The red card.

[DVB]

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

This type of  thread shows the folk up that don't know the rules of the game. 

Ok what part of the rule says you can’t time a sliding tackle. It wasn’t reckless, it didn’t endanger the opponent and there wasn’t excessive force.

[sadj]

4 hours ago, TheBigO said:

The games done

Locke said that , Wee sneaky Sutherland was trying to plead Walsh’s case on Sportscene and Thompson and Stewart tore that position to shreds.  

[campbell]

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

This type of  thread shows the folk up that don't know the rules of the game. 

Care to enlighten us then oh wise one! Red or not? 

[NANOJAMBO]

8 minutes ago, DVB said:

Ok what part of the rule says you can’t time a sliding tackle. It wasn’t reckless, it didn’t endanger the opponent and there wasn’t excessive force.

You can't be serious. It was NOT a sliding tackle. Both feet clearly OFF the ground at the start and even the BT guys were trying to make a case for having one leg ON the ground at the point of impact. 

[campbell]

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

You can't be serious. It was NOT a sliding tackle. Both feet clearly OFF the ground at the start and even the BT guys were trying to make a case for having one leg ON the ground at the point of impact. 

At the start he’s about 2 feet away from the guy when he’s “off the ground” by the time he makes contact with the call his leading leg is on the ground blocking the ball and his trailing leg is on the ground by the time it makes any contact with the well player! 

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, campbell said:

Care to enlighten us then oh wise one! Red or not? 

 

Out of control - red card. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, folk have said numerous times "he won the ball". 

 

It does not matter. 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, campbell said:

At the start he’s about 2 feet away from the guy when he’s “off the ground” by the time he makes contact with the call his leading leg is on the ground blocking the ball and his trailing leg is on the ground by the time it makes any contact with the well player! 

Not sure what you're point is - sliding tackle or not ?

You agree both his feet ARE off the ground at the start ? 

 

Some folk will defend anything on here - at least CL made it clear wasn't defending it. A horrendous, stupid, reckless  tackle that left him open to the consequences which came his way and folk are slagging off the ref with with benefit of slo mos which the ref didn't have,  to say , well actually, he DID have one leg on the ground when he made contact. 

PS When is the appeal? If CL is now sure of his case I'll give up. 

 

 

[Cruyff Turn]

After seeing it several times, it’s a red in ‘this day and age’ all day long. 

 

But I agree that it was a cracking tackle....20 years ago. 

 

Also do agree that the game isn’t what it was due to these type of tackles being banned. I think if you win the ball then it’s a fair challenge. He got the ball clean as a whistle but there is a zero tolerance policy on jumping in with two feet off the ground and we can’t have any complaints. He’s a professional player and should know the rules.

 

Harsh but he’ll learn, it was unlucky on his part.

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, campbell said:

At the start he’s about 2 feet away from the guy when he’s “off the ground” by the time he makes contact with the call his leading leg is on the ground blocking the ball and his trailing leg is on the ground by the time it makes any contact with the well player! 

 

 

If you're two feet away and off the ground you are out of control. 

 

Contact with the player or not, the ball or not does not matter. 

[Bazzas right boot]

23 minutes ago, DVB said:

Ok what part of the rule says you can’t time a sliding tackle. It wasn’t reckless, it didn’t endanger the opponent and there wasn’t excessive force.

 

Out of control. 

Referee deemed it that way, the rules back him up. 

 

 

Shame, imo it was a great tackle, but you can't lunge in, you can't raise both feet like that nowadays. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant. 

[Cruyff Turn]

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

 

Out of control - red card. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, folk have said numerous times "he won the ball". 

 

It does not matter. 

Correct. The zero tolerance policy to this has been in existence since 2012. If you lunge or jump into a tackle with 2 feet off the ground it’s a red, it doesn’t matter if you win the ball. It’s harsh and does ruin the competitive aspect of the game but them the rules. 

 

If that tackle is miss timed, someone could end up with a career ender hence why it is outlawed.

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Correct. The zero tolerance policy to this has been in existence since 2012. If you lunge or jump into a tackle with 2 feet off the ground it’s a red, it doesn’t matter if you win the ball. It’s harsh and does ruin the competitive aspect of the game but them the rules. 

 

If that tackle is miss timed, someone could end up with a career ender hence why it is outlawed.

 

 

Yip. 

 

Ofc if you didn't think it was out of control, fair enough that can be debated. 

 

But folk saying he won the ball are argueing an obsolete point. 

It's doesn't matter. 

 

It's a shame, he won the ball cleanly and was perfectly timed. A skill that is now out lawed. 

[Samuel Camazzola]

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

 

Out of control. 

Referee deemed it that way, the rules back him up. 

 

 

Shame, imo it was a great tackle, but you can't lunge in, you can't raise both feet like that nowadays. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant. 

I this instance, he wasn't out of control. Far from it. There was no use of excessive force either. 

 

Unfortunately, the red card decision will stand as the powers will not want to overturn another official's decision. 

[Paul Shark]

17 hours ago, OTT said:

Bored with this now. Every ****ing week we're not playing at home we're chucking points away. Do we need a sports psychologist in to try and address this?

We may well do, but a couple more attack minded players with pace would probably be more beneficial.

[Uche Gang]

So we have folk on here claiming that people saying it isn’t a red don’t know the rules when most ex pros that have seen it say it was never a red.

 

At no point in his ‘tackle’ is he ever going to injury the player that’s a couple yards away when Ben is going to the ball, Ben is more blocking the ball than tackling the player.

[Thomaso]

Levein has not defended Garuccio, I wonder if he would have defended Berra if he had made the tackle?

[Kirky Jambo]

Thought it was a good tackle. Don’t know the rule book off by heart but he goes in front of the guy so I don’t see how it could be seen as endangering him or out of control. 

[Phil Dunphy]

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

 

Out of control - red card. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, folk have said numerous times "he won the ball". 

 

It does not matter. 

 

Stop pedalling this “he was out of control” nonsense. He was not “out of control”. It was a well timed tackle that won the ball. 

 

Jesus ****ing wept. Ex-professional footballers saying it’s not a red card, but no. You know differently. 

 

[Phil Dunphy]

You can absolutely tell the folk who’re adamant that he’s “out of control” are the types who would slaughter Ben for letting the boy drift past him and get a shot off. 

[Lovecraft]

1 hour ago, Uche Gang said:

So we have folk on here claiming that people saying it isn’t a red don’t know the rules when most ex pros that have seen it say it was never a red.

 

At no point in his ‘tackle’ is he ever going to injury the player that’s a couple yards away when Ben is going to the ball, Ben is more blocking the ball than tackling the player.

 

Yep, he is coming in from the side across the ball and the player.

 

 

[Jamhammer]

1 hour ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

Levein has not defended Garuccio, I wonder if he would have defended Berra if he had made the tackle?

This occurred to me too

[Bazzas right boot]

45 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Stop pedalling this “he was out of control” nonsense. He was not “out of control”. It was a well timed tackle that won the ball. 

 

Jesus ****ing wept. Ex-professional footballers saying it’s not a red card, but no. You know differently. 

 

 

 

The ref said it was a red. 

The pundit ref guy with BT thought it was a red. 

 

Pundits are split on it. 

 

If you leave the ground you can and in this case will be deemed out of control. 

 

He left the ground, I seen it. 

 

Winning the ball... That is not a factor if you are deemed out of control. 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, happens allot nowadays and even pundits say but "he won the ball", doesn't matter if you are deemed out of control and if you leave the ground, with both feet or even if one is high you can be deemed out of control. 

 

Winning the ball is not a factor. Fans like yourself and various pundits really struggle with this point. 

 

The out of control point can be debated and is open to interpretation, but the winning the ball part is immaterial. 

 

Red card, be Suprised if we appeal it and more Suprised if we won. 

 

Great tackle 25 years ago, not now. 

 

 

[feedthefox]

Had Doyle not chucked in the resulting free kick nobody would care. 

[Thomaso]

6 minutes ago, feedthefox said:

Had Doyle not chucked in the resulting free kick nobody would care. 

 

Probably true

[Pistol1874]

1 hour ago, everton_jambo said:

Thought it was a good tackle. Don’t know the rule book off by heart but he goes in front of the guy so I don’t see how it could be seen as endangering him or out of control. 

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

When you write rules as vague as this, phrases like ‘out of control’ become a mechanism to try to make sense of them, but aren’t actually in the applicable law.

 

Excessive force can be where only one leg is involved.

 

In this case, for Garrucio to get across and make the tackle successfully, speed was required yes, but that is not the same as excessive force and I can’t agree that he endangered his opponent, who in all honesty, bottled it.

[Thomaso]

6 minutes ago, feedthefox said:

Had Doyle not chucked in the resulting free kick nobody would care. 

 

Probably true

[Shaggy2]

I’m confused. I’ve not seen the tackle but by the sounds of things he was going for the ball and won the ball. If that’s what he meant to do, where does “out of control” come into it? 

[Maroon Sailor]

So he's basically been sent off for lunging

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Pistol1874 said:

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

When you write rules as vague as this, phrases like ‘out of control’ become a mechanism to try to make sense of them, but aren’t actually in the applicable law.

 

Excessive force can be where only one leg is involved.

 

In this case, for Garrucio to get across and make the tackle successfully, speed was required yes, but that is not the same as excessive force and I can’t agree that he endangered his opponent, who in all honesty, bottled it.

 

 

He lunged. 

Both legs came of the ground. 

It was done at a fair pace due to the distance he had to close. 

 

Ask yourself, if he hadn't won the ball, would it have been a dangerous tackle? 

 

Bare in mind winning the ball is immaterial in this case. 

 

The answer is yes. 

 

Red card. 

 

Real shame as that type of tackle is a real skill. 

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

So he's basically been sent off for lunging

 

Lunging by definition is out of control. 

 

Yip. 

Bit shite, but thats the rules. 

[Boof]

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

Real shame as that type of tackle is a real skill. 

 

I think that's the one thing we're all agreed upon.

 

A superbly-timed, ball-winning tackle... sadly now outlawed. Unless you're Scott Brown.

[doctor jambo]

10 minutes ago, Pistol1874 said:

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

When you write rules as vague as this, phrases like ‘out of control’ become a mechanism to try to make sense of them, but aren’t actually in the applicable law.

 

Excessive force can be where only one leg is involved.

 

In this case, for Garrucio to get across and make the tackle successfully, speed was required yes, but that is not the same as excessive force and I can’t agree that he endangered his opponent, who in all honesty, bottled it.

The point here is he did not lunge at an opponent, he simply didn't .

If that is the rule, then he did not commit an offence

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

I’m confused. I’ve not seen the tackle but by the sounds of things he was going for the ball and won the ball. If that’s what he meant to do, where does “out of control” come into it? 

 

 

It's not confusing.

 

Lunging, both feet of the ground. 

 

The rules changed in 2012, you can't leave the groundor lunge as it is out of control and can be dangerous. 

 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Boof said:

 

I think that's the one thing we're all agreed upon.

 

A superbly-timed, ball-winning tackle... sadly now outlawed. Unless you're Scott Brown.

 

 

Yes, but also if its mistimed it breaks a shin or ankle. 

I Do understand why the rule is there. 

 

Scott brown is another story, he's gotten away with this type of challenge for years and imo that is the real problem- inconsistency. 

[OmiyaHearts]

I think it's a harsh red but it is a red, according to the laws. Tackles like that are no longer part of the game.

