Coutts Tackle

[ChipButtyBlade]

Highlighted again last nite in the Chelsea v Norwich game, if you saw it in the1st half almost identical in every way to how Coutts broke his leg.

Zappacosta firing in a shot on the edge of the area and the shot being closed down late by the Norwich player who's foot was 18" off the ground and nowhere near the ball being struck,but folloing thru to get Zappacosta's ankle,he went down but luckily he escaped injury but he was hobbling,the ref gave a foul but no booking.

Now i see these sort of tackles too often these days they are season ending tackles for some and i think it is dangerous play and should be looked at in the same way as many other tackles which see a red card given by the referee.

 

[Torrix1889]

To be fair these are difficult ones....the defending players basically dangles a foot in the air rather than goes in to tackle with studs raised and it is the follow through of the player taking the shot that actually causes the injury, exactly as happened with Coutts.

 

[8lade]

This is exactly the sort of thing that the VAR should catch, as in real time it's almost impossible for a ref or linesman to catch. Retrospective action (banning after the match) only aides the injured team's rivals. (Ie they won't have to play against the man who is likely to injure their players).

 

[Slim Man]

I don't think Sordell's was a sending off. Nor was yesterday.

They were just trying to block with a dangling foot, it was actually Coutts right leg going forward with power into Sordell's dangling boot that caused the break.
You can't top players trying to block shots.

 

[1889]

I don't think Sordell's was a sending off. Nor was yesterday.

They were just trying to block with a dangling foot, it was actually Coutts right leg going forward with power into Sordell's dangling boot that caused the break.
You can't top players trying to block shots.

FFS, Hold me back, hold me back.......................

 

[Sheffsteel]

I don't think Sordell's was a sending off. Nor was yesterday.

They were just trying to block with a dangling foot, it was actually Coutts right leg going forward with power into Sordell's dangling boot that caused the break.
You can't top players trying to block shots.

I agree.....I’ve seen the video and it’s not a sending off for me either.
Most times in these situations there’s never a serious injury.
It was a block with a high foot and Coutts followed through.
Possibly a yellow card for having a high foot (potential dangerous play) but it definitely doesn’t look malicious or intentional.

You can’t decide cards based on the outcome (of how badly the player is injured or not injured).

 

[LSF]

I don't think Sordell's was a sending off. Nor was yesterday.

They were just trying to block with a dangling foot, it was actually Coutts right leg going forward with power into Sordell's dangling boot that caused the break.
You can't top players trying to block shots.

Absolutely this!

 

[8lade]

FFS, Hold me back, hold me back.......................

Let it go, I sense 'fishing'.

 

[8lade]

You can’t decide cards based on the outcome (of how badly the player is injured or not injured).

That's why the authorities ban potentially dangerous actions, such as 'showing the studs'.

 

[1889]

Let it go, I sense 'fishing'.

Don't worry, I'm too busy today.

Anyway I've realised that, with some posters, 'There's no point knocking, if there's no one at home'

 

[TonyAgana]

As much as I was sickened by the slo-mo and felt very emotional for Coutts, you're talking fractions of seconds between a good foot on the ball and a bad foot on the leg. There is a point where you have to accept that football has it's dangers (Coutts' "challenge" is definitely at the darker end of the grey area) otherwise you're in non-contact territory.

 

[Rodders]

That's why the authorities ban potentially dangerous actions, such as 'showing the studs'.

Dangerous actions as your striking leg following through and hitting a defender's leg?

 

[8lade]

Dangerous actions as your striking leg following through and hitting a defender's leg?

Like when Regan Slater did it? It's possible that this can cause injury but the likelihood is that it will knock the defender over, he'll get up and carry on unless he tries to stop play to prevent an attacking move.

 

[Slim Man]

Let it go, I sense 'fishing'.

I’m not fishing at all. As you can see too several people agree with me.

Just because it broke our golden boys leg doesn’t make it a sending off, it wasn’t Sordell’s intention... he was trying to stop Coutts having a shot.

 

[Slim Man]

Don't worry, I'm too busy today.

Anyway I've realised that, with some posters, 'There's no point knocking, if there's no one at home'

See above.

 

[Slim Man]

Absolutely this!

Quite why some see it as a sending off is beyond me. It has to be because it broke his leg, no other reason.

Not every injury causing challenge is a red either. Some are just accidents, like that one was.

 

[Slim Man]

I agree.....I’ve seen the video and it’s not a sending off for me either.
Most times in these situations there’s never a serious injury.
It was a block with a high foot and Coutts followed through.
Possibly a yellow card for having a high foot (potential dangerous play) but it definitely doesn’t look malicious or intentional.

You can’t decide cards based on the outcome (of how badly the player is injured or not injured).

Exactly. It’s sickening knowing he broke his leg in the challenge and it’s took us off the rails as a team which is obviously a kick in the nads but I’m not going to sit here and slag the ref or Sordell for something that was, at best, a yellow. If he didn’t try to block it and Coutts let’s fly and scores Clough would have fined him 2 weeks wages!

 

[Rodders]

Like when Regan Slater did it? It's possible that this can cause injury but the likelihood is that it will knock the defender over, he'll get up and carry on unless he tries to stop play to prevent an attacking move.

I'm not sure of your point - Slater's and Sordell's were 2 totally different scenarios.

