16/08/08 - QPR Match Thread

[The One]

Brilliant performance.

Don't think Halford's tackle was that bad. I was sat directly infront of it and allthough he did "jump" to make the tackle his stoods were down and looked as if he got the ball with his shins rather than his feet.

SJH was brilliant again

Not sure who to give MOTM.

 

[keenzy]

thing is, as you say, he jumped in.

Seen players walk for that before.

 

[silverfox]

Ok, I'm merely making a point here, not having a pop at anyone in particular, and certainly not any players, but I kept an eye on Gary Speed in the 2nd half after noticing in the 1st that a number of his passes went astray. They continued to do so in the 2nd half. I just wonder if it were Michael Tonge, would we have heard more grumbles from the crowd?

No grumbles with Speeds great pass for one of Sharps goals from me!

Worth his place for that one pass I'd say.

 

[TonyAgana]

No grumbles with Speeds great pass for one of Sharps goals from me!

Worth his place for that one pass I'd say.

Now you see that's an interesting point SF.

Michael Tonge played an equally sweet through-ball against Birmingham but obviously it didn't result in a goal. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody saying he was worth his place based on one pass. And my point is, why not?

 

[MAQ]

SJH was the man of the match for me. brilliant preformance and has surpassed my expectations.

Hopefully we can keep him at the lane rather than being shipped off to chengdu as an ambassador.

 

[SotonBlade]

Delighted with the game on Saturday. Thought Jihai was highly impressive, but had to give MOM to Sharp, his best game by a long shot, and that hat-trick should open the flood gates for him now.

Well worth the 450Mile round trip!

 

[Robbie]

MOTM for me was Speed, good vision, good off the ball, good passing range, great tackling, great in helping back to front.

Sharp will of course get the MOTM cause he got the hat trick though.

Good performance, and it would have been enough to beat most teams in this league, however QPR were poor and they will struggle if they play like that week in week out.

RE Halfords challenge. It was a blatant red card offence and should have walked, no matter what he did with his studs, or where he left his following leg, he has lunged at the player and he was not in control of his "challenge". For this reason alone is why he should have been sent off. Wreckless challenges like this have no place in football, just because he won the ball doesn't make it acceptable. This kind of challenge can easily break somebodys leg, because he is not in control of what he is doing once both feet have left the floor.

 

[Linz]

This kind of challenge can easily break somebodys leg, because he is not in control of what he is doing once both feet have left the floor.

But any challenge has the potential to break someone's leg, should we ban tackling?

 

[Robbie]

But any challenge has the potential to break someone's leg, should we ban tackling?

In theory yes it is possible to break a leg from most challenges. However you and I both know what I refer to, and I assume your comment must only be said in jest.

In practical, tackling is good and fine if a player is in control of his actions, if a tackle is flying and a player has no control, this is where it becomes dangerous.

 

[Linz]

In theory yes it is possible to break a leg from most challenges. However you and I both know what I refer to, and I assume your comment must only be said in jest.

No, it wasn't said in jest.

When you start trying to define what constituents a "safe" one-footed challenge and what constitutes a dangerous one-footed challenge "regardless of what happens with his studs", eventually you're going to end up with no one being allowed to challenge for the ball at all.

What about 50/50 balls? Should we stop players jumping in there because they might hurt themselves.

Perhaps we should stop players being able to touch the keeper, because they aren't in control of their bodies when they jump to head the ball.

I think football fans in general are turning into a big set of jessies like the bloody QPR players. Yes the tackle might have looked particularly gritty, but I think that's mostly to do with fans not being used to seeing wholehearted challenges any more.

Wind the clock back a bit and you'll see far worse challenges escape without even a talking to, never mind a booking.

 

[Robbie]

When you start trying to define what constituents a "safe" one-footed challenge and what constitutes a dangerous one-footed challenge "regardless of what happens with his studs", eventually you're going to end up with no one being allowed to challenge for the ball at all.

This isn't the case at all though is it?

It wasn't a safe challenge, full stop.

It can easily be defined as a two foot challenge too.

What about 50/50 balls? Should we stop players jumping in there because they might hurt themselves.

This is a totally different scenario, a 50/50 ball, with both players going in properly isn't that likely to cause injury at all. If you're in control of yourself, then it is highly unlikely you will cause an injury.

However if both players jumped in like Halford did, then one will more than lliekly come away with some sort of injury.

Perhaps we should stop players being able to touch the keeper, because they aren't in control of their bodies when they jump to head the ball.

This is already the case, Keepers are protected over anyone else.

Wind the clock back a bit and you'll see far worse challenges escape without even a talking to, never mind a booking.

What has happened in the past doesn't mean it should have been acceptable then, or even now.

End of the day, Halford should have walked.

 

[Linz]

What has happened in the past doesn't mean it should have been acceptable then, or even now.

And so dies the death of our beautiful game.... We'll all be politely clapping soon as a five metre (they'll do away with yards too) exclusion zone is set up around every player with the ball and every trip over a blade of grass is awarded a free kick.

End of the day, Halford should have walked.

And then the ref would have had to send their player off too for raising his hands... what's the point in ruining the game for a wholehearted, studs down challenge and a bit of handbags? It was a booking, nothing more and I didn't see the QPR fans or players moaning too much about it.

:nono:... jessies.

PS: It's interesting that those at either side of the pitch didn't think it was that hard of a challenge but those on the Kop did.

 

[Foxy]

Personally, having seen it close up, I think he'd have been unlucky to go off.

I'd also say the "tackle" that left Halfords knee needing treatment was far worse and could have been a career ender if Halfords studs had been in the ground.

Also, what everyone seems to be forgetting is its also a sending off for raising arms, so Halford and Delaney could have both walked. Actually, come to think of it, i've not seen any reports even mention Delaneys booking?

 

[MAQ]

After reading the last few posts, i feel the need to wade into this ensuing argument.

So for anyone interested here is my opinion

As i have mentioned before when asked about situations such as this a referee makes his decision based on criteria for tackling which are; CARELESS, RECKLESS or USING EXCESSIVE FORCE.

IMO halfords tackle could fall under either of the last two headings.

based on this and the quotes below this is how i see it.

RE Halfords challenge. It was a blatant red card offence and should have walked

First (And I'm sorry for being literal Robbie but) theres no such thing as a blatant red card offence. There are certain actions outlined that would result in an immediate dismissal, however tackling is not one of these.

When you start trying to define what constituents a "safe" one-footed challenge and what constitutes a dangerous one-footed challenge "regardless of what happens with his studs"

In a similar response to above, there is also no ruling stating that a tackle must be single footed, nor the same stating the both feet cannot be used. Likewise "Studs showing" isnt against the rules however this IS something that is strongly frowned upon.

This isn't the case at all though is it?

It wasn't a safe challenge, full stop.

It can easily be defined as a two foot challenge too.

&

And then the ref would have had to send their player off too for raising his hands

This is where the waters start to get murky. I have to agree with you both on these points. From my personal opinion Robbie you are correct, it was far from a safe challange, simply defined by the fact the Halford was airborne. My seat is at pitch level and from where i was sat (Gangway B row A) he looked a good foot off the floor. Unfortunately my view of the "connection" was blocked, and as a result i didnt see if he won the ball or not. On this basis if he is in the air he is never going to be in control of what he is doing.

As i said this is where it gets murky, and the reasoning for this is simply because this could either be defined as RECKLESS or USING EXCESSIVE FORCE, which means that he could very well have walked. In addition the tackle could have been deemed as serious foul play, which would have been an instant dismissal.

As for your comment Linz, you are correct. Regardless of the tackle the QPR player (Delaney?) should have walked. Raising your hands (Guilt of Violent conduct) is a straight Dismissal.

PS: It's interesting that those at either side of the pitch didn't think it was that hard of a challenge but those on the Kop did.

Personally as soon as i saw the tackle i was convinced that he would walk. And i wasnt sat on the Kop

At the end of the day, and as we have all seen on many different occasions, a referees interpretation of the LOAF is individual. One referee may dismiss a player one week and caution a player the following week for the same offence. My 2p worth of this situation is that the referee had one of two options either caution them both (Which is what he did) or dismiss them both. I think that the reason he only cautioned them both was simply due to the reaction of delaney. The fact that the season is still very early could also have played a factor in his decision although this shouldnt happen. The referee was in a good position when the tackle was made and so he had a far better view of it that anyone else in the ground.

If i had been in the middle (Simply based on what i saw) they would have both walked. But that is simply my own view on the situation. There was no need for halford to challenge in the way that he did. Delanys reaction was an obvious one, but even so still not something that he should get away with.

As good a player as halford is, i have always been worried about situations like this. He was sent off for both sunderland and reading in similar situations when there was simply no need to attack the ball in that way. He is quick enough to get there and tackle on the ground negating the need for diving in.

 

[keenzy]

summed up well there MAQ.

I used to like getting stuck in and the players ruffing each other abit, but thers's a difference from that, than charging yourself at someone, leaping off the floor and hoping to win the ball. If his foot went over the ball, it could have been a break. But the reaction of raising arms is deemed sending off these days.

 

[Foxy]

The thing that would seem to go against the majority of that MAQ is, I wouldn't say the player he came together with was actually in possession of the ball, would this effect your judgement in such a scenario?

That for me, is one of the reasons I didn't see his "jump" as harshly as others seem to have. For me, it was more of a 50/50 (okay, closer to the QPR man so probably not quite ), but it certainly seemed to be in the open and there for the taking. It's all ifs and buts as to whether or not it was dangerous, but for me there never looked to be any risk of him going over the top of the ball.

I personally thought Halford probably wouldn't have been quick enough to get to the ball first WITHOUT jumping.

I definately agree he could have gone for it, for all the reasons people have mentioned; from my viewpoint however, i'd have felt it slightly harsh if he had.

 

[The One]

I don't think it was as bad as people are saying.

I was sat basically inline with the tackle on three rows from the front and all though he did come off the floor, he didn't really go in with his stoods raised and didn't look as if he made much contact.

 

[keenzy]

he still came off the floor though which makes it dangerous regardless of making contact, which way his studs are.
As foxy said he could have got the ball without lunging towards him.

 

[Foxy]

As foxy said he could have got the ball without lunging towards him.

I said he wouldn't , I also don't think he lunged towards the player, but towards the ball

 

[keenzy]

my bad, mis read the post

the ball was closer to the qpr player. alot closer. so towards the ball was nearly at the man.

Not only that, he could have injured himself. If he got his stud caught as he landed and carried on with the momentum could have tore something.

I like to see a Morgan style game, but lunging shouldn't be allowed.

Noticed that some people(not off here) have been sticking up for halfords challenge saying it was fair game, but then slag morgan off for being a "thug" for doing alot less.

 

[MAQ]

The thing that would seem to go against the majority of that MAQ is, I wouldn't say the player he came together with was actually in possession of the ball, would this effect your judgement in such a scenario?

As i mentioned above i didnt see the "Point of Impact" or where the players were in relation to each other and the ball. My view was obstructed by a couple of QPR players warming up. All i saw was halford take off in a very bruce lee like launch.

However if the ball was 50/50 or even as much as 70/30 but not in Delanys posession (ie at his feet and in control) then without a doubt this would definately have a bearing on my decision, which is probably why the decision to caution both players was made.

And just to prempt any "Well why did delany not get sent off" questions, the main role of a referee is to "Control" the game. This takes many forms and the easiest way to loose the control would be to "Incite" the players and staff of one or both teams by sending off delany for raising his hands and not halford for the initial tackle. In addition to this he will also have had in the back of his mind the possible repercussions had he dismissed Delany and not Halford. Simply because the egor known as Dowie would have lodged a complaint following the match and the Referees association would then have to assess the decision. Simply put he could have lost certain points and been demoted to league 1 thus loosing a substantial amount of salary.

anywho a long winded answer but still.

 

[Robbie]

I was sat basically inline with the tackle on three rows from the front and all though he did come off the floor, he didn't really go in with his stoods raised and didn't look as if he made much contact.

This is my point,

It's irrelevant how much contact was made (obviously if he just did this when nobody was anywhere near it would be a different matter) or how his studs were, he wasn't in control of what he was doing, he was airbourne. This is why in my opinion he should have gone.