STILL A SCOTTISH HERO ...

[Sheff de party]

The way I see it and l be believe most loyal blades do is that no united player should get sent off if he doesn’t deliberately go to injure an opponent.
I honestly don’t think Fleck did. So from my point he didn’t deserve to get sent off.

But those aren’t the rules are they? So saying he doesn’t deserve to get sent off because you personally think he didn’t mean to injure someone is irrelevant. By that logic, would you believe he shouldn’t be sent off for handling the ball on the line?

The rules are open to interpretation obviously. Most people, including the ref, interpret that as dangerous, therefore a red. Fair enough you don’t, but whether he meant to hurt someone doesn’t matter. He could have, and he did.

I was gutted he got sent off, but he has no one to blame. Easy decision for any referee.

 

[davidblade]

Yes , exactly he he doesn’t deliberately handle the ball on the line it’s not a penalty especially when it’s a United player , no way.
It’s the thing about being a supporter.

 

[8lade]

I think too many on this thread have watched too much match of the day with all this letter of the law b***ocks. I don't watch the programme anymore due to stuff like ex-professionals trying to justify some diabolical refereeing decisions, why don't they come out with that law stinks it should be changed back to what it used to be. Football is fast turning, if it isn't already, into a non-contact sport. When a honest tackle like Fleck's on Friday is getting a red then it really is time for the game to have a long hard look at itself ... and if it's still happy with itself then they can turn out the lights as far as I'm concerned.

All this reminds me of the 'intent to foul' incident, it's a rule and i think a referee used it in the lower leagues once too (but it didn't ultimately cost a club £30 million). Also the no tackling from behind rule you can take the ball from behind without going through the player but it's a yellow card offence, to me it's up to the referee to decide and as SUFC Handsworth points out taking a few moments to think would've just allowed him to calm down and maybe issue a yellow instead of a red. Of course all the play acting doesn't help and for all those people deriding Fleck, I hope you're still deriding Clarke the same way.

 

[metalblade]

I can't believe this thread is into 4 pages ffs. No argument it was a red card he caught the kid after the ball but this is the rules we have today. We can't blame the referee because they have to implement the laws as they stand the trouble with that being there is no room for a referee to use a bit of common sense. Take the Leeds player who tackled/assaulted Baldock his only intention was the go through the player with or without the ball, take the Burton player who broke Coutts' leg a player with previous for following through on so called tackles (Westwood)...... nowhere near the ball only intention is to injure a player taking a shot. Both these tackles deserved a Red card can we really say the same for a tackle where there is no such intent when it goes wrong I think a yellow card is what should be given but these directives to referees gives them no room to apply a bit of common sense. I'm still waiting for retrospective action on the Burton and Leeds players I best no hold my breath it just seems our luck at the moment that any mistake is punished heavily while others get away with much worse.
Disappointed with some of our fans who seem to take delight in making out that one of our best players is some sort of thug, leave that for the likes of Gary Madine, please.

 

[Harrisblade]

I can't believe this thread is into 4 pages ffs. No argument it was a red card he caught the kid after the ball but this is the rules we have today. We can't blame the referee because they have to implement the laws as they stand the trouble with that being there is no room for a referee to use a bit of common sense. Take the Leeds player who tackled/assaulted Baldock his only intention was the go through the player with or without the ball, take the Burton player who broke Coutts' leg a player with previous for following through on so called tackles (Westwood)...... nowhere near the ball only intention is to injure a player taking a shot. Both these tackles deserved a Red card can we really say the same for a tackle where there is no such intent when it goes wrong I think a yellow card is what should be given but these directives to referees gives them no room to apply a bit of common sense. I'm still waiting for retrospective action on the Burton and Leeds players I best no hold my breath it just seems our luck at the moment that any mistake is punished heavily while others get away with much worse.
Disappointed with some of our fans who seem to take delight in making out that one of our best players is some sort of thug, leave that for the likes of Gary Madine, please.

But no-one is suggesting that Fleck is some sort of thug.
In fact anything but.
What most of us are saying is that it was a tackle that deserved a red card because both of his feet were in the air during the challenge.

 

[Broomhall Blade]

I can't believe this thread is into 4 pages ffs. No argument it was a red card he caught the kid after the ball but this is the rules we have today. We can't blame the referee because they have to implement the laws as they stand the trouble with that being there is no room for a referee to use a bit of common sense. Take the Leeds player who tackled/assaulted Baldock his only intention was the go through the player with or without the ball, take the Burton player who broke Coutts' leg a player with previous for following through on so called tackles (Westwood)...... nowhere near the ball only intention is to injure a player taking a shot. Both these tackles deserved a Red card can we really say the same for a tackle where there is no such intent when it goes wrong I think a yellow card is what should be given but these directives to referees gives them no room to apply a bit of common sense. I'm still waiting for retrospective action on the Burton and Leeds players I best no hold my breath it just seems our luck at the moment that any mistake is punished heavily while others get away with much worse.
Disappointed with some of our fans who seem to take delight in making out that one of our best players is some sort of thug, leave that for the likes of Gary Madine, please.

It was a Red card all day long.
You can not go into a tackle with both feet off the ground, Fleck was stupid he knows the rules.
I don't doubt that he didn't mean to hurt the player intentionally but the fact is he did with a both feet off the ground tackle. Its irrelevant really if the player is hurt or not its dangerous to tackle with both feet off the ground.
I dont think Fleck is a thug, but i am angry with him for making that stupid tackle that he did not have to make.
I am convinced if he didn't make that tackle we would have won that game, a welcome win i might add against one of our promotion rivals.
Instead its another defeat that continues our little blip of a run, with 3 tough games coming up which Fleck(Arguably our best midfielder) will also now be missing.
Ask yourself this if Brannon had made that tackle on Fleck would you still be saying the same thing ?
Is Fleck a thug no, was he stupid yes.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It's easy to let your judgement be clouded when Bristol City were getting away with so much because the ref was so poor and think Fleck was harshly done too. Even without the histrionics ofJohnsons spoilers , l can't complain about the decision.

 

[BLADES1988]

I heard he just wanted Christmas off.

 

[metalblade]

Harrisblade , Broomhall Blade you guys might have missed this bit from my post (No argument it was a red card he caught the kid after the ball but this is the rules we have today.) 2nd sentence, not just on this thread but on others as well fans have called him a wanker, a cunt, a shitwasp and cliches thrown in horror tackle blah blah blah all of which to me is undeserved. It is not like Fleck is a Kevin Muscat he is a midfielder there to win the ball for us. I can't understand this fake outrage over one tackle we have seen far far worse on our players go unpunished. Some of our fans really need to be watching Dancing on ice or maybe go to a Steelers game then they will know what a rough sport is before pulling our players to bits over one tackle.

 

[Harrisblade]

Harrisblade , Broomhall Blade you guys might have missed this bit from my post (No argument it was a red card he caught the kid after the ball but this is the rules we have today.) 2nd sentence, not just on this thread but on others as well fans have called him a wanker, a cunt, a shitwasp and cliches thrown in horror tackle blah blah blah all of which to me is undeserved. It is not like Fleck is a Kevin Muscat he is a midfielder there to win the ball for us. I can't understand this fake outrage over one tackle we have seen far far worse on our players go unpunished. Some of our fans really need to be watching Dancing on ice or maybe go to a Steelers game then they will know what a rough sport is before pulling our players to bits over one tackle.

Sort of see what you mean after going back to Maidenhead's 'wanker' thread, but overall it looks like the vast majority of us are in agreement - that the insults are bollox.

 

[wizadry]

All this reminds me of the 'intent to foul' incident, it's a rule and i think a referee used it in the lower leagues once too (but it didn't ultimately cost a club £30 million). Also the no tackling from behind rule you can take the ball from behind without going through the player but it's a yellow card offence, to me it's up to the referee to decide and as SUFC Handsworth points out taking a few moments to think would've just allowed him to calm down and maybe issue a yellow instead of a red. Of course all the play acting doesn't help and for all those people deriding Fleck, I hope you're still deriding Clarke the same way.

The Clarke sending off didn’t cost us though which is what some of the fans are saying regards Fleck, which in all fairness no one can say for certain that we win that game with Fleck staying on the pitch until the end, that’s bollocks of course, no one knows.

 

[BushBlade]

The Clarke sending off didn’t cost us though which is what some of the fans are saying regards Fleck, which in all fairness no one can say for certain that we win that game with Fleck staying on the pitch until the end, that’s bollocks of course, no one knows.

