TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 I totally agree BOF, yes its sad when players suffer serious injury but I don't think any more can be done to prevent it than has been already without destroying the fabric of the game and making it a non contact sport as Wenger appears to desire. Football is a contact sport and as such injuries such as occured at the weekend are sadly inevitable and as such De Jong shouldn't be dragged over the coals no regardless of his previous charge sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 No-one is obsessed by 'winning the ball'. You said it yourself that there was nothing wrong with the tackle and that it involved force and movement which are part of the game. I just don't see how any of that then justifies de Jong being omitted from the Dutch squad. That's something you do to someone who has done something wrong. It quite clearly apportions blame on the player for something which was unfortunate but which was neither illegal nor unsporting. It wasn't like Terry 'winning the ball' from Milner in the cup semi-final last season. de Jong's was a perfectly good tackle which was neither mis-timed nor malicious. He has absolutely zero to answer for. He’s probably been kicked out because of what Cruyff said post world cup, but you know how it goes; de Jong has become a marked man. He may go in with the best intentions, but he’s gradually gaining a reputation. Whether its deserved or not, other people will decide. But we all know that de Jong will become a marked man. Anyway I feel sympathy for the injured player, more than whether the Dutch FA or manager decide to ban a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Listening to the Guardian podcast and they say said in the rules a player has to be in control of his body. I guess if thats true that De Jong did lose control of his body. So I guess it would be irrelevant about the timing, the thought or winning of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm not quite sure how you define that De Jong has lost control of his body. If a tackle like that is defined as losing control of your body then tackling will have to be removed from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm not quite sure how you define that De Jong has lost control of his body. If a tackle like that is defined as losing control of your body then tackling will have to be removed from the game. I think it's quite clear where the natural conclusion is to all of this. I think you only have to look at where we've come from to where we are now in order to see where it's all going. Any intervening discussion is just time-wasting and delusion towards the inevitable. But as I've said in the 'Le Big Tackle' thread, the sheer energy and speed of the players these days is getting to the point where any collision risks a bone break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I think it means that if you tackle someone but lose control of your body (i.e. when you go to ground), you are taking the chance that it may injury someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 You could look at it from a karma standpoint; Bruce Lee impressions in a World Cup final aside, De Jong has made plenty of horrid/poor challenges in his career that he has gotten away with. To be ostracised for a perfectly good one makes some kind of cosmic sense, in a way. Not that I'm condoning the actions of the KNVB though, frankly I don't see what business they have doling out punishment for an incident that occured outside of the jurisdiction of their domestic leagues. As stated, it smacks of political posturing all for the sake of saving face after the thuggery that was on show in South Africa (and I didn't see van Marwijk dropping players for their actions then). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 the sheer energy and speed of the players these days is getting to the point where any collision risks a bone break. The point is that as players get quicker, then they need to think faster. Thats the problem as footballers actually seem to be getting slower in the thought process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 So are you saying that you support the removal of the slide tackle from the game because you are no longer in control of your body? How about overhead kicks? Surely when you jump in the air and perform a bicycle kick by that definition you aren't in control of your body as you've left the ground. How about diving headers? In fact how about your normal standard header? Your off the ground and by that definition not in control of your body so are they to be removed from the game because you risk injuring someone? Its quite easy to injure a player going for a header, you can clash heads, hit them with an elbow, knock them off balance causing them to hurt themselves landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 So are you saying that you support the removal of the slide tackle from the game because you are no longer in control of your body? How about overhead kicks? Surely when you jump in the air and perform a bicycle kick by that definition you aren't in control of your body as you've left the ground. How about diving headers? In fact how about your normal standard header? Your off the ground and by that definition not in control of your body so are they to be removed from the game because you risk injuring someone? Its quite easy to injure a player going for a header, you can clash heads, hit them with an elbow, knock them off balance causing them to hurt themselves landing. I just reported what I heard. I am not as familiar with the rules as I should be. It wouldn’t remove the slide tackle, just that if