Having not seen the Manchester Derby live, I read about Vincent Kompany’s “controversial” red card before I watched the match. When I saw the incident, I was astonished at how uncontroversial the decision was, at least in my eyes. Kompany launched into the tackle with both feet off the ground.
As soon as I’d realised that (and it was very obvious: ITV commentator Clive Tyldsley mentioned the two-footed nature before the referee had even blown his whistle) I wasn’t concerned whether he won the ball, whether he was particularly high off the ground, or whether his opponents complained. The two-footed tackle is a pointless, pitiful method of attempting to win the ball, which should have no place in football.
The Laws of the Game sets out the description of a challenge that should be penalised with a red card. “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.” A two-footed tackle almost perfectly fits the ball here – it’s clearly a lunge, using excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent.
Jumping into a tackle with two feet is a very deliberate action. It is a completely different situation to being ‘late’ – which can be very dangerous, but could be mistimed and accidental. It’s also very separate from being ‘high’ – which is often a case of poor technique. To make a tackle with two feet, especially in a situation where the ball and player are coming towards you, it requires a completely different action and body position to a one-footed tackle. You cannot accidentally make a two-footed tackle, you are doing so deliberately and aggressively.
Depressingly, Kompany’s tackle has been used as propaganda for the idea that slide tackling is being outlawed. In fact, it wasn’t a slide tackle at all: at no point between Kompany taking off and getting the ball is he near to sliding along the ground. The concept of a slide is crucial – it means the player’s body weight is being supported. If there is no contact with the ground, it means the player’s entire body weight is directed towards his opponent – had Nani not jumped out of the way, he could have been seriously injured.
This is presumably what Kompany refers to when, in the Facebook ‘note’ he posted after the appeal was turned down, he said, “I wonder though, if we are now going to see an unprecedented wave of red cards on match days because we sanction ifs and maybes?” Let’s hope so. We shouldn’t have to rely on the attacking player to jump out of the way of these tackles, we should be penalising and therefore discouraging the defenders from diving in so foolishly. Kompany is an excellent defender and seemingly a bright chap – he should learn from this, tackle more intelligently, and become a better defender.
Tackling is an art, they say. Well, it can be – it can also be brutal and dangerous. There is nothing artistic nor enjoyable about seeing a player dive in with two feet. A measured, controlled slide tackle is one of the best things you can see on a football pitch, as seen throughout Alessandro Nesta’s masterful display up against Lionel Messi at the Nou Camp earlier this season, for example. Nesta continually went to ground – he had to, since he was unable to keep up with Messi – but he did so with grace and style.
Of course, not everything in football has to be graceful and stylish. The argument that some fans love the physical side of the game is legitimate, but it’s unclear how this extends to the two-footed tackle. Even in boxing or rugby—sports based around physicality more than anything else—there are rules in place to prevent the physicality from being violent. Restricting tackles to one foot improves player safety considerably, and makes minimal difference to the defender’s chance of winning the ball. Who loses?
As it happens, one of the sides who will benefit most from this strictness is Manchester City. They make more short-passes-per-game than any other side in the Premier League and therefore are constantly vulnerable to opposition challenges, whilst they make the fourth-fewest tackles in the division. Stricter refereeing will protect the likes of David Silva and Sergio Aguero, technically gifted footballers who should be able to dribble the ball forward without the threat of a defender jumping towards their ankles.
Incidentally, I didn’t see the game live because I was in Madrid, watching Sevilla’s trip to Rayo Vallecano, focusing upon Jose Antonio Reyes’ return to Sevilla. Reyes is the best example of someone kicked out of the English game, unable to deal with the brutal challenges dished out by opposition defenders. Much of that was his own fault – the joy of football is that it blends technical, physical, mental and tactical skills, and Reyes struggled with both the physical and mental sides of the game in England.
Some say Reyes never recovered from the match against Old Trafford in October 2004, when Gary and Phil Neville made a succession of heavy challenges on the Spaniard. Gary Neville admitted he targeted Reyes. “I knew that above all I had to get tight, get physical. I had to makes Reyes lose his confidence – it’s the only match when I’ve ever been accused of brutalising an opponent,” he said in his autobiography. “I’m not going to deny an element of intimidation – he couldn’t handle the rough and tumble.”
