition in the laws of the game that doesn't necessarily match up with the dictionary or common law definition. Reckless = yellow card in football.

Reckless: is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

 

[Japhet]

For me its simply a matter of the difference between reckless and negligence.

When you are reckless, you take an action that you know, or should know, is likely to cause injury. So, tackles where the player leaves his feet, or when a player goes into a tackle with studs up, or boot high - knowing there will be contact with the other player, or the infamous scissors tackle, or a sliding tackle from distance, knowing you will take out the opposing player. These are all conduct that we want to deter - and the harsh sanction of a RC is designed to do just that.

If you watch Rashford's RC - he made an effort to shield the ball - an action we see a dozen times a game, and is not inherently dangerous or reckless. But, Rashford was slow/late with the move, and the Copenhagen player beat him to the spot, so that when Rashford's foot comes down, the Copenhagen player is already there - and Rashford fouls him.

Rashford was negligent - but not reckless. His actions were not "likely" to cause injury - even though that was the end result. And again - what we want to punish are actions, not results. We want to deter players from taking overly risky actions. We can't seriously say that trying to put your body in position to shield the ball is something we do not want players to do - it happens, without incident, a dozen times a game.


A red card is a harsh penalty, and should be reserved for egregious fouls. I don't think Rashford (or Romero) were guilty of egregious fouls for the offenses that generated their RCs. I think Romero probably could have seen Red for his kick out, just prior, but not the actual foul.

Looking at the slow motion footage of Romero's tackle, it does look to me like he wanted to 'leave something' on the player he was tackling. The red mist had descended when he got upended shortly before. In the circumstances, a block tackle would have got the job done, but Romero did follow through after the ball was gone. Probably an unpopular opinion but that's how I saw it.

 

[max cady]

Have to disagree, he has shown he is better than that for UTD and England

I accept he had a few good seasons but if you note I said had. He is bang average and had only looked good because UTD were so poor. As for England caps they give them away like candy.

 

[dontcallme]

I accept he had a few good seasons but if you note I said had. He is bang average and had only looked good because UTD were so poor. As for England caps they give them away like candy.

I think Rashford is an interesting player.

HIs power, pace and ability with both feet is something even the best defenders struggle with when he is at his best.

Personally, I think his mentality and football intelligence holds him back. When a team sets up properly against him, he doesn't have enough about his game to adjust to it.

For England I got very frustrated at watching him shoot from ridiculous positions all the time. Attack after attack breaks down with him.

But against the right opposition he can look devastating.

If he can be a better team player and know his limitations, his effectiveness would go up immensely.

 

[max cady]

For me its simply a matter of the difference between reckless and negligence.

When you are reckless, you take an action that you know, or should know, is likely to cause injury. So, tackles where the player leaves his feet, or when a player goes into a tackle with studs up, or boot high - knowing there will be contact with the other player, or the infamous scissors tackle, or a sliding tackle from distance, knowing you will take out the opposing player. These are all conduct that we want to deter - and the harsh sanction of a RC is designed to do just that.

If you watch Rashford's RC - he made an effort to shield the ball - an action we see a dozen times a game, and is not inherently dangerous or reckless. But, Rashford was slow/late with the move, and the Copenhagen player beat him to the spot, so that when Rashford's foot comes down, the Copenhagen player is already there - and Rashford fouls him.

Rashford was negligent - but not reckless. His actions were not "likely" to cause injury - even though that was the end result. And again - what we want to punish are actions, not results. We want to deter players from taking overly risky actions. We can't seriously say that trying to put your body in position to shield the ball is something we do not want players to do - it happens, without incident, a dozen times a game.


A red card is a harsh penalty, and should be reserved for egregious fouls. I don't think Rashford (or Romero) were guilty of egregious fouls for the offenses that generated their RCs. I think Romero probably could have seen Red for his kick out, just prior, but not the actual foul.

I don't think Rashford's challenge was reckless or negligent I think it was more careless he wasn't really paying attention to who or what was around him.

 

[cwy21]

I don't think Rashford's challenge was reckless or negligent I think it was more careless he wasn't really paying attention to who or what was around him.

So you think just a foul and no card?

 

[max cady]

I think Rashford is an interesting player.

HIs power, pace and ability with both feet is something even the best defenders struggle with when he is at his best.

Personally, I think his mentality and football intelligence holds him back. When a team sets up properly against him, he doesn't have enough about his game to adjust to it.

For England I got very frustrated at watching him shoot from ridiculous positions all the time. Attack after attack breaks down with him.

But against the right opposition he can look devastating.

If he can be a better team player and know his limitations, his effectiveness would go up immensely.

At this moment would you have him in the current Spurs team

 

[max cady]

So you think just a foul and no card?

I didn't say it was not a foul and not deserving of a card.

 

[cwy21]

I didn't say it was not a foul and not deserving of a card.

Careless means just a foul and not a card in the laws of the game. I'm not trying to be a dick but people use careless and reckless incorrectly when arguing ref decisions.

 

[dontcallme]

At this moment would you have him in the current Spurs team

Probably not. I hate his selfishness.

Johnson, Son and Kulu could be a good front 3 and all play for the team.

I don't see Rashford fitting in. He has ability but I see no desire to adjust his game for the team.

 

[easley91]

I always felt Rashford does well for England. Don't think the chaotic nature of United helps.

 

[neogenisis]

I never got the hype, he seems to be really good or incredibly bad. Streak player maybe?

 

[DJS]

Man Utd manager Erik ten Hag says big decisions are going against his side - is he right?

Man Utds poor season took another turn for the worse after Wednesdays loss in Copenhagen left them bottom of their Champions League group; Erik ten Hag says they have been hard done by with the decisions that have gone against them; Sky Sports takes a look at to see if he is right...

www.skysports.com

Seems to be the trend that managers are whinging even more about decisions to deflect their own short comings.

Especially for Man U to moan given how much bent officiating has gone their way over the years…

Tan Haag really is an idiot.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

Just watching some of the coverage of Bobby Charltons funeral

Brilliantly covered by Hayley McQueen, daughter of Gordon

Never realised that’s who she was. Absolute class act

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Looks like United might finally be getting some good news on the injury front: