The Tackle

With the news that De Jong is seemingly going to face legal proceedings for a tackle that broke another professional's leg in two places, what say ye on the 'Art of the Tackle'?

Is it acceptable that a tackle that breaks another player's leg can be deemed as a fair challenge by a referee? That's not a go at the referee, it's questioning whether the laws of the game are leaving too much leeway for over-physical challenges.

Is it 'part of the game' that has to be lived with? Can any more be done to minimise this type of injury without fundamentally changing football for the worse?

Weel we know where the LMA stands

"The accomplishments of the managers mentioned should be applauded rather than publicly judged"

Dangerous even starting this thread imo. Maybe you should start a new one for praising everyone's integrity, because that seems to be the real issue here.

yeah, that line. not even 'balanced against' or 'as well as'

never used to be this many broken legs. i can only assume players are not drinking enough milk.

whether there were or weren't 'ever' this many, can the game be developed in a way that there are fewer from now on?

Is it 'part of the game' that has to be lived with? Can any more be done to minimise this type of injury without fundamentally changing football for the worse?

― i dont love everything, i love football (darraghmac), Monday, 11 October 2010 11:29 (3 hours ago)

these kind of injuries occur in england far more than elsewhere, and the excuses are feeble

'it's a contact sport', yeah but even nfl which is 20x more violent has certain sensible limits
'didn't go in to hurt him', irrelevant/tendentious psychologizing....i doubt even de jong/taylor etc themselves can remember what they thought in that instant...doesn't rly matter
'the ball was there to be won', the rules don't give carte blanche if it involves srsly endangering another player

just send more ppl off for dangerous tackles even if they don't cause injury

^ where i'm at, to a tee.

Has Nigel De Jong always been this dirty/psychopathic or did I just not notice until the World Cup? It strikes me that no one bothered to talk about him at all during his first season at Man City.

he pulled a few very nasty tackles last year, broke a yank leg in an international, and i definitely saw him try to do another player during a game i was half watching in a pub once.

yeah nakh otm.

that said, i'm cool with more karate kicks (pros - no leg breaks, funny).

Matt - 101gg have been pulling videos up of him breaking bone(s) earlier in his career so...

Even this level of dialogue is so far removed from the actual discussion that's taking place (in public at any rate). There it's all about some miniscule technicality in the rules, more often than not totally made up, and then smothered under a blanket of honour anyway. Football makes me feel quite alienated sometimes.

Yes, I was thinking about that before I started the thread- about how the possibility of serious damage just doesn't arise until it arises in actuality, about how the rules are so loosely ties to the kind of outcomes that you'd want to see avoided, about how punishment is so unweighted against the possible consequences.

Has Nigel De Jong always been this dirty/psychopathic or did I just not notice until the World Cup? It strikes me that no one bothered to talk about him at all during his first season at Man City.

― Matt DC, Monday, 11 October 2010 14:51 (10 minutes ago)

i'm not sure, but two serious injuries and a ludicrous karate kick in about 20 matches probably confirms it

it's true that a pure defensive mid like him will make a lot of challenges, but i don't remember mascherano/makalele injuring someone like that

mascherano is a contemptible little player, but for the most part it's ankle taps. every now and again he'll try to shave an opponent's shin, but i've rarely seen him full-length full-force into a breakable part.

he lacks the physicality to do the real damage too, i think

Mascherano did a really bad one against Portsmouth last year, injuring only himself in the process, and got duly sent off for it. Still love him though.

xps Can't really legislate for outcomes though, you can only target particular behaviours and no matter how well you do that there are still going to be accidents where good conduct results in terrible outcomes (and vice versa). Which is where Shawcross etc do have a point, giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's the boneheadedness of most of that attitude though, where it just seems inconceivable that the rules could be any different from what they are now, that makes me despair most.

There used to be lots of deaths in the early days btw, so you could say there's been some progress - possibly due to the discovery of medicine and doctors and so on more than anything else tbf.

nah mascherano is short but powerful enough, same w/ makelele (i can only remember one rly bad foul from him...vs faubert)

those players usually topped the stats for tackles per game (and probably fouls per game), but it's mostly harmless trips/tugs....half of the art of being a miserable little shit dmid is in making clandestine fouls rather than stupid, obvious lunges that attract bookings

i'd be happy to see more bookings for tactical fouling but that's another thread

xps Can't really legislate for outcomes though, you can only target particular behaviours

Yeah, this is what we're continually coming up against. Is it fair to legislate against the possible outcomes? Don't other areas do this all the time? Drink driving, for instance? Recklessness needn't have a specific outcome in specific cases in order to be punished fairly harshly.

Course, in fairness that doesn happen- Karl Henry's tackle didn't hurt anyone too badly, but it was a red card offence. But more of this is needed i think.

The enforcement of dangerous play has basically always been restricted to lifting your foot above waist height while another player tries to head the ball. Which is crazy really.

The issue of punishing actual outcomes rather than reckless behaviour (or even violent behaviour) may be connected to this nonsense about "ball first"

xxxp My view generally is that it's not fair, but it certainly isn't clear cut. There are issues where the discrepancy is massive e.g. you're probably thinking of death-by-dangerous-driving attracting a mammoth penalty (years in jail) whereas dangerous driving is, what, points and a fine, maybe a ban? Yet the outcome is really just down to luck in such cases. I'm not happy with those - but then murder attracting a harsher penalty than attempted murder you could say is the same thing (not such a relatively huge difference in penalty though) and I doubt many people would argue with the idea of different punishments there.