you did and injured a player, you would be carded. You would take a risk by going in. You have to weigh up that decision, and the referee has to make a judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 So are you saying that you support the removal of the slide tackle from the game because you are no longer in control of your body? How about overhead kicks? Surely when you jump in the air and perform a bicycle kick by that definition you aren't in control of your body as you've left the ground. How about diving headers? In fact how about your normal standard header? Your off the ground and by that definition not in control of your body so are they to be removed from the game because you risk injuring someone? Its quite easy to injure a player going for a header, you can clash heads, hit them with an elbow, knock them off balance causing them to hurt themselves landing. I just reported what I heard. I am not as familiar with the rules as I should be. It wouldn’t remove the slide tackle, just that if you did and injured a player, you would be carded. You would take a risk by going in. You have to weigh up that decision, and the referee has to make a judgement. So your saying that the punishment for a tackle should depend upon the outcome, ie if the player is injured? I just don't agree with that logic at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 So your saying that the punishment for a tackle should depend upon the outcome, ie if the player is injured? I just don't agree with that logic at all. You're right not to. It means a player can do everything right and still be punished depending on whether they're tackling Robin van Persie or a human male. Tackling is a 'how to', not a 'what if'. Once you start dishing out punishment based entirely upon the outcome rather than the technique and intent then the whole game has gone to ****. But then some people think that's already the case so maybe we just let them carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Having looked at the rules no mention is made; so apologies for that. However the rules appear to me ‘ambiguous’ Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: • kicks or attempts to kick an opponent • trips or attempts to trip an opponent • jumps at an opponent • charges an opponent • strikes or attempts to strike an opponent • pushes an opponent • tackles an opponent it doesn’t mention winning the ball at all????!?? Huge discretion is placed at the referee disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It means a player can do everything right and still be punished depending on whether they're tackling Robin van Persie or a human male. Is van Persie not a human male? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 Exactly Paul, it doesn't mention winning the ball, which is why Ancelotti last season looked stupid when his defence of Terry was that he 'won the ball' despite nearly ending Milner's career. The fact thay de Jong didn't even get a yellow card suggests to me that the referee used his discretion and used it correctly. The broken leg was unfortunate but did not make the tackle, it's intent or the technique any worse than it would have been had the leg not ended up broken. It was an unfortunate consequence but shit does happen from time to time. The trick is in not knee-jerk reacting with rule changes every time it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 5, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 It means a player can do everything right and still be punished depending on whether they're tackling Robin van Persie or a human male. Is van Persie not a human male?You get my point, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Exactly Paul, it doesn't mention winning the ball, which is why Ancelotti last season looked stupid when his defence of Terry was that he 'won the ball' despite nearly ending Milner's career. The fact thay de Jong didn't even get a yellow card suggests to me that the referee used his discretion and used it correctly. The broken leg was unfortunate but did not make the tackle, it's intent or the technique any worse than it would have been had the leg not ended up broken. It was an unfortunate consequence but shit does happen from time to time. The trick is in not knee-jerk reacting with rule changes every time it does. I guess what I said earlier is the problem. The game is quicker, but the players are necessarily quicker in thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 thats the difference between de jongs and henrys at the weekend, henry flew in from miles away and the bloke was lucky to see it coming and get flipped over rather than snapped in two, de jong flew in from half a metre away right in front of him, what can ben arfa do exactly? jump out the way? knock it past him and ride the tackle? avoid contact? he could do absolutely nothing but get mashed and hope for the best i said before de jong might not have known that he was going to break his leg but he knew he was going to bruise him and shake him up and effectively take him out the game, thats **** sunday league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Can't see all the fuss to be honest, it's people just jumping on the bandwagon because De Jong has a bit of a reputation. Sidwell breaks someones leg with a terrible tackle and nothing is said, De Jong makes a tackle within the laws of the game and people want him banned. Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 5, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2010 The Geordies have apparently sent a strongly worded letter to FA demanding appropriate action against De Jong. Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts