X-rated at United, Arsenal, West Ham, Liverpool and Spurs: The horror tackles are back and must be stamped out!
00:23am 8th December 2007
The No 1 priority for referees at any level of football is the safety of the players.
The top managers have highlighted the need for better protection and half of the examples cited have been committed on Arsenal and Manchester United players.
Alexander Hleb, the recipient of two of my examples, missed Arsenal's midweek trip to Newcastle as a result of the John Carew challenge last weekend.
Last Saturday, West Ham went out far too strongly in the first 20 minutes against Chelsea with a clear intention to unsettle a superior team.
The game was prefixed by Alan Curbishley complaining that the top teams are being afforded better protection. Was this his way of trying to influence the referee, Howard Webb, into allowing more tackles? It appeared that he got his wish, but no points.
Referees are often too concerned with how they can 'sell' a decision. The tenet within match officials is to err on the side of caution. That has to stop and officials must work viewing angles to detect these tackles and then deal with them strongly.
A red card for serious foul play is probably the hardest decision a referee has to make. However, with the trend in the Barclays Premier League so far this season, referees will have to improve detection rates, especially in the light of the laws preventing the FA from taking retrospective action, even with compelling video evidence.
WHO MAKES THESE TACKLES?
Comments referring to a player 'not being that sort of person' are spurious and damaging. All too often the worst tackles are made by players who certainly did not mean to make them.
They are often called 'forwards' tackles' and made by players who cannot tackle. That is irrelevant as all players must be treated equally. Some are made by players who are seeking retribution for an earlier foul they have suffered. A good referee should find this type easier to detect.
The UEFA guidelines are clear and specific and are reinforced to referees twice a year. They remind referees that they need to take into consideration:
The element of intent or malice.
The speed of the player's action — the intensity of the challenge.
The tackler's chance of playing the ball.
The tackler endangering the safety of the opponent.
It is the final point which is stressed as there is a need to eliminate challenges where a player gives no consideration to the safety of an opponent. A player who commits himself to a challenge, who is unable to pull out of it, out of control and does so at speed, has no thought for the possible consequences and safety of his 'victim'.
This is why the two-footed challenge is seen as the worst example. The all-too-often-heard shout from players, 'He got the ball, ref ', is irrelevant if he also makes contact with the opponent.
Finally, any challenge which is made with excessive force must endanger the safety of an opponent and be identified as serious foul play and result in a red card. Any challenge made with brutality must also result in dismissal.
HOW CAN THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION HELP?
The FA are powerless to act on serious foul play offences unless a referee dismisses the offender, as FIFA have insisted that in all matters where the referee sees an incident his decision must be final. This does seem ludicrous when TV evidence clearly shows some disgraceful challenges, deserving of severe punishment.
Although the red card which Phil Dowd issued to Tottenham's Robbie Keane on Sunday against Birmingham was harsh, it has certainly highlighted the issue of the increasing trend of excessive tackling which must be addressed by our referees before someone's career is ended prematurely.
One final thought to those who say that the rule-makers are trying to make football a non-contact sport. The UEFA advice regarding serious foul play tackles concludes by reminding referees that they must allow hard/fair challenges and only punish unfair actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..._author_id=482
00:23am 8th December 2007
The No 1 priority for referees at any level of football is the safety of the players.
The top managers have highlighted the need for better protection and half of the examples cited have been committed on Arsenal and Manchester United players.
Alexander Hleb, the recipient of two of my examples, missed Arsenal's midweek trip to Newcastle as a result of the John Carew challenge last weekend.
Last Saturday, West Ham went out far too strongly in the first 20 minutes against Chelsea with a clear intention to unsettle a superior team.
The game was prefixed by Alan Curbishley complaining that the top teams are being afforded better protection. Was this his way of trying to influence the referee, Howard Webb, into allowing more tackles? It appeared that he got his wish, but no points.
Referees are often too concerned with how they can 'sell' a decision. The tenet within match officials is to err on the side of caution. That has to stop and officials must work viewing angles to detect these tackles and then deal with them strongly.
A red card for serious foul play is probably the hardest decision a referee has to make. However, with the trend in the Barclays Premier League so far this season, referees will have to improve detection rates, especially in the light of the laws preventing the FA from taking retrospective action, even with compelling video evidence.
WHO MAKES THESE TACKLES?
Comments referring to a player 'not being that sort of person' are spurious and damaging. All too often the worst tackles are made by players who certainly did not mean to make them.
They are often called 'forwards' tackles' and made by players who cannot tackle. That is irrelevant as all players must be treated equally. Some are made by players who are seeking retribution for an earlier foul they have suffered. A good referee should find this type easier to detect.
The UEFA guidelines are clear and specific and are reinforced to referees twice a year. They remind referees that they need to take into consideration:
The element of intent or malice.
The speed of the player's action — the intensity of the challenge.
The tackler's chance of playing the ball.
The tackler endangering the safety of the opponent.
It is the final point which is stressed as there is a need to eliminate challenges where a player gives no consideration to the safety of an opponent. A player who commits himself to a challenge, who is unable to pull out of it, out of control and does so at speed, has no thought for the possible consequences and safety of his 'victim'.
This is why the two-footed challenge is seen as the worst example. The all-too-often-heard shout from players, 'He got the ball, ref ', is irrelevant if he also makes contact with the opponent.
Finally, any challenge which is made with excessive force must endanger the safety of an opponent and be identified as serious foul play and result in a red card. Any challenge made with brutality must also result in dismissal.
HOW CAN THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION HELP?
The FA are powerless to act on serious foul play offences unless a referee dismisses the offender, as FIFA have insisted that in all matters where the referee sees an incident his decision must be final. This does seem ludicrous when TV evidence clearly shows some disgraceful challenges, deserving of severe punishment.
Although the red card which Phil Dowd issued to Tottenham's Robbie Keane on Sunday against Birmingham was harsh, it has certainly highlighted the issue of the increasing trend of excessive tackling which must be addressed by our referees before someone's career is ended prematurely.
One final thought to those who say that the rule-makers are trying to make football a non-contact sport. The UEFA advice regarding serious foul play tackles concludes by reminding referees that they must allow hard/fair challenges and only punish unfair actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..._author_id=482
Comment