Stevo985 Posted February 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2015 Schlupp only went arse over tit because he jumped to avoid it as he was hit. Bloody good job he did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 He didn't jump - he had his foot going towards the ball at the same time as clarke and I'm positive they each had a foot on the ball but Clarke's momentum made him gambol /somersault. If he had to jump to avoid the 'reckless' challenge then he'd have been sent off as it would mean intent surely and - if he jumped - he'd win the Olympics as he did a somersault - jump means to jump not do a somersault or gambol. Anyway - we all differ in what we perceive to be a good or bad challenge - and Clattenburgh has been one of the better referees and in my book if he says it was fair - then it was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Stefan's not saying he jumped and wasn't touched. he's saying he was avoiding the challenge at the last second so was on the way up when he got clattered. But weirdly you seem to be saying if he didn't get touched then it would have been a red card, but because he got clattered it wasn't? Edited February 18, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yeah exactly Ben. It happens quite a lot that somebody's momentum makes them go flying and the tackle looks far worse than it is. I think that's happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Somewhat yes - there were a few in the not to distant past when a player (Villa as well as opposition) where they jumped to avoid the tackle - and the ref deemed it to be 'reckless' and sent the player off - as the 'intent' was there - no physical contact made but the player jumped to avoid the challenge and the player got sent off. He got clattered because he DIDN'T jump he got clattered because he had HIS foot on the ball and Clarke made the challenge and GOT the ball and Clarkes momentum caused him to somersault (not jump). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Regardless of whether you think Clark's was a foul or not, that's quite a bizarre explanation to be honest. Edited February 18, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Clark doesn't seem to like Leicester at all, he smashed Ulloa earlier on at VP, got sent off at their place and absolutely destroyed Schlup. Think he's doing it for Albrighton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I might make myself unpopular here. Whilst I loved that tackle from Ciaran on Sunday, I think he's extremely lucky he didn't get sent off. Ball or no ball it's a horrendous challenge. I'm glad he got away with it and I'm glad it was against Leicester. But its a bad tackle. It's not going to make you unpopular... ...but, as others have said, there's no way that's a red card. It could have been given as a foul for being forceful (which I think would be harsh anyway), but a red? He doesn't jump in, there's full contact with the ball and it's with the side of his foot. Clearly no intent to injure the opponent either. I'm just not sure which part is "horrendous". His tackle on Ulloa was worse; side on, with a bit of a jump. Still got the ball, but it had a bit of a bite to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Well at least now we know what happened to Kozak. Kozak was maybe what it would look like if that tackle went wrong. Or maybe not. Now at risk of seeming like I'm contradicting myself, I thought the tackle was beautiful. Maybe it could be described as reckless, but the ball was there to be won and Clark fully committed to winning it, but his feet were always at boot level, never above and he won the ball. Now if Schlupp's foot was unfortunately planted as the tackle came in and Clark hit it like a truck hitting a wooden fence it could have done damage, but that's the case with any tackle if it's mistimed. It's beautiful because of the speed and the accuracy of the tackle. Clark saw that the ball was there to be won if he was quick enough so he accelerated towards it and at no point did he question his momentum, eye on the ball well executed. My question is whether or not that was the only way to win the ball. To go into a tackle at that speed. I think the answer is yes. He tackled and won the ball back. The end justifies the means as far as I'm concerned. Now if the game is a casual 5-a-side and someone jumps into a tackle like that, he should be beaten until he pisses blood, but the premier league is a different kettle of fish for a number of reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Regardless of whether you think Clark's was a foul or not, that's quite a bizarre explanation to be honest. What's bizarre ? If Clark had gone in studs showing buy the player JUMPED to avoid being caught then the intent was there and rightly a sending off. He went in side footed and got the ball - so played the ball clearly so there was no intent. Anyway we all interpret things differently - I'm from the old school (old farts if you must) and that to me was a great old fashioned proper football challenge when the game was played by men! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Just listened to the Football Ramble and they didn't seem to have much of an argument. Only that he followed through. I don't really understand that argument, never have. What is he meant to do? Win the ball and stop dead? He has every right to go for that ball, which he does and he wins it. Studs are down, one footed, job done. Maybe Schlupp should have moved out of the way? Or not, because that would be silly wouldn't it. I personally would not have wanted a foul given if it was the other way around, because that is not the rule. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I thought it was filth to be honest. The worst part of it all is the calculated nature of it, Clark knew how hard he was going to hit him. If he'd not got the ball then he'd left Schlupp in two. I don't enjoy seeing that type of tackle at all. Could've easily won the ball without throwing himself in there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Can't underestimate what it did to the fans though. Though Ryan, I presume you love a big hit in the NFL? Isn't it the same thing? Say Luke hits a guy, perfectly legally but way harder than he needed to. Are you off your seat or calling it filth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Just listened to the Football Ramble and they didn't seem to have much of an argument. Only that he followed through. I don't really understand that argument, never have. What is he meant to do? Win the ball and stop dead? He has every right to go for that ball, which he does and he wins it. Studs are down, one footed, job done. Maybe Schlupp should have moved out of the way? Or not, because that would be silly wouldn't it. I personally would not have wanted a foul given if it was the other way around, because that is not the rule. It's about how e made the tackle. I'm going to struggle to describe this but I'll try. A tackle is usually one motion. Not necessarily a straight leg, but the leg isn't moving apart from the general movement of the player. In this one Clark is kicking through Schlupp. That's the follow through. Not Clark's momentum in general, but the swing of his leg as he makes the tackle, and he brings his other leg through too. In a way it's similar to a hand off in rugby. A stiff arm is fine. But a swinging/extending arm is not. He has every right to go for the ball. He doesn't have every right to go for it in the way that he did, imo. he could have made that tackle in a much less dangerous way Again, I'm not unhappy he made the challenge and I thought it was brilliant at the time. But the more I see it, the worse it gets. Edited February 18, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I thought it was filth to be honest. The worst part of it all is the calculated nature of it, Clark knew how hard he was going to hit him. If he'd not got the ball then he'd left Schlupp in two. I don't enjoy seeing that type of tackle at all. Could've easily won the ball without throwing himself in there. No complaints by Schlupp, any other Leicester player or anyone off the Leicester bench, though. I often find that to be the indicator of a true bad tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Love those kind of tackles but you'd get in trouble for it more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Can't underestimate what it did to the fans though. Though Ryan, I presume you love a big hit in the NFL? Isn't it the same thing? Say Luke hits a guy, perfectly legally but way harder than he needed to. Are you off your seat or calling it filth? Of course. If it's a legal hit then I have no problem with it. Clark's wasn't legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I thought it was filth to be honest. The worst part of it all is the calculated nature of it, Clark knew how hard he was going to hit him. If he'd not got the ball then he'd left Schlupp in two. I don't enjoy seeing that type of tackle at all. Could've easily won the ball without throwing himself in there. After going through the play frame-by-frame from just before the tackle through to just after the tackle, I really don't see it the way that Milfner does. It was a good tackle that was clearly viewed and deemed not to be a foul. Clark's speed enabled him to get the ball without it being a foul. Any less vigour from Clark and it could have been a foul. Well done Ciaran for a great tackle that helped spur on the crowd and team at an important phase of the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2015 Regardless of whether you think Clark's was a foul or not, that's quite a bizarre explanation to be honest. What's bizarre ? If Clark had gone in studs showing buy the player JUMPED to avoid being caught then the intent was there and rightly a sending off. He went in side footed and got the ball - so played the ball clearly so there was no intent. That's a totally different point to the one you made earlier. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I interpreted it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts