Will Brentford's red card be rescinded?

[_Putney_]

'Excessive force'... funniest thing I've ever read. How on earth was he supposed to get over there in time to commit the tackle, but to sprint over as fast as possible? Excessive? Considering he won the ball and didn't injure the player I would say that was exactly the amount of force he needed.

Cue "yeah but he nearly injured him." :005:

Regardless of whether you believe it should have been a red card offense or not, you seem to not understand the rules at all. Neither whether you catch the ball or not, or whether the opponent gets injured or not is important in deciding if a red card is warranted. It is a subjective assessment as follows:

"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."

This can be the case in a situation where you only catch the ball and the opponent is completely unharmed. Likewise you can catch only the player and accidentally break his leg without the tackle warranting a red card (or even a yellow for that matter, even though that is likely unusual). It is of course also not important in itself whether or not the player used one or two feet.

To answer your question: it is quite possible to find yourself in a situation where you cannot get over somewhere in time to make a challenge without seriously risking being deemed to have used excessive force.

So if you are mocking other posters maybe you should at least bother trying to understand the basics of the rules.

:005:

Yeah.. some of the softest challenges end up injuring players, all tackles endanger the opponent to some extent.

Should I remind you of Djibril Cisse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SoBHLgeI4

Remember this tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dleIp8j_Ows

Also, I suspect Fredericks should have been sent off on a few occasions here: https://youtu.be/MQe_y384q3M?t=29

This is the most hilarious thread ever.

[Sting of the North]

'Excessive force'... funniest thing I've ever read. How on earth was he supposed to get over there in time to commit the tackle, but to sprint over as fast as possible? Excessive? Considering he won the ball and didn't injure the player I would say that was exactly the amount of force he needed.

Cue "yeah but he nearly injured him." :005:

Regardless of whether you believe it should have been a red card offense or not, you seem to not understand the rules at all. Neither whether you catch the ball or not, or whether the opponent gets injured or not is important in deciding if a red card is warranted. It is a subjective assessment as follows:

"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."

This can be the case in a situation where you only catch the ball and the opponent is completely unharmed. Likewise you can catch only the player and accidentally break his leg without the tackle warranting a red card (or even a yellow for that matter, even though that is likely unusual). It is of course also not important in itself whether or not the player used one or two feet.

To answer your question: it is quite possible to find yourself in a situation where you cannot get over somewhere in time to make a challenge without seriously risking being deemed to have used excessive force.

So if you are mocking other posters maybe you should at least bother trying to understand the basics of the rules.

:005:

Yeah.. some of the softest challenges end up injuring players, all tackles endanger the opponent to some extent.

Should I remind you of Djibril Cisse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SoBHLgeI4

Remember this tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dleIp8j_Ows

Also, I suspect Fredericks should have been sent off on a few occasions here: https://youtu.be/MQe_y384q3M?t=29

This is the most hilarious thread ever.

Don't see what's hilarious at all about my post as it is simply explaining the rules since you seem to be absolutely clueless about them. But maybe you are just fact resistant, which seems all too common these days.

[Southcoastffc]

'Excessive force'... funniest thing I've ever read. How on earth was he supposed to get over there in time to commit the tackle, but to sprint over as fast as possible? Excessive? Considering he won the ball and didn't injure the player I would say that was exactly the amount of force he needed.

Cue "yeah but he nearly injured him." :005:

Regardless of whether you believe it should have been a red card offense or not, you seem to not understand the rules at all. Neither whether you catch the ball or not, or whether the opponent gets injured or not is important in deciding if a red card is warranted. It is a subjective assessment as follows:

"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."

This can be the case in a situation where you only catch the ball and the opponent is completely unharmed. Likewise you can catch only the player and accidentally break his leg without the tackle warranting a red card (or even a yellow for that matter, even though that is likely unusual). It is of course also not important in itself whether or not the player used one or two feet.

To answer your question: it is quite possible to find yourself in a situation where you cannot get over somewhere in time to make a challenge without seriously risking being deemed to have used excessive force.

So if you are mocking other posters maybe you should at least bother trying to understand the basics of the rules.