Hopefully we'll beat Ipswich in the cup, get West Ham, beat them on pens and Fleck can do a cockney walk and all will be forgiven.

Bottom line; Fleck didn't intend to get sent off. The challenge was a red by today's standards. He might have been lucky and got a yellow but he didn't. Shit happens. End of.

 

[wizadry]

Hopefully we'll beat Ipswich in the cup, get West Ham, beat them on pens and Fleck can do a cockney walk and all will be forgiven.

Bottom line; Fleck didn't intend to get sent off. The challenge was a red by today's standards. He might have been lucky and got a yellow but he didn't. Shit happens. End of.

In live play I was shocked at the red but having seen it back I can see why he got it but that brings me to the point of how the ref came to a correct decision when it happened so quickly when they’re normally useless or bottle it in those situations?

 

[BushBlade]

In live play I was shocked at the red but having seen it back I can see why he got it but that brings me to the point of how the ref came to a correct decision when it happened so quickly when they’re normally useless or bottle it in those situations?

Confirmation bias. They're not always useless and they don't always bottle it. Sometimes that's the case, sometimes it isn't.

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

You can say it’s “letter of the law bollocks”, but it’s simply the rules as they are. Simon Moore isn’t going to get any sympathy from me if he decides to pick-up a backpass to him next week because in the good old days (whenever they were) you could do so. All the players are aware of the rules. In Fleck’s case, he will know that going in for a challenge with both feet off the ground is likely to result in a red card.

Hope you don't mind me saying so but that is a very poor comparison. The back pass rule to the goalkeeper is hardly destroying the moral fibre of the game, whereas changing the laws of the game to eradicate what was a fantastic part of the game (ie proper tackling) is/has turned football into a virtual non-contact sport. That type of change to the game is it ruining it just as much as those prima-donnas throwing themselves to the floor, diving and pretending to be injured, attempting to get fellow professionals sent off.

You can sugar coat it as much as you want modern day top end professional football is w**k and I'd put it down to the 3 evils of diving, taking proper tackling out of the game and paying the players far too much money (there's enough dosh swilling around from Sky to ensure clubs all way down the pyramid are debt free and that fans shouldn't have pay more than a tenner to watch their team).

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Hope you don't mind me saying so but that is a very poor comparison. The back pass rule to the goalkeeper is hardly destroying the moral fibre of the game, whereas changing the laws of the game to eradicate what was a fantastic part of the game (ie proper tackling) is/has turned football into a virtual non-contact sport. That type of change to the game is it ruining it just as much as those prima-donnas throwing themselves to the floor, diving and pretending to be injured, attempting to get fellow professionals sent off.

You can sugar coat it as much as you want modern day top end professional football is w**k and I'd put it down to the 3 evils of diving, taking proper tackling out of the game and paying the players far too much money (there's enough dosh swilling around from Sky to ensure clubs all way down the pyramid are debt free and that fans shouldn't have pay more than a tenner to watch their team).

The backpass comparison was more to draw this to the fact it’s a matter of what’s in the rules. Were the issue of two-footed tackling being considered reckless a new concept, I’d have more sympathy for Fleck making the challenge – say if this was the first season after a rule change. It isn’t, therefore I don’t.

 

[PokerBlade]

It's his first red card of his career, I think. And, aside from their big lad causing some trouble, it hadn't been a dirty or a rough game. Fleck goes in to tackles hard and I wouldn't want him to change, but just look at where his studs land.

Honest or not, the laws talk about reckless and dangerous challenges. It's your duty as a player to ensure you don't land tackles on the opposition's ankles and shins. That's why the guy should've walked for what he did to Coutts. Burton can tell me all day how honest he is, but those challenges have to go for the safety of the competitors.

Seriously, if people couldn't see it was a Blades shirt there's no one that would be talking about this as a soft red, or talking about tackling going out of the game if we ban this.

We know how Fleck plays and we know he isn't a Muscat or Keane type who liked to hurt players. He fucked up, it cost us, and it may well cost us while he's suspended, but he's a good player, with a good attitude, and we'll all move on.

There's a lot to moan about with the way football's going. The diving, the feigning injury, the time wasting, the bookings for a slight tug on a shirt, the awful refereeing, the over-protection of keepers. This was none of that.