Tackles at Port Vale

[Bergen Blade]

I know Basham's tackle has been discussed a lot, though here it is again (1:06 into the video):




I had a look at the match video on BP, and was surprised to see this tackle on O'Grady:



Any comments?

 

[Foxy]

Any comments?

One player got up, the other stayed down while his team mates hounded the ref.

On the subject of Port Vale, here's an alternative (ours) angle of their first goal:

Port Vale goal by Foxy posted Today at 2:11 PM

 

[Bergen Blade]

One player got up, the other stayed down while his team mates hounded the ref.

On the subject of Port Vale, here's an alternative (ours) angle of their first goal:

Port Vale goal by Foxy posted Today at 2:11 PM

That shows the obstruction on McEveley, which I mentioned in another post. Duffy is only looking at stopping him, enabling the guy McEveley was marking to run towards the ball. Clearly practiced on the training ground.

 

[boo radley]

Do Refs have things pointed out to them by the people who look after referees interests? if not they should because if O'Grady does not jump that tackle is a total leg breaker and was deserving of a double red if there were such a thing. O'Grady had the self preservation instinct looking after him and not the protection of the referee.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

The Basham tackle was IMO a red card. Basham was a millisecond later than Brown, although no issue in Brown play acting and helping to get Basham sent off though. That's what people like Brown have done all their career - he did it for us.
The PV player was mega late - ball had well gone and COG saw it coming and the reaction of any player is to get out of the way - COG did this and hurdles the PV player -the subsequent collision just help COG on his way - looked a lot worse than what it actually was, and you see it all the time in football. Sure if COG had stood there, it could have been a broken leg - but he didn't and ref has given the PV player a yellow which is the result of what the ref saw and happened.

You can't ask any ref to "guess" what might have been - except if you are Gerrard and you play for Liverpool !!

UTB

 

[boo radley]

The Basham tackle was IMO a red card. Basham was a millisecond later than Brown, although no issue in Brown play acting and helping to get Basham sent off though. That's what people like Brown have done all their career - he did it for us.
The PV player was mega late - ball had well gone and COG saw it coming and the reaction of any player is to get out of the way - COG did this and hurdles the PV player -the subsequent collision just help COG on his way - looked a lot worse than what it actually was, and you see it all the time in football. Sure if COG had stood there, it could have been a broken leg - but he didn't and ref has given the PV player a yellow which is the result of what the ref saw and happened.

You can't ask any ref to "guess" what might have been - except if you are Gerrard and you play for Liverpool !!

UTB

So your saying that a referee has no cause to act if a player manages to look after himself and does not get injured (apart from the yellow). He should not make the decision that a tackle was potentially reckless. So he wags his finger and says "I will give you a yellow for that. if you'd caught him I would have given you a red".
Guessing indeed.

 

[Northyorksblade]

Isn't it all about intent though, or has that changed?

 

[Fulwood Blade]

So your saying that a referee has no cause to act if a player manages to look after himself and does not get injured (apart from the yellow). He should not make the decision that a tackle was potentially reckless. So he wags his finger and says "I will give you a yellow for that. if you'd caught him I would have given you a red".
Guessing indeed.

yes I am saying exactly that and you see it time and time again on MOTD and all levels of football.

The referees act on what they actually see and if the PV player had taken COG's feet or ankles then it would have been a red card - the fact of the matter is the PV didn't take COG's feet or ankles, COG went over the PV player while in the air. The PV player was lucky he was so late otherwise it would have been a red card.

I don't understand why you seem to believe the PV player should have been sent off. Referees have been given a directive by the FA to keep players on the pitch unless recklessness RESULTS in a bad tackle - there is very little in the rules for a referee to guess what might have been.

I am not disagreeing with you about the recklessness of the PV tackle, but circumstances dictated that it wasn't bad enough, due to COG's honesty, so fortune favoured the PV player - unlike M Brown who milked the situation.

UTB

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Isn't it all about intent though, or has that changed?

how do you prove intent when a ref sees a tackle, once and in real time. In this case the PV player got a yellow, rightly so as there was minimal contact and the players boot/studs did NOT make contact with COG - unlike Basham on Brown.

The PV player/COG was never ever going to be a red card - sounds like sour grapes by some Blades fans for what happened with Brown/Basham. Football/refs don't work like that.

Having said that, Graham Poll who writes in the Daily Mail is thoroughly pissed off with Mike Riley who heads up the Professional arm of referees as he believes the standards are sadly slipping. Poll should come and look at some of the numpties down in L1.

UTB

 

[wizadry]

yes I am saying exactly that and you see it time and time again on MOTD and all levels of football.

The referees act on what they actually see and if the PV player had taken COG's feet or ankles then it would have been a red card - the fact of the matter is the PV didn't take COG's feet or ankles, COG went over the PV player while in the air. The PV player was lucky he was so late otherwise it would have been a red card.

I don't understand why you seem to believe the PV player should have been sent off. Referees have been given a directive by the FA to keep players on the pitch unless recklessness RESULTS in a bad tackle - there is very little in the rules for a referee to guess what might have been.

I am not disagreeing with you about the recklessness of the PV tackle, but circumstances dictated that it wasn't bad enough, due to COG's honesty, so fortune favoured the PV player - unlike M Brown who milked the situation.

UTB

Iv'e read your post mate but i'm stuggling to understand your concept on this.Lets forget about what the ref did for a minute here,are you actually saying that Basham deserved red for his challenge but the Port Vale player didn't? And if your answer is yes then football has gone bonkers because that Port Vale players legs was way higher than Basham's and was a much more reckless challenge no matter which side you support.

 

[boo radley]

yes I am saying exactly that and you see it time and time again on MOTD and all levels of football.

The referees act on what they actually see and if the PV player had taken COG's feet or ankles then it would have been a red card - the fact of the matter is the PV didn't take COG's feet or ankles, COG went over the PV player while in the air. The PV player was lucky he was so late otherwise it would have been a red card.

I don't understand why you seem to believe the PV player should have been sent off. Referees have been given a directive by the FA to keep players on the pitch unless recklessness RESULTS in a bad tackle - there is very little in the rules for a referee to guess what might have been.

I am not disagreeing with you about the recklessness of the PV tackle, but circumstances dictated that it wasn't bad enough, due to COG's honesty, so fortune favoured the PV player - unlike M Brown who milked the situation.

UTB

Sorry, you can judge a tackle as reckless without the player making contact. That is not guessing it is a judgement.

 

[wizadry]

Sorry, you can judge a tackle as reckless without the player making contact. That is not guessing it is a judgement.

Totally agree,but Foxy hits the nail on the head with the players reactions,it's these what ultimately made the refs mind up and not the challenges themselves.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Sorry, you can judge a tackle as reckless without the player making contact. That is not guessing it is a judgement.

I said that I did not disagree about the PV tackle - you may think it reckless, the referee did not.
It looked potentially reckless when he slid in, but contact was minimal and it looked like because COG was in the air it was a glancing blow.

I still find it difficult to think you wanted the PV player sent off for what happened - he may very well (all though unlikely) what he wanted to kill COG in the tackle, but it didn't happen.

Have you avoided answering my question about whether you think the player should have been sent off?

UTB

 

[boo radley]

Totally agree,but Foxy hits the nail on the head with the players reactions,it's these what ultimately made the refs mind up and not the challenges themselves.

Probably not wrong. It may even be better in some cases to wait to see the severity of the injury to the player feigning. Therefore it may actually give the ref a better chance to re assess how much the player actually got caught and book him for play acting. Comparing the two cases the one on COG was worse than the one on Brown and the ref should have made that judgment.

 

[boo radley]

I said that I did not disagree about the PV tackle - you may think it reckless, the referee did not.
It looked potentially reckless when he slid in, but contact was minimal and it looked like because COG was in the air it was a glancing blow.

I still find it difficult to think you wanted the PV player sent off for what happened - he may very well (all though unlikely) what he wanted to kill COG in the tackle, but it didn't happen.

Have you avoided answering my question about whether you think the player should have been sent off?

UTB

No. the tackle was reckless and he should have been sent off.

 

[Bladepicker]

I said that I did not disagree about the PV tackle - you may think it reckless, the referee did not.
It looked potentially reckless when he slid in, but contact was minimal and it looked like because COG was in the air it was a glancing blow.

I still find it difficult to think you wanted the PV player sent off for what happened - he may very well (all though unlikely) what he wanted to kill COG in the tackle, but it didn't happen.

