Sending off

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Fleck has a habit of letting his trailing leg come through into the tackle rather than keeping it tucked in. Makes him look reckless. Real shame because we were dominating up until that point...
 
It’s the lunging in with both feet off the ground that’s the problem.

In the past they were allowed and have caused serious injuries and broken legs.
So the Authorites have wisely decided to act and now those tackles result in a straight red.

So it’s a red card, the fact he won the ball first is irrelevant, it’s still dangerous play.
 
Hull Blade said:
Its one of those, 7 out of 10 refs would have booked Fleck, 3/10 sent him off. In the good'ole days it would have been at worst a free kick and a telling off. It seems that leaving the ground nowadays is almost certainly a yellow or a red. Maybe the red was a tad harsh. But as soon as they got in the refs face he caved in and felt compelled to show the red.
Click to expand...
If, as you say, 7 out of 10 refs would have booked him them those 7 out of 10 refs would have been wrong to do so.

A professional footballer cannot go into a tackle with both feet off the floor.
 
Hodgesleftpeg said:
If, as you say, 7 out of 10 refs would have booked him them those 7 out of 10 refs would have been wrong to do so.

A professional footballer cannot go into a tackle with both feet off the floor.
Click to expand...
In retrospect, looking at it again, this time with the hindsight of TV, yes it was a red all day long...Best not appeal and take it on the chin
 
The fact people are defending last night's tackle and still going on about Sordell is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Sordell stuck a foot out to block a shot and unfortunately Coutts' momentum and follow through resulted in the break.

Last it was the tackler's momentum that did the damage.

Frustrating events but the referees got both decisions right imho.
 
Boro blade said:
The modern game is soft, Fleck got the ball first, people will say not controlled because both feet off the floor, but he never got the man first he got the ball, I despair with modern football, people will say unnecessary challenge , he won the ball,

What do we want for this great game , no tackles, tell you what lets, ban slide tackles , hang on let go one better lets not allow any tackles at all, lets play tag football

Modern pundits go on about how skill the modern game is, was no different years ago only difference players wanted to get stuck in and did.
Click to expand...

I agree Boro. Such tackles ought to be actively encouraged. The more players carried off with snapped legs the better for me. Modern players are powderpuffs, look at Coutts he should have sucked it up and got on with the match! o_O
 
Davalon said:
The fact people are defending last night's tackle and still going on about Sordell is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Sordell stuck a foot out to block a shot and unfortunately Coutts' momentum and follow through resulted in the break.

Last it was the tackler's momentum that did the damage.

Frustrating events but the referees got both decisions right imho.
Click to expand...
Saved me writing it, completely agree with you
 
Boro blade said:
The modern game is soft, Fleck got the ball first, people will say not controlled because both feet off the floor, but he never got the man first he got the ball, I despair with modern football, people will say unnecessary challenge , he won the ball,

What do we want for this great game , no tackles, tell you what lets, ban slide tackles , hang on let go one better lets not allow any tackles at all, lets play tag football

Modern pundits go on about how skill the modern game is, was no different years ago only difference players wanted to get stuck in and did.
Click to expand...
The referee didn’t seem to worry about dangerous play when one of their players tried to kick JOC head off in the lead up to there goal. CUNT
 
Gimli said:
How quickly some Blades forget that one of our players was on the receiving end of a bad tackle which has ended his season - to say that wasn't a red card is biased to the extent where it looks embarrassing.
Click to expand...
except sordell didn’t get a red card.. in fact we didn’t even get a foul mate
 
I’m a bit surprised to find that’s the first red card of his career.

Such a shame it cost us last night but hopefully he won’t take both feet off the ground to tackle in future. I have no problem with his robust challenges, some will end in yellow cards but because of the directive refs have no option but to send people off if both feet are off the ground.
 
oldblade said:
I agree with you, but the rules have changed and unfortunately what he did was a sending off offence in today's game and I think he knew that.

For what it's worth, unfortunately I think that eventually things will move towards a virtually noncontact sport. You only have to look at how things have moved in the last 50 years to see where everything's heading.
Click to expand...

I don't think this slippery slope thinking is true. It's simply that there are some things which are unsafe. There are certain challenges banned in rugby. There are certain techniques banned in combat sports. And it's not because those sports are non-contact or soft, it's because there's no way to do them without inflicting regular lasting injury on participants. The same is true for what happened yesterday. There's no way to safely take a hit like that to the ankle or shin. You allow it in the sport there WILL be regular ligament/tendon damage and breaks. If Fleck comes in with his boot on the floor then, sure, sometimes there'll be bad luck and someone gets hurt but it's nowhere near as likely. It's a fine margin but the difference in risk is huge.

I don't think anyone is talking about banning or even regularly carding any of the other slide tackles in that match (not from a safety POV, at least). Just that one.
 



50/50 ball,if flecky had pulled out of that tackle wilder would have kicked him all over the dressing room.
 
Tom Traubert said:
50/50 ball,if flecky had pulled out of that tackle wilder would have kicked him all over the dressing room.
Click to expand...
It may have been 50/50 but he shouldn't have launched himself at it, he should have just slid across the ground to make contact with the ball.
Mistake made, finish ban, become Fleck the midfield maestro again.
 
finlaytheblade said:
Spot on Booker we played really well tonight and to lose was an injustice.First was unlucky as he is a competitive player who got this slightly wrong.we take the hit and move on ,we were fantastic for an hour losing Fleck cost us the game .
We must have killed a black cat as we have run out of luck just now ,we will come through stronger for it.
Click to expand...


Taking The Blades out of it football will always have a future when a side being battered can win or a side with more money can lose, long may it continue.
 
PokerBlade said:
I don't think this slippery slope thinking is true. It's simply that there are some things which are unsafe. There are certain challenges banned in rugby. There are certain techniques banned in combat sports. And it's not because those sports are non-contact or soft, it's because there's no way to do them without inflicting regular lasting injury on participants. The same is true for what happened yesterday. There's no way to safely take a hit like that to the ankle or shin. You allow it in the sport there WILL be regular ligament/tendon damage and breaks. If Fleck comes in with his boot on the floor then, sure, sometimes there'll be bad luck and someone gets hurt but it's nowhere near as likely. It's a fine margin but the difference in risk is huge.

I don't think anyone is talking about banning or even regularly carding any of the other slide tackles in that match (not from a safety POV, at least). Just that one.
Click to expand...

Fair points and if you are a bit of an anorak for these types of discussions (like me) , interesting.

I don't see it as a slippery slope. I see it as a natural progression. Each generation comes in at a different point of acceptability. A bit like building houses on the green areas surrounding villages, towns and cities. Each generation that agrees to those houses being built thinks 300, 400, 500, 1,000 or whatever the number is won't make much difference, but then the next generation comes along and thinks the same and so on. Gradually you end up with a situation where your villages become towns, your towns become cities and your cities become vast conurbations.

I really do believe that gradually virtually all contact will be taken out of the game. Challenges that we regard as acceptable now will be regarded as unacceptable in the future because the level at which things are regarded as being acceptable creeps ever higher and each new generation of people regards their own starting point on that ladder of acceptability as the norm.
 
oldblade said:
Fair points and in anorak for these types of discussions (like me) , interesting.

I don't see it as a slippery slope. I see it as a natural progression. Each generation comes in at a different point of acceptability. A bit like building houses on the green areas surrounding villages, towns and cities. Each generation that agrees to those houses being built thinks 300, 400, 500, 1,000 or whatever the number is won't make much difference, but then the next generation comes along and thinks the same and so on. Gradually you end up with a situation where your villages become towns, your towns become cities and your cities become vast conurbations.

I really do believe that gradually virtually all contact will be taken out of the game. Challenges that we regard as acceptable now will be regarded as unacceptable in the future because the level at which things are regarded as being acceptable creeps ever higher and each new generation of people regards their own starting point on that ladder of acceptability as the norm.
Click to expand...

