Euro 2008

Clearly I dramatically overestimated your intelligence. What have we been talking about for three pages? DECISION 4 OF LAW 12, the part of the rules you conveniently left out. No, it was not originally part of the rule book, but in 1998 it was added as an amendment in what McMahon is referring to as "Instructions to Referees."

 

You have just described yourself to a tee. Mind if I borrow it?

You don't have to slide to make a tackle. Slide tackles are generally the higher risk tackles that imply a higher level of violence.

Again - a perfect description of your current situation, only you are the only one who can't see you are wrong.

 

well, after reading the first few posts that collin made after i posted, i thought he was on to something. it looked like he was right.

but after reading through this all, i have to say that i stand by my first statement about the call in question. it looks to me that it's pretty much up to the ref to make the determination whether to give the card. and the guy from fox sports pretty much sums it up saying that its a discretionary call even saying that you may not even get a card.


when they are saying a play "that endangers the player" that makes me think they mean that a tackle from behind might not endanger a player therefore a red card might not be thrown.

this has potential to be better than the "eye is out" thread.

 

wow. reading this again, this really is all semantics.

 

So now we are back to that - the part where it clearly states that, to rise to the level of a card, the tackle must be from behind AND dangerous (although this has since been modified to include all dangerous tackles).

If they had intended to say that refs have no ability to distinguish cardable offences, the rule would read - all tackles from behind are sending off offenses. But that's not what the rule says, is it?

 

People have seen me admit when I'm wrong countless times because I am human and I make mistakes. I don't pretend to be perfect or an expert on everything. I fuck up on occasion, and anyone who has integrity needs to be able to admit when they do. You don't have integrity, though.

No one agrees with you, dumbass, and people keep telling you that you're wrong. Before you wondered why Elric didn't say anything more, but now he comes and says that you're wrong yet again and you're still babbling.


vpkozel The Soccer Expert™ says "just because it's from behind and he doesn't get the ball doesn't make it either card" and "they don't always get a card."



The President of FIFA said:

PARIS, March 11 (1998): FIFA on Tuesday told coaches and referees that all tackles from behind should be punished with a red card at the World Cup finals.

``All tackling from behind is considered to endanger the physical integrity of the opponent, so no tackling from behind will be tolerated by Fifa,'' the world body's general secretary Sepp Blatter said.

``Officially from July 1, but effectively from the kick-off of the World Cup finals on June 10, all tackles from behind will be sanctioned by a red card everywhere on the field of play,'' he told a news conference at the end of Fifa's World Cup workshop with the 32 finalists.

The international football association board, the game's law making body, passed an amendment to Law 12 on Fouls and Misconduct at a meeting last month.

The amendment designates the tackle from behind as serious foul play and therefore a sending-off offence. However, referees at the workshop wondered whether the tackle had physically to endanger a player for the tackler to be sent off. Blatter told referees that all tackles from behind should receive red cards.

``It's impossible for the referee to see if a tackle is dangerous or not because all tackles from behind put in danger the physical integrity of the opponent,'' he said.


So who should people believe knows more about FIFA's rules, vpkozel or the president of FIFA?

 

WRONG AGAIN.

THE PRESIDENT OF FIFA SAID:
"All tackling from behind is considered to endanger the physical integrity of the opponent, so no tackling from behind will be tolerated by Fifa. Officially from July 1, but effectively from the kick-off of the World Cup finals on June 10, all tackles from behind will be sanctioned by a red card everywhere on the field of play."

Dumbfuck, it's explaining WHY all tackles from behind should draw red cards. I have the president of fucking FIFA saying that all tackles from behind should result in red cards.

Explain why you, vpkozel The Soccer Expert™, know more about FIFA's rules that the president of FIFA.

 

here, the fifa rules for 2008. not the rules for the 1998 world cup.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg%5fen%5f55753.pdff

show me, with the pictures provided in the law book where it says ANYTHING about AUTOMATICALLY giving someone a red card for a tackle from behind, or a breakaway or anything. if you can, tell me what page, what law and i'll say you're right and i'll never argue with you again. i'll even argue against the people you argue with and tell them how stupid they are.

but you have to use this link, which is the link for the laws of 2008 for fifa.


and collin, stop pming me.

 

For someone who claims to have read the thread, it's annoying how much you're making me repeat myself. We've already gone over about fifteen times how the wording of Decision 4 was changed in 2005 to crack down on tackles from the side in addition to keeping the rule on tackles from behind. They made the change because a medical study commissioned by FIFA showed that side tackles caused even more injuries than ones from behind.

Decision 4 previously read: "A tackle from behind, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

It was changed to: "A tackle, which endangers the safety of any opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

And they made that change because:
"Reason: A tackle from behind but also from the side or the front, which injures or could have injured an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."


But getting back to your link, since I know that's where you want to focus. On page 117 of your linked pdf, it says:
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

Now, am I correct or wrong when I say that FIFA president Joseph Blatter said,

"All tackling from behind is considered to endanger the physical integrity of the opponent."


Is that correct or not correct? Did Blatter say that or not say that? If the president of FIFA said that all tackles from behind are considered to be a danger to the physical integrity of the opponent and your pdf link says that "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play," and all serious foul plays are punished by red cards, what does that mean? How does that mean something other than all tackles from behind should be (but aren't always) punished by a red card?

 

and what you've failed to mention or talk about is the pictures.

the pictures clearly show two players going cleats up at another player.


ask anyone whose played soccer and they'll tell you a player going cleats up will be sent off everytime if caught.

that's the endangerment. using a quote from back in the day doesn't make you right.

if i decided to be a ref and read that rulebook, i would have absolutely nothing to tell me to kick someone out if they tackled from behind. only if they determined the tackle endangered another player.

much like advantage, you have decent amount of freedom to determine your course of action during a game.

and i can tell you that from reffing soccer games and playing in them.


and if you really want to get into it, show me how many times obstruction is called in a game. i can honestly say i may have never seen obstruction called yet obstruction probably happens over 20 times a game.

my point being is that even though something is considered rule (which what you are stating isn't written in the 2008 laws) doesn't mean it's being called by the book. which makes this argument pretty fucking pointless.


edit- the article you keep pm i'mg to read is from march 11th 1998. i'm gonna go ahead and say that's outdated as shit.