 

[8lade]

I'm not sure of your point - Slater's and Sordell's were 2 totally different scenarios.

Yes I missed your point initially but if you stop the "striking leg following through and hitting a defender's leg" then you'll stop shooting unless it's unchallenged.

 

[Slim Man]

Yes I missed your point initially but if you stop the "striking leg following through and hitting a defender's leg" then you'll stop shooting unless it's unchallenged.

Exactly... and Sordell just tried to stop Coutts’ shot. He was milliseconds off, if he didnt try and block it he would’ve been crucified had it gone in.

 

[8lade]

As you can see too several people agree with me.

That just means you are all wrong.
"PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

"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."

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

[Slim Man]

That just means you are all wrong.
"PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

"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."

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

So trying to block a player from having a shot is dangerous play?

That must be why we keep letting lads shoot from outside the box unchallenged.

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

Not seen the tackle, but I think players need to know not to go in to tackles with studs showing, and with pace. (think these are the two main points)
Tackles need to be controlled, you still see to many reckless tackles in the game. Going into a tackle with studs showing is asking for trouble, same with hard pacey tackles which the player is likely not able to back out of when committed.
Player safety surely has to come first.

 

[8lade]

So trying to block a player from having a shot is dangerous play?

Well according to the FA a ' tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent', given that the opponent received a broken leg, I'd say that 'challenge' qualified.

 

[diplomat]

Highlighted again last nite in the Chelsea v Norwich game, if you saw it in the1st half almost identical in every way to how Coutts broke his leg.

Zappacosta firing in a shot on the edge of the area and the shot being closed down late by the Norwich player who's foot was 18" off the ground and nowhere near the ball being struck,but folloing thru to get Zappacosta's ankle,he went down but luckily he escaped injury but he was hobbling,the ref gave a foul but no booking.

Now i see these sort of tackles too often these days they are season ending tackles for some and i think it is dangerous play and should be looked at in the same way as many other tackles which see a red card given by the referee.

He gave a corner not a foul

 

[1889]

Go on then, I'll bite

The way I see it is, Sordell didn't merely 'dangle his leg' in an attempt to block the shot, as suggested by dannysufc_ , if he had Coutts would have received nothing more than a sore shin, bruise at worst.

Sordell was too late to block the shot and he knew it, nevertheless seeing the chance to do an influential opponent, he locked his leg, placed the sole of his foot directly in the line of Coutts shin and let the follow through do the rest.

I assure you he knew exactly what he was doing, he may not have intended the damage to be so catastrophic, but his intention was to hurt Coutts, knowing he couldn't get the ball. No one ever went to block a shot with the bottom of their boot, when stood alongside an opponent, he'd use his instep.

Before Coutts even hit the floor and as the ball rolled out of play, Sordell was sprinting up to the half way line, not stood over his opponent, horrified and apologetic that his genuine attempt to win the ball had resulted in injury.

 

[Slim Man]

Go on then, I'll bite

The way I see it is, Sordell didn't merely 'dangle his leg' in an attempt to block the shot, as suggested by dannysufc_ , if he had Coutts would have received nothing more than a sore shin, bruise at worst.

Sordell was too late to block the shot and he knew it, nevertheless seeing the chance to do an influential opponent, he locked his leg, placed the sole of his foot directly in the line of Coutts shin and let the follow through do the rest.

I assure you he knew exactly what he was doing, he may not have intended the damage to be so catastrophic, but his intention was to hurt Coutts, knowing he couldn't get the ball. No one ever went to block a shot with the bottom of their boot, when stood alongside an opponent, he'd use his instep.

Before Coutts even hit the floor and as the ball rolled out of play, Sordell was sprinting up to the half way line, not stood over his opponent, horrified and apologetic that his genuine attempt to win the ball had resulted in injury.

He definitely didn't 'know what he was doing' in any way shape or form and didn't mean to break Coutts' leg.

 

[Davalon]

Unfortunately serious injury is a risk of a contact sport.

I think the authorities are right in more recent times to clamp down on the studs showing out of control challenge over the ball. The result means that some may harshly get sent off but hopefully it reduces serious injury.

As for the Coutts type challenge I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree that is a deliberate dangerous challenge. If Sordell deserved to be sent off then I believe we need to consider making the game non contact.

Those still angry completely ignored Duffy doing exactly the same thing a few games later (Fulham I think??? off the top if my head but may be wrong). The outcome doesn't decide the severity of the initial action.

Let it go people and move on.

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

For those that have not seen the incident involving Zappacosta its here with replays from different angles and as has been pointed out upstream the ref gave no foul (my bad) (just like the ref ar Burton iirc) just a corner.

Just like to add it was an attacker who did the tackle not a defender,just like at Burton.

FF to 22.00 in first half selection. https://highlightsfootball.com/video/chelsea-vs-norwich-city-highlights/4/

 

[1889]

Those still angry completely ignored Duffy doing exactly the same thing a few games later (Fulham I think??? off the top if my head but may be wrong). The outcome doesn't decide the severity of the initial action.

Let it go people and move on.

Except Duffy didn't do the exact same thing?

Neither you or dannysufc_ get it, because presumably you've never played the game.

I assure you, if you'd played adult Football for any length of time, you know exactly what I'm talking about and would have seen it done on more than one occasion

But as you say, let's let it go