Have you avoided answering my question about whether you think the player should have been sent off?

UTB

If contact is made and it is a reckless tackle off the ground (which it was) then it's a red card.

Basham and Brown both went in honestly and strong in a good old 50/50 however the Port Vale player went in over the top and so late he had no chance of winning the ball, yet you think that Bash is more deserving of a red because it hurt Brown more? Seriously?

Are you a League One referee?

 

[Fulwood Blade]

If contact is made and it is a reckless tackle off the ground (which it was) then it's a red card.

Basham and Brown both went in honestly and strong in a good old 50/50 however the Port Vale player went in over the top and so late he had no chance of winning the ball, yet you think that Bash is more deserving of a red because it hurt Brown more? Seriously?

Are you a League One referee?

What a daft suggestion - but the ACTUAL referee of the PV game was a FL referee - I am only agreeing with his summary of both decisions.

As for the PV player - yes he was late - I am not now and never have disputed that - BUT, he didn't catch COG how Basham caught Brown. As for Basham - it is the referees perception, bot yours or mine - Brown milked the tackle, but if you study the previous videos, Bashams foot, studs showing possibly, and it is only possibly catches Brown - The type of tackle, seen by the referee once and at full speed left him with no choice but to send off Basham. I am not saying the ref was correct, only given a once only look, he did what probably all refs would have done.

No doubt you and a load of others think there is some sort of conspiracy against us?

Don't have a problem with you thinking both decisions were wrong - the ref thought they were correct, which I agree with - buy hey, lets not let Blades Bias get in front of reality or watching them in rose tinted glasses.

No doubt when I see the ref at QPR tomorrow, he will be equally as bias towards the premier league team.

UTB

 

[Bladepicker]

What a daft suggestion - but the ACTUAL referee of the PV game was a FL referee - I am only agreeing with his summary of both decisions.

As for the PV player - yes he was late - I am not now and never have disputed that - BUT, he didn't catch COG how Basham caught Brown. As for Basham - it is the referees perception, bot yours or mine - Brown milked the tackle, but if you study the previous videos, Bashams foot, studs showing possibly, and it is only possibly catches Brown - The type of tackle, seen by the referee once and at full speed left him with no choice but to send off Basham. I am not saying the ref was correct, only given a once only look, he did what probably all refs would have done.

No doubt you and a load of others think there is some sort of conspiracy against us?

Don't have a problem with you thinking both decisions were wrong - the ref thought they were correct, which I agree with - buy hey, lets not let Blades Bias get in front of reality or watching them in rose tinted glasses.

No doubt when I see the ref at QPR tomorrow, he will be equally as bias towards the premier league team.

UTB

This is not about Blades bias. It is about your perception that how much you hurt or catch your opponont is more critical than the dangerous and/or violent nature of the tackle which is frankly ridiculous.

 

[mark hones]

If a player goes down from a hard tackle, rolls around a little while his team mates hound the referee, it shouldn't automatically result in a red card. Basham went in hard and fair, a good strong tackle truth be told, but the referee chose to respond to the underhanded tactics of the Port Vale players. Simply put, it was bad refereeing.

Modern referees are too quick to react, are too happy to bow down to the wankers who feign injury, and appear totally clueless when it comes to deciding if contact was made, let alone how hard it was.

The fact that Brown played on after getting our player sent off says it all. Fulwood mate, you were conned, just the same as the inept and inconsistent referee.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Isn't it all about intent though, or has that changed?

Yes, when Brown hit the deck, Gerrard got a penalty.

 

[Jehovah]

Thats where honesty gets you. That is a disgustng tackle, but Ogrady just gets up and makes no fuss. Much like he did at Hillsborough with the absolutely horrific challenge by MIchael Brown on him, which saw Brown recieve no punishment.

 

[mark hones]

I can't see anything wrong with that tackle Jehovah. Anybody in a Pig shirt is fair game to me

 

[judge]

Thats where honesty gets you. That is a disgustng tackle, but Ogrady just gets up and makes no fuss. Much like he did at Hillsborough with the absolutely horrific challenge by MIchael Brown on him, which saw Brown recieve no punishment.

He's obvious mistook him for a cunt

 

[Punk Blade]

My comments are 95% of referees are biased against SUFC, I don't know why, and I don't care how this makes me sound.