But even here, the most obvious example in the Premier League’s 20-year history of a player being overawed by the strength of tackles, Neville knew there was a line he shouldn’t cross. “That didn’t mean going over the top,” he said. “It didn’t mean reckless two-footed challenges.”
Very interesting.
When shall we expect KJ’s rebuttal?
Since I’m more than a little baffled by KJ’s interpretation of the physical mechanics of what happened, I’m not too interested in reading it.
It’s clearly two footed with studs up. It’s clearly NOT a “technically perfect” tackle as some (not necessarily KJ) have opined, and the fact that Nani managed to avoid the tackle and injury has no bearing on it being a reckless and dangerous act. It’s also pretty damn irrelevant if “he got there first” since he managed to do so by breaking the rules. I can get to a ball first too, but if I’m pulling on shirts or grabbing opponents on my way, I’m going to get called.
I was surprised to see a red card come out, but when it was brandished, I didn’t think there was too much for Kompany or city to complain about. To his credit, Kompany didn’t.
The other thing that’s baffled me surrounding this incident is the “sky is falling” claims about the art of tacking. It couldn’t be further from the truth. The ART of tackling is alive and well, and isn’t going anywhere. The act of clumsy, lazy or reckless clattering into opponents under the guise of “man’s game” machismo can go the way of the dodo bird for all I care.
It is possible to go to ground without endangering those around you, and it is possible to win a ball (and dump an opponent on his ass if you so desire) without breaking the rules. The more refs allow injurious play, the more injuries we’ll see. Unfortunately, as Cox points out it’ll be the players we want on the field who will be missing, not those who don’t belong there.
SB
kj is a retard anyway. His “tactical analysis” segment is a joke. He has no idea what he’s talking about, and says random bullshit.
Actually you don’t get a straight red card for a reckless challenge. Reckless gets you only a yellow. ‘Using excessive force’ is what earns the red.
Although two ‘recklesses’ equals two yellows and therefore one red.
What’s truly sad about Kompany’s red is that it wasn’t followed up by Johnson’s from Liverpool when they played City. That was just as bad.
Mancini should be annoyed that a pro player is attempting a slide tackle in an area of the field where there is no danger. All coaches should watch this to teach players that there is no need for a slide tackle out here (15 yards into our half) use proper defending technique.
Agree 100% with this analysis. A player should not have to have his leg broken to have a red card shown. When the tackle is coming, Nani basically has two options: he can try to retain the ball and risk serioous injury, or he can concede possession and avoid the tackle. The fact that he rightly chose the latter, resulting in Kompany winning the ball, does not in any way change the nature of the challenge. It is a dangerous, potentially career threatening way to win a ball. It is easilly demarcated from legitimate tackles. And it has no place in the game.
Mancini (and KJ/Sharman) were right to point out the issue of inconsistency with regards to Glen Johnsobn’s similar lunge – but the appropriate way to achieve consistency here is by punishing GJ in the same way, not to downplay the severity of Kompany’s challenge.
Michael:
Do you feel Glen Johnson’s tackle yesterday warranted a red card then as well?
I’m find it interesting that anyone could read the above article and think the author wouldn’t see that tackle as a red card.
Yup, absolutely.
I cant disagree more with you. Perfectly good tackle. Im sick of the Sky generation talking about ” that was a leg-breaker”…” a career-ending tackle”…statistically its not the case, far more legs get broken and careers ended in the normal manner ie. playing the game than this latest poster-child for filling the news.
Did the tackle warrant a 4 game ban and the effective end of the match as a contest? 100% absolutely not.
But how many tackles of each kind are made? If you compare only the absolute number of injuries caused, then yes there may be more caused in ‘normal’ tackles. But there are far more of those kinds of challenge, and if you control for the number of challenges made (i.e. divide injuries by number of attempted tackles, for each type) I can’t imagine that would be the case at all.
well, show me the stats. The really well known/high profile broken legs/end of career tackles as far as I can remember back number maybe two or three a season..Ramsey, Eduardo, jamie mackie etc – almost these were one footed tackles or clashes that didnt even result in red cards.
Dont get me wrong..go into hurt someone with two feet., one foot, or your elbow– get punished accordingly–but to committ 100% to winning the ball and doing so by not fouling the opponent- play on.
And as for Reyes disappearing from the Prem league as he got kicked a few time–some loss..where is he now? You want to see players who got a kicking look at Pele or the players in the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s…grow some balls the lot of you!
I find this sort of view depressing and, as the article points out, means those teams and players who try to play the ‘beautiful game’ get kicked out of it.
The fact that one player is going into a tackle studs up/two-footed/off-the-ground means that the other player either has to match that or pull out. If he matches it, I see lots of serious injuries. If he pulls out, well then the first player wins the ball fairly, and so no foul, right?
We’d end up with a muddy violent game – also known as ‘how it used to be’.
Maybe that’s the sort of football some people want to see. Not me.
its simply not the case that skillful players will be lost by allowing tackling of this type( see pele etc comments) do you really want the kind of stop start game that we see in the likes of spain now where players are falling over at the mere hint of a tackle – thats the logical conclusion to your argument?
Also, of your suggesting that the likes of Kompany ( or Johnson) are only in the game because they are thuggish/law(leg)breakers and not able to compete in “the beautifull game ” then I’d contend you’re wrong again..
You brought up stats, you show them to us!
Totally agree with you Michael.
When I was 21, I was the victim of a two footed tackle that broke my leg in three places. I’ve no doubt that, had the tackle been in the same place but with one foot only, the damage would’ve been far less.
Once airbourne, it’s impossible to control yourself – for that reason alone, they should always be punished.
Rather than demonstrate that the game has gone soft, I’d argue that the two footed tackle is the most cowardly attempt at winning the ball you can make.
To dive in like that, almost ensure you will suffer no injury at all and makes a 50/50 far more like a 70/30 (at least).
I agree two-footed tackles should be outlawed. The reasons argued above make perfect sense.
I do have an issue with the wording of the law with respect to one-footed tackles. It seems that even one-footed challenges that use excessive force and endanger opponents are banned? That seems fairly prohibitive. You could conceivably argue that any one-footed tackle will use excessive force and endanger opponents. You could argue, for instance, that the Nesta tackle used excessive force and potentially endangered Messi could you not? If he’d have missed the ball and got Messi across the shin then it’s a foul and arguably with excessive force and endangering Messi, under the law, he’s off. If Kompany went in with one-foot the wording of the law suggests that he is still culpable. That seems unfair to me.
The other point I’d like to raise is that tackling from behind is seen as an infringement these days, whether it’s two-footed or one-footed. That means if Nesta came from behind with that tackle, it is an automatic foul because it’s from behind. That seems unfair too.
Basically, one-footed slide tackles will always use a degree of force (sometimes excessive) and will often endanger the safety of the man with the ball. That’s the game. In my view, if you go in with one foot and get the ball first (whether from in front, behind or from the side) that’s a fair tackle. That’s not what the law seem to be saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJn4UgpjY4
Brilliant explanation of the technicalities around tackling and 100% correct.
I’m gonna copy a comment I made on another site:
Well, I disagree. It was really a very brilliant tackle, where Kompany manages to control the ball and keep possession, and he would hardly have been able to get a tackle in without taking down Nani if he would have had to turn his body to keep his foot down and only get one leg in (Kompany “sits” down to get the tackle in which severely reduces his momentum). Doing so would have caused Kompany to have greater forward momentum, and he would surely have collided with Nani.
I think it’s unfair on defenders, that the attacking player doesn’t have to protect themselves, and are considered free of blame/causation in a collision, simply because they refuse to give the ball up. It’s like the attacker has first rights to get to the ball, and doesn’t have any responsibility in avoiding the physical contact, even if they are chasing a pass too far in front of them or if they knock the ball to far forward. This was a good challenge, and Nani did well to avoid the physical contact.
“Nani did well to avoid the physical contact” Why? Because if he hadn’t he could have been hurt? Surely that makes it a dangerous tackle!
From looking at the Kompany tackle, I think he was unlucky to get a straight red. But I’m all for tackles like that being totally banned, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’d suggest that the law as written is pretty close to saying that already.
Actually watching it again I think it’s worse than I had thought before – Nani barely saw it coming. Ouch that could have been nasty.
In my opinion it’s not a matter of attackers having the advantage over defenders. If a forward dribbles the ball too far in front of him, the defender is favored to win the ball, then the forward slides in it would/should be called against the forward.
Take this Nani/Kompany situation. Had Kompany stood his ground but Nani slid in then I could easily see Nani being given the card instead.
What it comes down to is that at certain times players do not have the “right” to challenge for the ball, particularly with sliding tackles. People like Bunga Bunga or Graham Hunter will dismiss that as absurd, because what could possibly be more “unmanly” than pulling out of a challenge, but it’s the absolute truth. Slide tackles should really only be used when a player is realtively certain that the ball can be won cleanly. Speculative slide tackling – where a player only thinks he has a chance of getting there first, wihtout regard for the other equally likely possibility- are the problem, and are exactly what happened to Eduardo and Ramsey.
Informational – yeah, thanks for clarifying the ambiguity of “the laws of the game” – but otherwise deep-root opinionated. C’mon, ever heard of this thing called the Constitution :))? People argue to make things go their way. There’s no truth, just power struggles. Any authority with high ideals is a dangerous man. In football, referee is one.
Yes this strict decision comply with the ultimate goal to “clean” the game, so to speak. But it also destroy parts of its beauty. I’m sure most of you haven’t truly experienced how beautiful soil, rocks and dirt can be at times. Dirt comes from Earth. Whoever wants to wipe all the dirt from our world is a crazy, contemptuous person. For one thing, he doesn’t have any respect for the human natures that make him a man. From the perspective of a neutral supporter, had Manchester City not stay composed and strong in the second half, it must have been an extremely “clean”, boring and uneventful half.
—————————————-
Me? Violence is bad, but it’s still better than hypocrisy, cowardice, insecurity, and whining bitches, oh pardon the language, how about “feminine attitudes in a game of, and between men”? Nothing sexist here, cause I love women. Just dislike men who try to be ‘em. And women soccer is of a distinct category :). This paragraph is not for MU, it’s for Barcelona.
Mate what the fuck are you on about.
Blogs are meant to be opinionated. What point are you making?
Apparently none that’s relevant.
I don’t see the excessive force here. In addition, his legs are open, so no risk of a broken-leg threatening two-footed tackle as you want us to believe (it’s not an actual two-footed tackle).
But we have different views. It’s like the “flying elbow” from Joey Barton against Norwich (in your opinion), which actually was Barton trying to take Whitbread’s hands off him (in mine).
I thought there wasn’t anyone more exaggerated than me asking to cut dangerous plays with reds. Well, Mr. Cox is, and it’s totally respectable.
Except that nothing in the rules says two-footed or scissors tackles equals straight red.
I am for cleaning up the game as much as anyone, but two-footed or scissors doesn’t equal straight red. In fact the portion of the rules you quoted says it doesn’t matter whether it’s a two-footed tackle or not. The standard is whether you endanger your opponent.
Some of the editions of FIFA laws of the game, incorporate illustrations of dangerous tackles. Most of them are tackles over the ball, studs showing, and aimed at the shin of the defender. Those are the most dangerous tackles really.
So-called scissors tackles are dangerous too as a player with a stud caught in the turf could suffer a leg break.
But you have to actually look at what’s happening in a tackle.
In the Kompany case, Kompany was always going to get to the ball before Nani. There was no notion that he endangered Nani, as he was always going to get to the ball first. His left leg especially didn’t seem likely to make contact with Nani.
All well and good to point out that Kompany had no need to go in with so much force or with two feet. I agree, and agree with Feggerson that Kompany does that often. The truth is he probably went in with two feet to make sure that if he didn’t win the ball, or the turf caused the ball to go in a direction he didn’t intend, he could use his other leg to stop the player.
I however don’t think Kompany was out of control of his body having flown in. He won the ball, stopped sliding as soon as he made contact, and got up.
I don’t think Nani was in danger
The english are cowards, only tough on a football pitch protected by their backwards rules and english referees. I’m glad england is humiliated regularly in international tournaments.
This is a very shallow analysis, probably made by someone who never played as a defender on a respectable level of football?
A defender is sometimes obliged to go in with 2 feet to succesfully manage a challenge. Especially in a case like last sunday where Kompany needed to generate as much speed as possible to gather that ball. If he made that challenge with his right knee bent, he would likely been hampered by the friction with the ground making him arrive late in the challenge and even have a good chance sustaining a groin injury. He used that left leg to generate extra motion.
However he didn’t use that leg to make contact. The footage clearly reveals his left knee is bent and the leg is in no danger of making contact with Nani. Even if it does, the brunt of the impact would have been absorbed by his kneejoint flexing back. Besides, the left leg is so wide separated from the right that there was no chance of the full impact of the challenge hitting a particular point of his opponent.
He made contact with the ball with the inside of his right leg. Notice his right foot pointed forward. I’ll come back on that later. The fact he gets away with the ball so cleanly at his feet tells me that he was in control of his challenge and that it wasn’t excessive. Compare this with the bad 2-footed-challenges and you’ll see that those always make contact with the studs which causes the ball to jump away from the player. Those are the one that should be punished.
For me, a two footed challenge warrants a red card when both legs are wrapped making it possible for the full impact of the challenge hitting a specified small area on the body of the opponent and causing significant amounts of damage. Furthermore, any challenge where a player archs his toes back, fully showing his studs and thus block his anklejoint, warrants a red. The leg is made a stiff weapon that way and can’t absorb any shocks which make the impact on the opponent much more severe.
That’s the difference between the challenges of Johnson and Kompany, the last one, didn’t merrit a sending off.
I’m sorry Mr Cox; I am normally impressed by your analyses, but this is ridiculous. The ball was there to be won; Kompany went for the ball, not his opponent, and he won it without even making contact. If you want to outlaw two-footed tackles you are free to hold that position, but you cannot genuinely believe that Kompany ‘lunge[d] AT an opponent … with excessive force’. (emphasis mine)
There are situations where a defender goes flying in recklessly and is rightly cautioned despite not managing to crunch his opponent’s legs, but this careful dispossession was no such thing. Your only objection can be that two feet were used. A tackle with two feet is within the Laws, at least for now.
Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that you are allowing for a more physical football aesthetic than yours – ‘the argument that some fans love the physical side of the game is legitimate’ – when elsewhere you hold up Xabi Alonso saying that tackling isn’t a quality to aspire to and shouldn’t even be taught. Be honest and just say you don’t like tackling.
It is clear that there are at least two conflicting ideas here about what the Laws of the game should be, but let’s not engage in distorting exegesis on what the Laws actually are.
I love the arguments that spew forth from those fans who have obviously neither read nor understood the Laws of the Game.
The fact of the matter is, once Kompany left the ground, he had already done enough to warrant a red card. Everything that happened after that was irrelevant!
As a referee of 20 years’ experience I can assure you that the author is absolutely correct.
Law 12 covers Kompany’s tackle. The advice to referees on p.120 of the PDF of the Laws states:
‘A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
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…The referee MUST send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.’ (caps added by me)
Kompany ‘lunged’ and ‘endangered the safety of his opponent’: that is, he left the ground with both feet, and came in studs up. Straight red.
Got the ball? Irrelevant.
Missed the opponent? Irrelevant.
Didn’t mean to? Irrelevant.
PLEASE go do a ref’s course, get out there and do your bit for the game.
If you like broken legs and violence, football isn’t for you. I’d suggest street brawling, or working as a police officer.
I tend not to leave a leave a response, but I read some of the remarks here Cox: Kompany was right to be sent off for reckless challenge | The Footy Blog | Blogs | theScore.com. I do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright. Could it be simply me or do some of these comments look like they are written by brain dead people? :-P And, if you are posting at other online sites, I’d like to follow anything new you have to post. Could you list of the complete urls of your social networking sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?