[Bazzas right boot]

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The point here is he did not lunge at an opponent, he simply didn't .

If that is the rule, then he did not commit an offence

 

Watched it again, he did lunge in or if not a lunge  he dived in, both feet off the ground. 

 

It's a red card all day long nowadays. 

[OmiyaHearts]

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

 

 

He lunged. 

Both legs came of the ground. 

It was done at a fair pace due to the distance he had to close. 

 

Ask yourself, if he hadn't won the ball, would it have been a dangerous tackle? 

 

Bare in mind winning the ball is immaterial in this case. 

 

The answer is yes. 

 

Red card. 

 

Real shame as that type of tackle is a real skill. 

I work with a ref who does up to Championship level. He said the same thing this morning; winning the ball is irrelevant when it's this sort of tackle.

[Lambo85]

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

 

Out of control - red card. 

 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, folk have said numerous times "he won the ball". 

 

It does not matter. 

 

How was it out of control? It was perfectly timed. He has to perfectly time it if he was to win the ball cleanly, which he did.

[doctor jambo]

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

 

Watched it again, he did lunge in or if not a lunge  he dived in, both feet off the ground. 

 

It's a red card all day long nowadays. 

He didn't lunge at the player though.

he lunged at the ball

that is the rule

[Phil Dunphy]

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

 

 

The ref said it was a red. 

The pundit ref guy with BT thought it was a red. 

 

Pundits are split on it. 

 

If you leave the ground you can and in this case will be deemed out of control. 

 

He left the ground, I seen it. 

 

Winning the ball... That is not a factor if you are deemed out of control. 

Winning the ball is irrelevant, happens allot nowadays and even pundits say but "he won the ball", doesn't matter if you are deemed out of control and if you leave the ground, with both feet or even if one is high you can be deemed out of control. 

 

Winning the ball is not a factor. Fans like yourself and various pundits really struggle with this point. 

 

The out of control point can be debated and is open to interpretation, but the winning the ball part is immaterial. 

 

Red card, be Suprised if we appeal it and more Suprised if we won. 

 

Great tackle 25 years ago, not now. 

 

 

 

Ally McCoist and Lockie both agreed it wasn’t a red card. Stephen Craigen did, but he spent the majority of the game calling the players by their nicknames. And I don’t know about Chris Sutton, but he was calling for Celtic to get a penalty on Thursday after a nudge, so...

 

Michael Stewart and Steven Thompson both agreed it wasn’t a red. The general consensus among pundits is that it’s a poor decision. 

 

Onto the tackle itself. Is it reckless? Not really, it’s his trailing leg that catches the player. Is he “out of control”?  Not at all. Is it over the ball? Nope, his foot is on the ground when he connects with the ball. Does he plant his studs into the opponents leg? Nope. Is it a scissor motion? Nope. 

 

People who maintain that it’s a dangerous tackle have never played the game. 

[heartsfc_fan]

Harsh red in my opinion

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

He didn't lunge at the player though.

he lunged at the ball

that is the rule

 

Where was the ball?

[Victorian]

Laughable stuff.   It's a red card.    Brilliantly timed.    But illegal I am afraid.    

[Phage]

Those type of challenges break legs and ruin careers. He won the ball clean this time but it is a very dangerous lunge. Hate to say it but red card I agree with. Stupid tackle.

[Nookie Bear]

4 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Ally McCoist and Lockie both agreed it wasn’t a red card. Stephen Craigen did, but he spent the majority of the game calling the players by their nicknames. And I don’t know about Chris Sutton, but he was calling for Celtic to get a penalty on Thursday after a nudge, so...

 

Michael Stewart and Steven Thompson both agreed it wasn’t a red. The general consensus among pundits is that it’s a poor decision. 

