When tackling becomes dangerous

Tackling is becoming a dangerous business. Not for fear of broken limbs and torn ligaments, but because of the threat of red cards from referees who brandish cards with the abandon of croupiers.
Last night, John Obi Mikel became the latest player to be sent off for a dangerous tackle after a studs-up lunge on Phil Neville (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkMPmKVXM9M).

It was a fierce challenge that probably warranted the dismissal. But after a season filled with two-footed, over-the-top tackles, it is not just the decision that is debatable: the whole issue of what constitutes a dangerous tackle is up for discussion.

So we want to know what you think characterises a dangerous tackle and what warrants a red card. That may seem straightforward, but considering that any mis-timed challenge could hurt an opponent, it’s not as easy as it sounds. After all, you can’t judge a tackle on whether a player ends up writhing around like he’s been electrocuted with a cattle prod.

Instead, it has to come down to two things: intent or technique. In terms of intent, it’s pretty easy to tell the difference between Roy Keane trying to get the ball and Keano trying to get Alf Inge Haaland. Clearly, if a player goes over the top of the ball the intent to hurt is tangible – and referees don’t seem to have much problem with this.

Difficulties occur when the offence is one of technique. There is little doubt that Mikel was trying to win the ball and not hurt the man. But even though it wasn’t a classic two-footed challenge, it was just as dangerous. For a start, Mikel jumped into the tackle and straightened his leg – meaning he was likely to hurt his opponent even if he got the ball – while he also went in with his studs up. So it was dangerous, even if there was no intent to hurt. Which is why it probably deserved a red card.

Put simply, if players go in for a tackle, they need to either stay on their feet, slide in with their laces showing (and not their studs) or accept the consequences. There is no sliding scale: studs up equals sent off.

What do you think? Is football getting too soft or is it about time the bully boys were given a beating?

Comments

[Paul B]

This issue needs a better understanding of the game than Martin's offering. It is not physically possible for a player to make a "sliding" tackle head-on to an opponent without using the sole of the boot. If the issue is about contact between studs and the other player's foot, the foul known as "leaving your foot in" (Eboue on Terry) is far more liable to result in injury. Football remains a sport which allows for some physical contact, invetably risking injury - if the laws are boiled down to "any challenge which might result in studs making contact with player" then so be it, but it will take another few years and hundreds of red cards before we get there - is that what football fans want?

[Kevin Rossiter]

Direct claims for money compensation will make more impact than the endless deliberations of the rule-making authorities and their lowest common denominator-seeking committees.

"Player X deliberately broke my leg. It cost me £Y in lost bonuses and appearances and suchlike. Here's the video evidence that proves my claim. Now pay up" is a likely scenario in the not too distant future. It will happen in the lower divisions where the money matters more.

[Ben]

I don't think that studs showing should be the be all end end all of the discussion. If a player slides and takes the ball on the ground with his studs there is no real danger.The danger to the player in possession is when the tacklers' foot is raised, or more specifically, as you touched upon, when the leg is straightened. These type of tackles are cowardly and act only to protect the tackler from injury, with no regard for the other player.
As soon as a player goes in showing studs with a straight leg the red card should come out

[Tintagel]

There is more to this than just "studs/laces showing" or "two-footed". Two-footed tackles are bad, but only if there is a realistic chance of significant contact with the opponent. Leaving the ground always happens when the tackle is two-footed, so the tackler is out of control. "Studs showing" is only bad if there is a realistic chance of contact with the opponent. The referee needs to consider whether contact was made with the opponent, whether the tackler's foot contacted the ball first, and whether the opponent took evasive measures to avoid contact with the tackler's foot. The use of the adjective "significant" refers to the force of contact. Tackling from behind is forbidden, in any case, so it is always a foul. Whether it is a red card offence depends on the force of contact. So, for me, the force of contact is the key phrase, whether contact was made or merely intended. It is true that the referee has to put himself in the mind of the tackler, but the referee always has to do this in the case of infringement, as with hand-ball. You cannot dissociate this issue from simulation, as some players when tackled will often maximise the effect. The way to deal with this is to give the cheat a red card, not a yellow, if the offence, if committed, would have resulted in a red card to the tackler.

[Mark Laycock]

Whatever happened to football? It seems those in charge are more concerned with protecting their money making ballerina's than maintaining the (not so) beautiful game. A non contact sport has been developed .. I actually find it quite embarrassing to watch a 6'2" fella rolling around after being poleaxed by fresh air. Kick them harder I say.