:005:

Yeah.. some of the softest challenges end up injuring players, all tackles endanger the opponent to some extent.

Should I remind you of Djibril Cisse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SoBHLgeI4

Remember this tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dleIp8j_Ows

Also, I suspect Fredericks should have been sent off on a few occasions here: https://youtu.be/MQe_y384q3M?t=29

This is the most hilarious thread ever.

Don't see what's hilarious at all about my post as it is simply explaining the rules since you seem to be absolutely clueless about them. But maybe you are just fact resistant, which seems all too common these days.

You're wasting your time Sting ot N.  Facts and objectivity don't cut it with some.

[rebel]

'Excessive force'... funniest thing I've ever read. How on earth was he supposed to get over there in time to commit the tackle, but to sprint over as fast as possible? Excessive? Considering he won the ball and didn't injure the player I would say that was exactly the amount of force he needed.

Cue "yeah but he nearly injured him." :005:

Regardless of whether you believe it should have been a red card offense or not, you seem to not understand the rules at all. Neither whether you catch the ball or not, or whether the opponent gets injured or not is important in deciding if a red card is warranted. It is a subjective assessment as follows:

"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."

This can be the case in a situation where you only catch the ball and the opponent is completely unharmed. Likewise you can catch only the player and accidentally break his leg without the tackle warranting a red card (or even a yellow for that matter, even though that is likely unusual). It is of course also not important in itself whether or not the player used one or two feet.

To answer your question: it is quite possible to find yourself in a situation where you cannot get over somewhere in time to make a challenge without seriously risking being deemed to have used excessive force.

So if you are mocking other posters maybe you should at least bother trying to understand the basics of the rules.

:005:

Yeah.. some of the softest challenges end up injuring players, all tackles endanger the opponent to some extent.

Should I remind you of Djibril Cisse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SoBHLgeI4

Remember this tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dleIp8j_Ows

Also, I suspect Fredericks should have been sent off on a few occasions here: https://youtu.be/MQe_y384q3M?t=29

This is the most hilarious thread ever.

Yes 'hilarious thread', then a 'clown' arrives right on cue, thank you for the entertainment.

[MaidenheadMick]

Was a superb tackle imo and should be rescinded (but hopefully it doesn't) it was one footed, he didn't leave the ground. His foot was never above the height of the football and as to studs showing, his foot was below 90  degrees, it's impossible to slide tackle without your studs showing or they would dig in the ground and snap your ankle in half.

Red card all day long. Out of control and the Swansea player got the ball first. Had he not touched it away, Henry would have got nowhere near the ball. The ball was actually played onto Henry

[MaidenheadMick]

A red for winning the ball ? It's a contact sport , the bees fellas aim was to win the ball , and he did !

Think you need to look at it again. The Swansea player knocked the ball away before Henry touched it.

[RaySmith]

Surprised this was overturned, since, as has been said here, there's a lot of subjectivity in  such decisions, in the modern game where such tackles, or any tackle, is looked at as a potential foul, so surely the ref should be backed by the League.

[MaidenheadMick]

Why are most on here saying Henry got the ball? Admittedly the ball hit him but only after the Swansea player had touched it. The ball caught Henry's trailing leg so it must be deemed reckless and as such the red card should be upheld

[FFC1987]

I think the most humorous aspect of this post has been the mental gymnastics of some who went from 'well the referee dished out his subjective opinion on the punishment so we should respect it' to 'a bunch of out of touch old blokes from the times of medieval football made this decision so we shouldn't respect it'.

This tackle and topic has really made a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want my two pence on the excessive foul ruling, its that they took into account that the speed he was running at, created the contact/force but as it wasn't two footed, directly on a position on the player to cause a leg break/at the knee or above, that would cause a serious injury, or even directly through the player, because the force wasn't excessive enough, they deemed it unworthy of a sending off. Something I agree with. As I mentioned, if this was a simple case of serious endangerment to a player, the game of football would change forever.

