The red card.

[colinmaroon]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

So it wasn't a "great tackle" , it was an illegal tackle. 

Genuinely , I cannot believe the rose tinted specs approach from so many posters about this . 

 

It's not bias, it's not even crap refereeing but some folks will just not accept it- even when CL refuses to defend the player for it. 

 

Sorry, you have taken one comment and twisted the whole meaning of my post, unless of course, you're saying that Hearts players don't get sent off for things that others get away with.

 

Driving competently around a rally course above the speed limit is great driving but, under the laws of the land it is otherwise illegal.  The two are not mutually exclusive unless you are very narrowminded.

 

 

[CJGJ]

It was not a foul

 

It should not even have been a booking

 

You cannot slide tackle without leaving the ground and picture stills will only confuse matters

 

PS that does not excuse the goalkeeping error and worse our keepers failure to have a proper wall set

[DVB]

8 hours ago, Dayman said:

 

The red and two other awful decisions for those who missed it

It does my head in how players can grab Uche round the neck and the refs just ignore it.

[Dayman]

34 minutes ago, DVB said:

It does my head in how players can grab Uche round the neck and the refs just ignore it.

If he was small and weak then he’s have someone sent off every week for persistent fouling. I feel if he doesn’t get any protection from refs he’ll be off to a proper league soon. 

[Captain Canada]

The past two games have highlighted again how poor referees are in this country. 

 

Uche doesn't need to foul anyone to win the ball but is frequently penalised and given no protection at all when he's wrestled by defenders. 

 

I think playing Vanecek alongside him will help him get more space to create chances. At the moment we're too one dimensional in attack. 

[N Lincs Jambo]

Watching the Chelsea v Man U game just now and Chelsea’s Rudiger has just been shown a yellow card for a foul which imho was worse than Garrucio’s yesterday.

 

 I say that as regrettably I agree that the ref yesterday got it right. Can’t say I agree with the laws of the game at present as I thought it was a brilliant tackle which, when executed like that, should not be illegal 

[RDSK]

David Luiz challenging with 2 feet off the ground in the Chelsea game. No card. No free kick. 

 

[Lovecraft]

4 minutes ago, RDSK said:

David Luiz challenging with 2 feet off the ground in the Chelsea game. No card. No free kick. 

 

 

Yep.  And he led with studs up.

 

 

[Uche Gang]

5 minutes ago, RDSK said:

David Luiz challenging with 2 feet off the ground in the Chelsea game. No card. No free kick. 

 

 

But remember the fact he won the ball is irrelevant

[DVB]

16 minutes ago, Uche Gang said:

 

But remember the fact he won the ball is irrelevant

I think a lot of people have just latched onto the words “he won the ball” and decided because the rule is that this is irrelevant then therefore it must be a red card.

[colinmaroon]

19 minutes ago, Uche Gang said:

 

But remember the fact he won the ball is irrelevant

 

Chelsea aren't wearing maroon, and it's not an SFA official.

 

 

[portobellojambo1]

That is the first time I've watched the tackle since the game. At the game I thought it was a very good tackle, and having watched it again I still cannot understand why it was given as a free kick, never mind the player being sent off. He won the ball cleanly, so cleanly that the opposing player got straight back up on his feet, not something he would have done if it had been dangerous.

[Jammy T]

11 hours ago, Bauld said:

He comes in off the ground which is why he has been given a red card.

 

The problem is he has actually done it with perfect timing, executing a perfect tackle by taking the ball and missing the well player completely.

 

 

He has put the Well player at risk, get it wrong and it could have been a leg breaker but he has done it with absolute precision.

 

Or luck

 

Really surprised that the fine people of JKB haven’t at least accepted that by making the tackle the way he did Garrucio places himself at risk of a red card.

 

Even if you think it wasn’t a red card only a complete simpleton would argue that it wasn’t a risky challenge that gave the ref a decision to make and an option to send him off.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Jammy T

[Jammy T]

1 hour ago, portobellojambo1 said:

That is the first time I've watched the tackle since the game. At the game I thought it was a very good tackle, and having watched it again I still cannot understand why it was given as a free kick, never mind the player being sent off. He won the ball cleanly, so cleanly that the opposing player got straight back up on his feet, not something he would have done if it had been dangerous.

 

If somebody shoots at me with a gun it is dangerous - yes?

 

If the bullet misses does that mean being shot at wasn’t dangerous after all? 