I have a background in martial arts where there's always a big discussion about the safety aspects of training and competing, so I'm used to changing standards and the protection of the old ways in equal measures. And I've also had the arguments with the extremists who think it's all savage and ought to be stopped. The thing is, where you draw the line on the risks involved is always going to be somewhat arbitrary. You can't remove all risk from a sport (and the nation's growing health concerns are coming from inactivity, so you can't even do nothing safely). So the answer to the question of what level of risk is acceptable has to be non-zero. You make a good point in that predicting the standards of the future is usually a fool's errand but neither do I think we have any reason for concern about the shape of the game.

I'll liken it again to the martial arts I've competed in. Back when I was a kid (I'm talking twenty years thereabouts) we used to spar and the only safety equipment was hand covers (not proper gloves) and shin pads. We used to practice throws without mats, and we practiced chokes and strangle holds. Even in my short time, people look back on that and think what idiots we were. We understand now how those things take a cumulative toll on your body and doing that will have long term effects. But the sport isn't softer for it. If anything it's allowed us to recognise which parts we can push harder, which parts need to be held back, and which parts can be done differently. I don't see why football can't go the same way. Some contact is low risk, some is very high risk. Back to Fleck, I maintain that there's no way to land challenges like that without a high immediate risk of injury. Same for the one on Coutts. So maybe those have to go but it doesn't mean we can't highlight the challenges in those games that were acceptable, that don't pose a likelihood of frequent injury. The same's happened in things like the UFC, where you can't kick a downed opponent, you can't use small joint manipulations, but you can still throw a punch and land an armbar. Banning some forms of contact never has to mean banning all forms, and unless the future is so radically different that they don't want competitive sport at all, I don't see an end to contact.
 
PokerBlade said:
I have a background in martial arts where there's always a big discussion about the safety aspects of training and competing, so I'm used to changing standards and the protection of the old ways in equal measures. And I've also had the arguments with the extremists who think it's all savage and ought to be stopped. The thing is, where you draw the line on the risks involved is always going to be somewhat arbitrary. You can't remove all risk from a sport (and the nation's growing health concerns are coming from inactivity, so you can't even do nothing safely). So the answer to the question of what level of risk is acceptable has to be non-zero. You make a good point in that predicting the standards of the future is usually a fool's errand but neither do I think we have any reason for concern about the shape of the game.

I'll liken it again to the martial arts I've competed in. Back when I was a kid (I'm talking twenty years thereabouts) we used to spar and the only safety equipment was hand covers (not proper gloves) and shin pads. We used to practice throws without mats, and we practiced chokes and strangle holds. Even in my short time, people look back on that and think what idiots we were. We understand now how those things take a cumulative toll on your body and doing that will have long term effects. But the sport isn't softer for it. If anything it's allowed us to recognise which parts we can push harder, which parts need to be held back, and which parts can be done differently. I don't see why football can't go the same way. Some contact is low risk, some is very high risk. Back to Fleck, I maintain that there's no way to land challenges like that without a high immediate risk of injury. Same for the one on Coutts. So maybe those have to go but it doesn't mean we can't highlight the challenges in those games that were acceptable, that don't pose a likelihood of frequent injury. The same's happened in things like the UFC, where you can't kick a downed opponent, you can't use small joint manipulations, but you can still throw a punch and land an armbar. Banning some forms of contact never has to mean banning all forms, and unless the future is so radically different that they don't want competitive sport at all, I don't see an end to contact.
Click to expand...


I hope you are right. But I think there is always an element in society that is never satisfied. Once one questionable action has been outlawed they focus on something else and engage in a kind of water torture , repetitive campaign to get that changed, and so on.

Anyway, I'm talking about many years into the future and I doubt that I will be still around to see if I'm right or wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Stags)
Replies
25
Views
2K
Revolution
Revolution
R
Kamikaze midfield
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Millhousesblade1889
Millhousesblade1889
R
Constantly turning the ball over.
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Bergen Blade
Bergen Blade
Maurice Maurice
Excellent performance
Replies
21
Views
2K
loyalblade95
loyalblade95
Tony Currie
Expectations too high - thank you Chris for rescuing us.
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
Barney Rubble
B

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom