Martin Samuel's Debate: What should be done about dangerous tackles?

Click here to read all of Martin Samuel's column

Respect is a simple, catchy slogan. Trips off the tongue, stays in the memory. It is a worthy ideal, too, with one small problem. It is not, nor will it ever be, the most important item on the agenda. What football needs now is an alternate, less populist campaign. “Stop trying to break people’s legs, you freaking morons.” How about that?

The seasons change but football’s reality does not. It is barely seven months since Eduardo da Silva’s career was threatened by a tackle from Martin Taylor, of Birmingham City, yet already we have a broken leg for Craig Fagan in the Barclays Premier League and heaven knows how many near-misses. Rodrigo Possebon, of Manchester United, was lucky to escape last week, the next victim may not be so fortunate.

Yet each season, the authorities announce another clampdown to solve a diversionary problem that could be addressed in one weekend, with a minor tweak in the rules or the issue of statutory cards. Last year we were obsessed with diving; now we get the vapours about rude words to referees.

Treating officials with respect is important. Retrospective action for those who endanger the career of another professional is vital. Who would have imagined that Eduardo’s injury would not have advanced the game in this country by one yard? Live and don’t learn; that is the English way.

What should be done about dangerous tackles?

Please leave your comments in the field at the bottom of this post.

Comments

[Josh]

For my 2p worth, I don't think there's a huge problem - it's rather serious, but fairly easy to fix. I don't see many players (apart from that thug, Barton) who deliberately try and injure someone; just a few too many overenthusiastic and dangerous tackles.

I don't even think players particularly want to make these dangerous challenges. It's just that there's a category of tackles that they don't currently realise *are* dangerous, just as with the tackles-from-behind rules being introduced a decade ago.

The problem is relatively simple: players must not tackle with the foot that is about to take their weight; that's all. If a player is tackling in such a manner that he cannot possibly pull out of the challenge or change where his weight-bearing foot will go, that's dangerous because it's not down to the tackler whether he injures the opposing player - if the player with the ball moves unexpectedly, he may have a broken leg for his pains.

[Chris Bridgeman]

As a footballer myself I have seen bad tackles become more and more common place. When I started playing football, 2 footed tackles were wrong and if you did one you recieved a ticking off from your own team mates and manager. But now you see people encouraging such acts.

This issue is more than just the small percentage of people that play football on TV and yet very few people seem to have noticed that, outside of the top leagues there are millions of people who play competitve football. This needs to be fixed becuase it is something that is watched by childern and seen to be the norm. How would you react if your son is playing and has his leg broken because the other lad saw it on TV?

I am a centre and I enjoy making strong but fair tackles, but I never go out to hurt anyone and would expect the same from the team I am playing, but this no longer the case.

This is a difficult situation to fix but the answer is firm action against anyone who commits anything in football that is deemed to be unfair. I give an example, how is it that someone who commits a violent act, i.e. Mr Gutherie allowed to play football again? He is paid lots of money to act like a thug, to me a ban for a few weeks is not enough. If I walked up to someone on the street and did what he did in front of 50k people. I would be arrested and likely charged with assult. I am not saying the police should be involved but why is he not made strongly punished for the duration of his ban? Why should he recieve full wages for commiting what I believe to be assult??

[Prakash.K]

Edward Morford and all others who believe that "play football and get kicked":

Last evening's CL match between Manutd and Aalborg produced a moment worth the analysis. 14 minutes in to the match and Augustinussen goes in to a tackle with Paul Scholes. Replays very cleraly showed the offender's boot landing on Schole's knee. There is no arguing that the tackle was indeed rash. Are we all to resign to the fact that it is alright that Paul Schole's knee ligaments are damaged and he won't be able to paly for two months because he played the match? Is it to be accepted as a fact of football life that these things are bound to happen and therefore they are a "given". And that if Scholes don't want to get his knee damaged,he shouldn't be on the pitch?

What a sad and sorry state that would be!

Dangerous and Rash tackles do not have a place in footaball and they should be eradicated for ever. Let there be a combination of punishments, banning the offender, fining the offender, fining the club and what will certainly work, deduct points from the club. Football is a a game to be enjoyed by those watching it and by those playing it. War like attributes do not find palce on the football pitch.

Nothing is taken away from the game where such tackles do not happen.

And finally those who want to break bones and those who want to enjoy those mad moments of braking bones, please chose alternative avenues of expression. Let football remain the beautiful game that is.

[Edward Morford]

First and foremost, if a player is found to be responsible for injuring another, to the extent that the injured player misses matches, then the culprit's team should surely foot the wage bill for the injured player. That seems logical to me.

Other than that, I think the current rules would, possibly with slightly more power for the FA, cover punishments for people that have intentionally tried to break someone's leg. Ban them for a year (I'm sure the FA could do that now if they wanted), and fine them a year's wages. It'd soon stop.

But, at the end of the day, you play football, you're going to get kicked.

Now, diving. These cheating, pathetic scum ruin football. They also affect whether a person who gets a good kick, actually gets a free kick, and possibly even the correct treatment because the ref's first thought these days is "has he dived", and that's wrong. Ban them, sell them, or deport them. I couldn't care less, but get them out. We know who they are.

[Allan]

"There will always be horror tackles as long as the English mentality remains unchanged. "

Remember 1966, and the Hungarians and Portuguese clogging Pele and co out of the World Cup?

It's not a peculiarly English disease...

[John Smith]

Two footed tackles shd be banned.If a players gets seriously hurt like the Eduardo case, the offending player's club shd be deducted ten points.if the injured player is able to play the penalty shd be five points duducted.
I believe this injury threatening tackles
should be severely dealt with not the mandatory three match ban.

[Robert Thomas]

Martin,

Shouldn't the onus rest on coaches: young players need to be taught better the art of tackling, of dispossesing an opponent without causing harm. Surely the technical aspects of tackling can be coached: the incentive being that defenders become high quality ball robbers and not bone breakers. I've seen Andres Iniesta, all 5 ft 6 of him dispossess towering opponents with their backs turned to him, and this without once ever lifting both his feet off the ground. Baresi, Moore, Maldini should be emulated on the training pitches.

[Jim Regan]

I agree with Iandeli with the point on the Parker-Bullard incident. It is completely unacceptable to use the result of a tackle as a guide for the punishment, as intent doesnt always relate to the outcome. Football is a physical contact sport and accidents will occur, which will naturally bring injuries. An intent to injure is the area that is completely unacceptable, and perhaps a referral of on-pitch intent towards to the police to consider an asault charge to the police would make players think twice. I realise that intent would be subjective and not ideal, but surely just placing that seed of doubt in a mind would stop the majority of players intending to injure an opponent, even in the heat of the moment.

[Sophie]

Intent DOES matter, how can anybody suggest otherwise? How can you justify dishing out the same punishment to a player who made a bad tackle due to poor timing versus a player who went in out of frustration (as Rooney has on many occasions) or out of vengeance (step forward 'respected' manager Roy Keane).

My point is, introduce all the sanctions you want, it won't make one iota of difference in the millisecond between a mis-timed, and therefore dangerous, tackle and a match-winning one. Players know they can be booked for dissent and for kicking the ball away, but they still do it, and they have a lot more control on the outcome of those offences than the fine line between good and bad tackles.

Incidentally, how very convenient that Taylor is an unfashionable player at an unfashionable club, therefore fair game. I see far worse tackles with far more sinister intent every week on Match of the Day and from 'Top Four' players which could quite easily lead to more horrific injuries. What about Arsenal's own game against Man Utd only a few weeks before the fateful Birmingham game? Search for it on YouTube, one of the players going in for reckless, potentially dangerous tackles in response to being frustrated and outplayed was Eduardo himself.

The subtext of most of this argument seems to be that Taylor couldn't cope with Eduardo's skill and so crudely hacked him down because the foreigner had the nerve to be better than him. The first part of this is true; Taylor couldn't cope with Eduardo's speed. Maybe, just maybe, that was a factor in his poor timing. Let's be frank: Martin Taylor is never going to set the world alight with his footballing skills. He doesn't only have terrible lapses in judgement in defence, I have seen him give many goals away in the most baffling of circumstances.

