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.
Robbie said:
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.
Linz said:
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.
Robbie said:
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.
&
Linz said:
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.
Linz said:
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.