[TyphoonJambo]

"puts the player at risk" really? You put your life at risk whem crossing g the road but, by timing when and how you do it, negates thst risk. Ben done exactly  this t. He could have but didn't mistime time it. It was a good brave tackle which he gamnled on and had it not been deemed a foul, it would have  quickly  turned defence into attack. 

[Shaggy2]

If I may put a different slant on this, Nick Walsh has issued 3 red cards in the top flight this season, all contentious decisions. Djoum when he also won the ball at Livi, Kris Boyd at Aberdeen, which was appealed, and now Garuccio. He’s actually issued 4 if you count Bobby’s at Livi where he made a complete twat of himself. Don't care about Boyd, but I find it very difficult to believe that he’s not seen worse offences than the ones committed by Djoum and Garuccio. 

[Bauld]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/craig-levein-to-make-hearts-call-on-colin-doyle-in-coming-days-1-4875788

 

 

Despite the fact Garuccio won the ball, Levein stuck with his post-match assertion that his player left the ground and had no real basis to contest the decision. “I don’t think there’s any point in appealing it,” he said. “The rules are pretty clear. He’s left the ground so I couldn’t see us winning an appeal. Ten years ago we’d have won it on the basis that he won the ball but I’ve been involved in enough of theses cases now to know when it’s worth an appeal and when it’s not. The Motherwell player took a poor touch which put the ball in an area where Ben thought he could get it, but it was just outside that line for him. “To get the distance that he got, he had to leave the ground and when you leave the ground you’re wide open to getting a red card. I feel for him because it was a split-second decision, and if the player had taken a better touch he wouldn’t have been enticed into the tackle.” 

[Phil Dunphy]

1 hour ago, Bauld said:

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/craig-levein-to-make-hearts-call-on-colin-doyle-in-coming-days-1-4875788

 

 

Despite the fact Garuccio won the ball, Levein stuck with his post-match assertion that his player left the ground and had no real basis to contest the decision. “I don’t think there’s any point in appealing it,” he said. “The rules are pretty clear. He’s left the ground so I couldn’t see us winning an appeal. Ten years ago we’d have won it on the basis that he won the ball but I’ve been involved in enough of theses cases now to know when it’s worth an appeal and when it’s not. The Motherwell player took a poor touch which put the ball in an area where Ben thought he could get it, but it was just outside that line for him. “To get the distance that he got, he had to leave the ground and when you leave the ground you’re wide open to getting a red card. I feel for him because it was a split-second decision, and if the player had taken a better touch he wouldn’t have been enticed into the tackle.” 

 

Seems like the gaffer reckons it was a good tackle too. 

[StevenNaismith]

Almost word for word what he told me on Monday and I posted on this thread.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Is it even possible to put in an effective slide tackle without your feet leaving the ground to some degree?

[Rudolf]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Is it even possible to put in an effective slide tackle without your feet leaving the ground to some degree?

No.

[Seymour M Hersh]

22 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

No.

 

I would agree but should that mean every sliding tackle should be red card now?  At least that would be objective rather than subjective. 

[Bazzas right boot]

On 18/02/2019 at 22:56, Jammy T said:

 

If somebody shoots at me with a gun it is dangerous - yes?

 

If the bullet misses does that mean being shot at wasn’t dangerous after all? 

 

 

Best analagy yet. 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

35 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Is it even possible to put in an effective slide tackle without your feet leaving the ground to some degree?

 

 

You can slide more rather than jump/ lunge. 

 

It's a fine line and I think slide tackling is being phased put in football. 

 

It's something that should be discussed. 

 

However, at this time leaving the ground, especially with both feet puts you at risk of a red. 

 

Luiz's one was just as dangerous imo, especially on the reply, but for some reason slide tackles get punished all the time now. 

 

Miss timed is almost always a yellow. 

 

Studs up and/ or both feet of the ground is a high risk of red. 

 

It's a bit shite, but the players now know this so no excuses. 

 

Sliding when the ball is far in front nt seems less risky nowadays as well. 

 

I do think allot of well timed challenges are punished due to this rule and it is putting the slide tackle as a skill under threat. 

Shame. 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

On 18/02/2019 at 21:44, portobellojambo1 said:

That is the first time I've watched the tackle since the game. At the game I thought it was a very good tackle, and having watched it again I still cannot understand why it was given as a free kick, never mind the player being sent off. He won the ball cleanly, so cleanly that the opposing player got straight back up on his feet, not something he would have done if it had been dangerous.

 

Missing the point completely. 

 

This winning the ball cleanly is not a defence nowadays. 

 

Folk  keep mentioning this. 

[Heartsofgold]

Football is, or rather was, a contact sport and the players should be aware of and accept the risks involved.  It's now at risk of becoming like basketball and the slightest touch is punished with a foul. Slide tackling is a part of the game and while I agree that players should be punished IF the make contact in an illegal manner and injure a player, they should not be punished when a ref thinks they could have POTENTIALLY injured an opposing player.  It's too open to interpretation and this past weekends differing punishments (or lack thereof) for similar or even worst types of challenges brings this into focus.

[McCrae]

7 minutes ago, Heartsofgold said:

Football is, or rather was, a contact sport and the players should be aware of and accept the risks involved.  It's now at risk of becoming like basketball and the slightest touch is punished with a foul. Slide tackling is a part of the game and while I agree that players should be punished IF the make contact in an illegal manner and injure a player, they should not be punished when a ref thinks they could have POTENTIALLY injured an opposing player.  It's too open to interpretation and this past weekends differing punishments (or lack thereof) for similar or even worst types of challenges brings this into focus.

 

You can and should slide tackle in a way that is unlikely to hurt an opponent or yourself. Any decent defender should be able to sweep tackle.  

It was a honking tackle from a player with limited ability. He can’t defend and is a waste of a jersey.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by McCrae

[Tynecastle Valhalla]

I think in the end it was not. Dangerous tackle because of his leg placement 

 

it looked bad in real time because he lunged in off his feet at pace 

 

if you do that you risk being sent off without var

 

unless you are scott brown of course 

[Heartsofgold]

Just now, McCrae said:

 

You can and should side tackle in a way that is unlikely to hurt an opponent or yourself. Any decent defender should be able to sweep tackle.  

It was a honking tackle from a player with limited ability. He can’t defend and is a waste of a jersey.  

Utter pish.  He took the ball cleanly without injuring the opposition player and was on his way fowrard when whistled back.  In my opinion, it was never a foul, far less a red card offence.

[McCrae]

23 minutes ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

I do think allot of well timed challenges are punished due to this rule and it is putting the slide tackle as a skill under threat. 

Shame. 

 

 

You got this wrong.  The skill of the slide tackle is what the regulations enforce. The  regulations want to stop tackles that use brute force rather than skill. 

Slide tackling safely is a skill that can be learnt.  It prevents players injuring themselves or others. Just look back to Patterson’s injury... all due to him not having the skill to slide tackle safely.

[McCrae]

6 minutes ago, Heartsofgold said:

Utter pish.  He took the ball cleanly without injuring the opposition player and was on his way fowrard when whistled back.  In my opinion, it was never a foul, far less a red card offence.

 

You don’t know or understand the rules or the skill required to do this.  

[Heartsofgold]

6 minutes ago, McCrae said:

 

You don’t know or understand the rules or the skill required to do this.  

 

I understand the rules perfectly well thank you, that doesn't mean I agree with them.  Also, what the hell does the 2nd part of your statement mean??  It was a perfectly timed tackle in that he took the ball cleanly and did not injure the opposition player.  That's skill of a high level.

 

You don't even know me pal so I would appreciate you not acting like a keyboard warrior in making sweeping remarks about my knowledge of the game.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, McCrae said:

 

You got this wrong.  The skill of the slide tackle is what the regulations enforce. The  regulations want to stop tackles that use brute force rather than skill. 

Slide tackling safely is a skill that can be learnt.  It prevents players injuring themselves or others. Just look back to Patterson’s injury... all due to him not having the skill to slide tackle safely.

 

 

No, I think that was the idea but in trying to implement it, the slide tackles are under threat as if it is not excuted ba g on it's a booking or a sending off there it is very risky to try it. 

 

It can be a foul without being a red or a yellow, but nowadays it seems the slide tackle is either or if mistimed. 

 

Tackling itself is a skill but it is not punished as severely. 

 

I think the art is at risk of disappearing. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Olly Lee's left boot

[McCrae]

3 hours ago, Heartsofgold said:

 

I understand the rules perfectly well thank you, that doesn't mean I agree with them.  Also, what the hell does the 2nd part of your statement mean??  It was a perfectly timed tackle in that he took the ball cleanly and did not injure the opposition player.  That's skill of a high level.

 

You don't even know me pal so I would appreciate you not acting like a keyboard warrior in making sweeping remarks about my knowledge of the game.

 

I’m not your pal. It’s clear from your utter pish remark that you don’t have the ability to grasp the difference from right and wrong and have a dinosaur approach to the game.  Am happy to share the same view as CL on this.

[McCrae]

1 hour ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

 

No, I think that was the idea but in trying to implement it, the slide tackles are under threat as if it is not excuted ba g on it's a booking or a sending off there it is very risky to try it. 

 

It can be a foul without being a red or a yellow, but nowadays it seems the slide tackle is either or if mistimed. 

 

Tackling itself is a skill but it is not punished as severely. 

 

I think the art is at risk of disappearing. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think it’s as bad as that.  Most sliding tackles that get punished are ones that could potentially cause injury.  The sweeping slide tackle almost totally avoids the risk of injury and even if mistimed doesn’t get treated the same way as the the more agressive use for force type of tackle.

 

 

[Heartsofgold]

34 minutes ago, McCrae said:

 

I’m not your pal. It’s clear from your utter pish remark that you don’t have the ability to grasp the difference from right and wrong and have a dinosaur approach to the game.  Am happy to share the same view as CL on this.

 

Do one you smarmy get.  No you're not my pal, thank God Snowflake.  You're the type of fan who want the game to descend to a non-contact contest.  I said punish players for ACTUAL infringements rather than what their actions MIGHT have done.  In my opinion his tackle was a good one.  Ball was won and no-one was injured.  I admit the rules say my opinion is wrong but then I think the rules are too open to interpretation by the referees, as seen by other decisions in games this weekend that appear to be worse and left players with a injury or a foul but no red card was issued.

[Heartsofgold]

48 minutes ago, McCrae said:

 

I’m not your pal. It’s clear from your utter pish remark that you don’t have the ability to grasp the difference from right and wrong and have a dinosaur approach to the game.  Am happy to share the same view as CL on this.

 

And by your logic this should have been a red as well but he was only booked for this tackle, this being right after he banjo'd Barker with a similar(but fair) challenge that caused Barker to have to leave the field with an injury.  My issue with all of this is the crap and inconsistent interpretation of the rules set out, no matter how much I actually disagree with them.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Heartsofgold

[Guest]

Loving all the posts that end with "unless you are Scott brown" ? What a shitshow our game is.

[portobellojambo1]

4 hours ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

Missing the point completely. 

 

This winning the ball cleanly is not a defence nowadays. 

 

Folk  keep mentioning this. 

 

If you say so. I am 63 years old, and the idea of defending was to win the ball cleanly and use it to start moving in the opposite direction. The game has become mega soft in modern days, probably an awful lot to do with how much players are paid these days and how much a few days in a private hospital costs. If winning the ball cleanly isn't the way to do it then they would be best to change the rules of the game and bar tackling altogether. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

If you say so. I am 63 years old, and the idea of defending was to win the ball cleanly and use it to start moving in the opposite direction. The game has become mega soft in modern days, probably an awful lot to do with how much players are paid these days and how much a few days in a private hospital costs. If winning the ball cleanly isn't the way to do it then they would be best to change the rules of the game and bar tackling altogether. 

 

 

Not if I say so, the rules don't mention winning the ball. 

Agreesion, in control etc are all mentioned. 

 

It's been like this for a few years now tbh. 

 

 

CL as quoted above b someone as also said the same, as soon as you leave the ground with both feet, that is it. 

 

I understand why but I also think winning the ball should matter but I don't make the rules. 

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, Heartsofgold said:

 

And by your logic this should have been a red as well but he was only booked for this tackle, this being right after he banjo'd Barker with a similar(but fair) challenge that caused Barker to have to leave the field with an injury.  My issue with all of this is the crap and inconsistent interpretation of the rules set out, no matter how much I actually disagree with them.

 

 

It could have been a red, but he was more  in control than Garrucio. 

 

Imo, a yellow would have been OK on Sunday. 

 

But again folk are missing the point. 

It can be a yellow or a red, the line is fine ( unless your Scott brown), it does not say in the rules it has to be a red, it depends on how the refs see it. 

 

Funnily enough Souttars imo was timed poorly but not really dangerous, Garrucio's was timed perfectly but could have been dangerous " danger ing an opponent" 

 

I can see the differences in both challenges and why one was red and one wasn't, but yes both could have been red or both yellow.

I get the frustration on that as well. 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, McCrae said:

 

I don’t think it’s as bad as that.  Most sliding tackles that get punished are ones that could potentially cause injury.  The sweeping slide tackle almost totally avoids the risk of injury and even if mistimed doesn’t get treated the same way as the the more agressive use for force type of tackle.

 

 

 

 

I do see the difference and get that. 

 

Souttars and Cochranes were both yellow and I can see why. 

 

I also understand, despite winning the ball Garrucio's is red. 

 

I can see the difference in a late, mis timed tackle and a dangerous one. 

 

9/10 it's quite obvious which one is which. 

[Bazzas right boot]

4 hours ago, wallace_mercer said:

I think in the end it was not. Dangerous tackle because of his leg placement 

 

it looked bad in real time because he lunged in off his feet at pace 

 

if you do that you risk being sent off without var

 

unless you are scott brown of course 

 

 

Lunged in off his feet.... 

 

Exactly why it was a red despite winning the ball. 

[Jammy T]

The logic of some Hearts fans on here:

 

“Well he didnae break his leg or get hurt so it shouldn’t have been a red.”

 

 

[Samuel Camazzola]

2 hours ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

If you say so. I am 63 years old, and the idea of defending was to win the ball cleanly and use it to start moving in the opposite direction. The game has become mega soft in modern days, probably an awful lot to do with how much players are paid these days and how much a few days in a private hospital costs. If winning the ball cleanly isn't the way to do it then they would be best to change the rules of the game and bar tackling altogether. 

All you see is very agreeable and just emphasises that modern professional football at all top levels is mince nowadays. Very few entertaining games in this era. 

[spirt of 98]

Tackle on Sane tonight similar billed as a brilliant tackle. Fine line between these challenges. I prefer the old saying but he won the ball. When did the game get so tame. 

[portobellojambo1]

4 hours ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

 

Not if I say so, the rules don't mention winning the ball. 

Agreesion, in control etc are all mentioned. 

 

It's been like this for a few years now tbh. 

 

 

CL as quoted above b someone as also said the same, as soon as you leave the ground with both feet, that is it. 

 

I understand why but I also think winning the ball should matter but I don't make the rules. 

 

Neither do I, and I apologise if the initial wording of my response sounded a bit out of order, wasn't meant to. I still have recollections of going to football games in the late 50's/very early 60's where you would see free kicks taking place which might make the status of attempted murder near enough in modern life. But players weren't out for weeks on end, in fact in many cases they would reappear in the team the next weekend. Don't get me wrong, I think when a horrific/dangerous/call it what you will sort of tackle takes place it should be punished. But this shouldn't involve changing aspects of the game which have been in place and worked for years. If you actually try and use some form of logic it is probably impossible to actually carry out a slide tack without taking your feet of the ground. If you just tried to slide your foot along the ground with the studs facing down they would stick in the surface and you would probably end up doing more damage to yourself. It is something that will just float about in the game, i.e. opinions on this, that and the other. My own opinion is that in a game which is a contact sport it is stupid to try and take contact out of the game unless it is clear that by making contact the player on the receiving end is put in danger. Going back to the tackle at Motherwell the player wasn't put in any danger, he got up and carried on. I'm sure someone mentioned something earlier on where he tried to make a comparison with someone being shot at but the bullet missing. I didn't reply to it as I thought it was a bit of a crazy sort of comparison to be making. But again, it was someone's opinion, and each to their own

Edited February 20, 2019 by portobellojambo1

[JH-HMFC]

Seen clip on twitter of tackle by Candeias on Taylor tonight - similar to Garuccio's, jumped in, studs up - even had the BBC pundits comment on the similarity - wasn't even given a yellow. 

 

By the sounds of it several ludicrous decisions tonight which will only add to the increasing fury towards officials - utterly incompetent and something has to change.

Edited February 20, 2019 by JH-HMFC

[kimosavi]

I'd love someone to track all these bad calls against us over a season

 

From disallowed goals, to yellow cards and reds 

 

Hearts as a club would be way ahead of any other team in the SPL 

 

Be interesting to see where the old firm sit also 

 

Bottom no doubt

[Maroon Sailor]

Juan Foyth of Spurs put in a similar lunge today against Burnley and got a yellow card. Pochettino took him off shortly afterwards