Let's just legislate against mistakes then. Ban for life any player who mis-times anything. Accept only perfection. Give it a season, how many players do you think we'd have left? And by 'we', I mean any club not in the sacred top four. Because, of course, John Terry never made a bad tackle, he's far too talented. And Eboue is clearly the model professional who could be an ambassador for fair play.

Apologies if I sound bitter but, frankly, I am. There are plenty of players in the English game deserving of criticism for dangerous play, for 'simulation' or 'gamesmanship' (cheating, to you and me) who don't get even a fraction of the vitriol poured on Martin Taylor for being, let's be frank, slow and not very good. To repeat from my earlier post, anyone who has watched Martin play over several seasons knows that he doesn't deserve to be crucified every time journalists want to 'clean up the game' (or rather, to clean up the mid-bottom of the table sides).

[Owen]

Martin, you sound dangerously close to saying that Martin Taylor's tackle was extremely reckless...something the whole English football establishment (somehow symbolised by Shearer's vacant mug on MOTD appealing to the lowest common denominator) should hang it's head in shame at not admitting. It still grates to this day.....good, old, honest, ENGLISH pro absolved of any responsibility for destroying the leg of one of the most promising strikers in the world.

[Chris R]

Why not just ban the tackle altogether - it seems to be where it is heading. It's a contact sport - get on with it.

[Brian]

There will always be horror tackles as long as the English mentality remains unchanged. The mentality that canonizes traits like "commitment" and "passion" over ones like "guile" and the much-derided and foreign-sounding "skill." As long as horror tackles are excused just a player was "showing commitment" then they will keep happening. Being reckless is not an excuse just because it might not have been malicious. Premier League executives haven't figured out that people are paying these obscene prices to watch the skill of a Ronaldo or Fabregas or Torres. If they want to see lumbering, clumsy oafs, they can go watch a Championship or League One match for significantly less cost.

[Prakash.K]

Sophie: Bad tackle is bad, irrespective of whether it resulted in a broken bone or not. The fact is that the result might not have been intentional, but since there is a possibility of potential physical damage to the palyer, such reckless tackles have to be understood to be unacceptable. Lucky Possebon, but that does not absolve Pogatetz of even an iota of the committed crime.

Ban the offender, fine him and I agree with the suggestion by YBvENAL, take points of the team committing such offences, the Managers will ensure that their players do not commit such unacceptable and horrible fouls.

P Jordan : Disagree totally. This is the beautiful game and let it not get converted to ridiculous levels of physical threats to players who can dribble or run with the ball. These dangerous tackles will ultimately prevent skilled palyers from expressing their talents and that in turn will rob the game of all its beauty
Clubs must win, earn points and let us not forget that those who watch the game also should be able to enjoy the game as much as the players.

Let every red card cause a dent on the points earned by the clubs and let an accumulation of yellow cards also do the same. Only then will statements like the one made last season about some defender causing serious damage to Ronaldo, or tackles that broke Eduardo's bone or the one which just missed the Possebone bone will vanish from the football pitch.

[yemenal]

It would be simplicity itself to rid the professional game of any behaviour deemed undesirable. All you have to do is decide what behaviour is worthy of the highest sanction, like headbutting the ref, punching a fan, deliberately dangerous tackling, etc etc, by FINING THE CLUB POINTS. All the monetary fines or three match bans in the world wont make the slightest impact. Take away a couple of points, and watch managers stamp out that kind of behaviour in their squads.

[Denzil]

I think it comes down to the definition of a dangerous tackle.

The incident that really highlighted the subject was Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo. I'm still of the opinion that although poorly timed, the tackle wasn't malicious. In comparison, the recent tackles by Guthrie and Pogatetz were deliberate attempts to injure an opponent.

If 6, 8 or 10 game bans were started to be dished out, I wouldn't trust an FA panel made up of 'Suits' to distinguish the difference.

[P Jordan]

In an age where any tackle that leaves your opponent flat on the ground will be awarded a free kick and/or a booking, makes you wonder what on earth the game is coming to. Dangerous tackle should be severely dealt with, but for goodness sake tackles has been part of the game since it was invented. What was wrong with a well timed slide tackle that wins the ball, but put your opponent in the stand. Much more cotton wool in the game and they will be playing in petticoats.

[Timothy Tanner]

Sophie, Taylor may not have gone into hurt Eduardo but his tackle was inept and extremely dangerous. Why, when the ball was on the floor, did Taylor go in with his foot just below Eduardo's knee?

Now it is difficult to judge intention unless it was a deliberate off the ball incident but a dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle. Bans should also go to people like Nolan who are discovered to have advocated kicking a player as policy.

[DANIEL DEFOE]

Lets get this straight. Football is a physical, contact sport, yes, but we have to erase the serious and highly dangerous foul play that is worryingly taking place week in, week out.

Danny Guthrie didnt make a challenge, he delivered an intentional and brutal kick at Craig Fagan and succeeded in inflicting damage. Emmanuel Pogatetz launched into Rodrigo Possebon, playing 10% ball and taking 90% man, as did Kevin Davies on Gael Clichy.

These offenders are not stupid. As professionals of the game they will have no doubt been on the recieving end of bad challenges and will therefore understand the pain and injury they can cause when flying into them with such malice.

The FA need to step up the campaign to stop the game being littered with dangerous challenges NOW!

[James]

For reckless and dangerous tackles, ban the perpetrator for the duration that their victim is sidelined through injury.

[Prakash.K]

Who is to judge and what should be the scope of punishment?

Well, as Mr. Mark Riley and others have already suggested, there is a working model in Rugby. Let's adapt it and modify it later if necessary. Let there be a committee formed by the FA to review the serious/dangerous fouls irrespective of whether they have been already penalised by the referee or not and also irrespective of whether the referre has included the incident in his match report or not.

The punishment has to be severe enough if th players have to resisit the temptation to go two footed at the player with the ball. A minimum justifiable punishment could be to ban the offender for the same period for which the offended player is unable to play. Also, add a fine of substantial amount (after all that is the only thing which matters to most of them!) and then let's see the improvement.

[Sophie]

For the last time, Taylor DID NOT intend to cause any injury to Eduardo. Anybody who saw his reaction to the injury, and anybody who knows Taylor as a player (prior to the incident, I mean, not for the incriminating 30 seconds that have been repeated ad nauseum), knows that he went in for the ball. The FA could introduce any number of retrospective punishments and banning orders, but it would not have made Taylor's tackle any less badly timed or the outcome any less unfortunate. It is unfair to compare this injury with Craig Fagan's, given than Danny Guthrie ran ten yards and jumped into the tackle, while Taylor went in from a standing start.

[Chris]

I think it'd be good if managers were held more accountable for their players' behaviour on the pitch. Ideal or not, a player will always fear the rebuke of his own manager more than that of the FA. He would rather be told off by the FA for endangering another player's career than be told off by his manager for lacking commitment in a tackle. Adding stronger incentives for managers to crack down on bad tackles from within their own team might have just as much of an effect as increased punishments for the players themselves.

Two or three red cards for bad tackles or violent conduct? Multi-game touchline bans for managers and extra fines for the clubs, on top of whatever the player and club originally incur for the offending challenge.

[Hugh McCartney]

why not ban the the player responsible for the time that the injured player is out of the game ?
That should grt some attention.

[Mark Riley]

Rugby Union use an independant citing officer who uses video evidence and players can be and are charged and for serious foul play that may have gone unnoticed or insufficiently punished by the match officials - , works well and is simple and both respected and feared by the players - at least outside of NZ (B.O.D!)

[Thabani]

There is simply to much money and consequently too much at stake to ignore the calls for video assistance.

Perhaps we should institute something similar to Rugby. Dangarous tackles to be dealt with by video after the game. If a player is spotted to have commited s reckless tackle or malicious intent is to lead a serious ban.

However, we must not be guided by whether a leg is broken or not. I don't believe any player takes on to the field intending to brake an opponent's leg.