 

Onto the tackle itself. Is it reckless? Not really, it’s his trailing leg that catches the player. Is he “out of control”?  Not at all. Is it over the ball? Nope, his foot is on the ground when he connects with the ball. Does he plant his studs into the opponents leg? Nope. Is it a scissor motion? Nope. 

 

People who maintain that it’s a dangerous tackle have never played the game. 

 

Is it reckless? Yes

Is he “out of control”?  Yes

Is it over the ball? His right foot is not on the ground. His left comes through the side.

Does he plant his studs into the opponents leg? Irrelevant, surely?

Is it a scissor motion? No.

 

I think the first two questions in bold are enough to send a player off (imo)

[Bazzas right boot]

11 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Ally McCoist and Lockie both agreed it wasn’t a red card. Stephen Craigen did, but he spent the majority of the game calling the players by their nicknames. And I don’t know about Chris Sutton, but he was calling for Celtic to get a penalty on Thursday after a nudge, so...

 

Michael Stewart and Steven Thompson both agreed it wasn’t a red. The general consensus among pundits is that it’s a poor decision. 

 

Onto the tackle itself. Is it reckless? Not really, it’s his trailing leg that catches the player. Is he “out of control”?  Not at all. Is it over the ball? Nope, his foot is on the ground when he connects with the ball. Does he plant his studs into the opponents leg? Nope. Is it a scissor motion? Nope. 

 

People who maintain that it’s a dangerous tackle have never played the game. 

 

"is it wreckless, not really"... So a little then ??

 

Both feet left the ground  initially ( out of control? ). 

Due to the distance, he went at a fast pace. (excessive force? ) 

His studs where up for a time. 

There is also a small scissor movement due to this as well when he lands. 

 

He did win the ball, but that does not matter. 

 

If Craigan is biased, so is Locke. 

Thompson and Mcoist  are slavers.

 

There argument is also that he won the ball, this does not matter. It is immaterial under the rules. 

 

I personally think it's a good tackle, but the rules are clear on this type of tackle.

 

Thecref could have gave a yellow, he could have used a bit sense as it was the injury time and he won the ball, but under the rules he will be backed. 

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Where was the ball?

 

18 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

He didn't lunge at the player though.

he lunged at the ball

that is the rule

 

Ball is at the players feet..... 

[RudiHMFC]

8 minutes ago, Phage said:

Those type of challenges break legs and ruin careers. He won the ball clean this time but it is a very dangerous lunge. Hate to say it but red card I agree with. Stupid tackle.

 

Well no, not really. All kinds of different challenges or interceptions can result in leg breaks and ruin careers, sliding in from side on and winning the ball fairly is unlikely to break someone's leg, it's possible because anything can happen but it's not a stupid tackle when you slide in and win the ball, it's actually a good tackle.

[fabienleclerq]

On a Wednesday night at my fives it's a great tackle, twenty years ago it's a great tackle.

 

In today's game with today's rules it's a red card, ref called it correctly imo. Off the ground and two feet, not in control of his body.

[Pistol1874]

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

 

 

He lunged. 

Both legs came of the ground. 

It was done at a fair pace due to the distance he had to close. 

 

Ask yourself, if he hadn't won the ball, would it have been a dangerous tackle? 

 

Bare in mind winning the ball is immaterial in this case. 

 

The answer is yes. 

 

Red card. 

 

Real shame as that type of tackle is a real skill. 

In what way is a lunge, which endangers the opponent and is a red card and is your view of the challenge, a real skill?

 

A successful legal tackle which involves great judgement and results takes the ball cleanly and without injuring the player is a great skill. 

 

A lunge which endangers the opponent and is against the rules is certainly not.

 

The tackle was one or the other, you cannot say Garuccio exercised great skill AND deserved to get sent off. 

 

The referee agreed with you this time, however there were, in my view, at least two worse challenges than that this weekend where the referee went the other way and opted for yellow - Jacobs for Livingston and Scott Brown. Refereeing consistency is another matter of course.