[Sting of the North]

I think the most humorous aspect of this post has been the mental gymnastics of some who went from 'well the referee dished out his subjective opinion on the punishment so we should respect it' to 'a bunch of out of touch old blokes from the times of medieval football made this decision so we shouldn't respect it'.

This tackle and topic has really made a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want my two pence on the excessive foul ruling, its that they took into account that the speed he was running at, created the contact/force but as it wasn't two footed, directly on a position on the player to cause a leg break/at the knee or above, that would cause a serious injury, or even directly through the player, they deemed it unworthy of a sending off. Something I agree with. As I mentioned, if this was a simple case of serious endangerment to a player, the game of football would change forever.

Are those the same posters (genuine question)? Because a lot of posters have been involved in this thread. Of course there have been some highlights, like the two footed tackle using only one foot line of argumentation, but quite a few have mostly offered their opinion. Personally I don't see why any red cards are overturned unless they were incorrect almost to the point of being an objective fact, but apparently the comittee works in other ways. Or so it seems to me at least. I believe that is part of the job of the referee to make that assessment, and that care should be taken into moving this outside of the games (although of course it did affect the game directly as well).

I am all for something like Mitro's retroactive suspension, because clearly the referee could or did not see the situation, but in this case he did and made a decision. I am also all for overturning reds for example in case of an opponent faking being hit in the face or similar. In this case there was at the very least a very tough tackle. Nothing that is inherently wrong with that, but the referee had the opportunity to assess the situation and did so.

Agree on your analysis of why the decision was possibly overturned though, namely that surely they must have decided that in no world would that ever be able to be considered as using excessive force. There is no other possible way for them to overturn the decision I would assume.

[FFC1987]

I think the most humorous aspect of this post has been the mental gymnastics of some who went from 'well the referee dished out his subjective opinion on the punishment so we should respect it' to 'a bunch of out of touch old blokes from the times of medieval football made this decision so we shouldn't respect it'.

This tackle and topic has really made a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want my two pence on the excessive foul ruling, its that they took into account that the speed he was running at, created the contact/force but as it wasn't two footed, directly on a position on the player to cause a leg break/at the knee or above, that would cause a serious injury, or even directly through the player, they deemed it unworthy of a sending off. Something I agree with. As I mentioned, if this was a simple case of serious endangerment to a player, the game of football would change forever.

Are those the same posters (genuine question)? Because a lot of posters have been involved in this thread. Of course there have been some highlights, like the two footed tackle using only one foot line of argumentation, but quite a few have mostly offered their opinion. Personally I don't see why any red cards are overturned unless they were incorrect almost to the point of being an objective fact, but apparently the comittee works in other ways. Or so it seems to me at least. I believe that is part of the job of the referee to make that assessment, and that care should be taken into moving this outside of the games (although of course it did affect the game directly as well).

I am all for something like Mitro's retroactive suspension, because clearly the referee could or did not see the situation, but in this case he did and made a decision. I am also all for overturning reds for example in case of an opponent faking being hit in the face or similar. In this case there was at the very least a very tough tackle. Nothing that is inherently wrong with that, but the referee had the opportunity to assess the situation and did so.

Agree on your analysis of why the decision was possibly overturned though, namely that surely they must have decided that in no world would that ever be able to be considered as using excessive force. There is no other possible way for them to overturn the decision I would assume.

That's how I read the decision, I can't imagine how else they could have either. Looking at the rules you posted as well as on the FA doc, its the only logical justification for it unless they find another rule but you'd think upon appeal, they should give a full breakdown of why to create less confusion. They usually say exactly why a ban is pushed through, like Mitro's for instance (albeit more obvious). If they feel the rules are watertight and self explanatory, they need only see threads like this to show it's really not!

In regards to red cards being overturned, this is where the game is going sadly. In a decades time or less, I think we'll see almost every decision micro managed by video footage and the referee essentially being a person who signals play rather than determines it. Hopefully I'm wrong, as, as a player myself, I love the older style of refereeing with the gritty decision making and discussions that come from them be it right or wrong. I appreciate that's probably an outdated unpopular opinion in todays game ruled by the wallet but that's just my preference.