But if the punishment is designed to be yr famous 'deterrent' then surely you have to argue for outcomes being kind of irrelevant?

The issue of punishing actual outcomes rather than reckless behaviour (or even violent behaviour) may be connected to this nonsense about "ball first"

yeah the fact that 'ball first' is still offered to viewers in 2010 drives me fuckin soft

charlie adams hasn't gone in to hurt bale

Even taking that lie as truth, it's a contemptible and cowardly defence of that tackle.

P neville will have said similar, twice this season already, for premeditated tackles on the same player that forced him out of at least the remainder of that game.

Can there be subsequent action on this one?

Ref can't have seen cos no free kick at all so think FA can and should look at it again. And then ban him for 3 matches. Not that type of player tho.etc.

4 leg/ankle breaks in MLS this season w/ the victims all being top players on their teams. So far only one big suspension afaik, 10 games.

tbh i don't think charlie adam meant it. bear in mind he's a hun and i'm a tim, so i'm inclined to think the worst of him.

i wonder if it might be better to continue with the laws on fouling more or less as they are at the moment, but for officials to be able to refer reckless challenges to a panel for judgement/further punishment.

Both teams sent to their own halves, then the injuree's teammates get thirty seconds to apply summary judgement.

ffs ilx

perfectly good thread, not only covers, in essence, the rodwell incident (open goal) but would have taken the heat out of the main thread

typical klata. there's pandemic, giving it the big one. ailsa, big personality in a thread, put her on a pitch, where is she? nakhchivan, been posting a year thinks he knows it all.

fuck them, all of them.

I went into argos and barry browne brought me out a battery recharger with a usb hub attachment

he's gone in intending to hurt klata, pandemic, ailsa and nakhchivan there, clear red. not the kind of thing we want to see on ilf.

*leaps three feet in air, writhes in agony*

he could've ended my career. no apologies afterwards either.

SB Dmac there and you may as well say ILF is a non-contact board, like IL People Making or something.

yellow card at most, definitely not a red.

Could easily say it's a red tbh, but ailsa, nakh, pandemic and I were heading away from goal so I'm calling it a yellow

REF WTF REF WOSS THAT FOR I GOT THE BALL I GOT THE FUCKING BAAAAAWWLLL

who is the kevin muscat of ilx

Markelby iirc.

yeah whoever ronan did the 'I'LL AVE YOU etc' post about

Gonna have a bit about this thread in my autobiography.

i was actually yellowcarded btw

If i take it to sitewide mods do i risk a fulk ban for frivolous appeal

that 'sticks and stwns' dn was finest material imo

launching a two-footed appeal

There is a pause as Alonso reaches, again, the crux of the issue. A single English word he returns to that, unpacked, analysed and investigated, explains much. "I don't think tackling is a quality," he says. "It is a recurso, something you have to resort to, not a characteristic of your game. At Liverpool I used to read the matchday programme and you'd read an interview with a lad from the youth team. They'd ask: age, heroes, strong points, etc. He'd reply: 'Shooting and tackling'. I can't get into my head that football development would educate tackling as a quality, something to learn, to teach, a characteristic of your play. How can that be a way of seeing the game? I just don't understand football in those terms. Tackling is a last resort, and you will need it, but it isn't a quality to aspire to, a definition. It's hard to change because it's so rooted in the English football culture, but I don't understand it."

what a weirdo

pfft stfu xabi you have to learn how to perform the last resort mate.

A well-timed tackle can be a thing of beauty

wondering which of the EPL's great exponents of the tackle will come back with an articulate philosophical response

see, that's fuckin nonsense

that decision today would make any decent man utter the dreaded "you're not allowed to tackle anymore" i used to kick a ball in the street

roy basically said as much at half time

@mbean4
players were instructed at start of season that 2 footed tackles have been outlawed completely

i find that sort of stupid. like surely if it's not dangerous it's not dangerous.

nani had to jump out of the way to avoid potential injury. wasn't a fair tackle. definite red for me.

Whether he jumped out of the way or not is immaterial, it didn't look dangerous. Good tackle imo.

if nani doesn't jump out of the way do you not think there was a chance he might get injured? nani seemed to think so. players should be able to go in for a tackle safe in knowledge they won't get injured by the other player launching themselves at the ball with both feet off the ground. a 50/50 should be just that - not 100/0.

There's always a chance someone will get injured with any tackle. To quote the rulebook - "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." No excessive force there afaics.

nani was in the way, didn't have to move from it, one foot gets ball from side, no contact, other foot doesn't make contact, kompany seems, imo, to be in control and not in danger of going through opponent, no 'straight leg' contact.

Out of say eight things i look for in a straight red tackle, 'two footed' is it.

some dude said this on The Guardian's mbm. Dunno whether it's true or not

"The rule states that a player commits this infringement when they use "excessive force" when challenging for the ball. FIFA has further clarified this by noting that a player who lunges into a challenge with both feet, or shows his studs when going into a challenge commits serious foul play

don't see that implemented in any way, shape nor form

"it wasnt a tackle" may be a new low tbrr

what is one to say on ruben rayos

is there an appropriate punishment within the game

hard pressed to think of a worse one

no way you can defend that lbi

Already retracted Deems

RAH VICTORY