Backing into airborne players

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,191
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Surely this is one of the most dangerous - and obvious - fouls in football? Why isn’t it penalised more? I’m sure it used to be. How does VAR miss such obvious shit-housery?

Is the plan to wait for someone to break their neck before clarifying the rules?
 

Jack-C20

Full Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
2,900
You only have to look at Rugby and see how seriously they take it to realise how dangerous it is. Not completely the same but when a player is going up for a catch you can either contest the catch fairly or wait until they touch the ground to tackle them. Seems inevitable it’s going to take a serious injury for anyone to take proper notice.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,328
Location
Ireland
You only have to look at Rugby and see how seriously they take it to realise how dangerous it is. Not completely the same but when a player is going up for a catch you can either contest the catch fairly or wait until they touch the ground to tackle them. Seems inevitable it’s going to take a serious injury for anyone to take proper notice.
Yep. It probably won’t be popular, but I think it should be a red every time. It’s so incredibly dangerous.
 

Shane88

Actually Nostradamus
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
35,273
Location
Targaryen loyalist
It can get you a straight red in rugby.

Refs in football don't even know which way to give the free half the time.
 

Dominos

Full Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
7,012
Location
Manchester
It's a tough one because quite often the player who has jumped for the header has a running start so they are actually jumping into the standing player, rather than the other way around. The standing player has no obligation jump for the ball also, so they're left in an inevitable scenario where they're going to tip the jumping player, and if they stay standing completely upright they might get clattered.

There's definitely a lot of cases where players are going out of their way to affect the balance of an airborne player though. Refs don't seem to have a clue which scenario it is so they just spin the wheel of fortune and give 50% of the free kicks to the airborne player and 50% to the standing player.
 

RashyForPM

New Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
3,183
Surely this is one of the most dangerous - and obvious - fouls in football? Why isn’t it penalised more? I’m sure it used to be. How does VAR miss such obvious shit-housery?

Is the plan to wait for someone to break their neck before clarifying the rules?
We’re far off reaching that stage. Refs are actually now awarding fouls in favour of the backing player. Just goes to show the standard of refereeing in England at the moment.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,789
Suarez used to do it a lot, now Kane. It's a very dangerous play and should be bookable offence.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,229
The one at the end? Or did I miss one?

I wasn't able to watch the whole match. I think I missed about 20 mins here and there.
The one at the end. It was the same thing he, he turned his back stuck out his ass and didn't jump. He actually came of worse because he took a knee to the back though.

It's real dangerous play and kane is the worst
 

Vault Dweller

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,674
Location
Vault 88, The Commonwealth
You only have to look at Rugby and see how seriously they take it to realise how dangerous it is. Not completely the same but when a player is going up for a catch you can either contest the catch fairly or wait until they touch the ground to tackle them. Seems inevitable it’s going to take a serious injury for anyone to take proper notice.
Absolutely correct. It should be an immediate booking as it's extremely dangerous.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,565
I honestly fail to see what the expectation of players would be if this does become a rule. It'll be so difficult to judge.

Headers particularly with running jumps are an issue by themselves. Nearly every week there's cases that are as reckless as challenges on the floor that do get booked.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
It sums up how badly it's refereed that when Maguire did it to Lacazette, leading to Lacazette going off the pitch injured, play restarted with a freekick for us.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,576
Surely this is one of the most dangerous - and obvious - fouls in football? Why isn’t it penalised more? I’m sure it used to be. How does VAR miss such obvious shit-housery?

Is the plan to wait for someone to break their neck before clarifying the rules?
As far as I know it’s always been an instant yellow card, however enforcement is sketchy at best, as with a lot of enforcement. Refs are crap.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
So did maguire.
Did Maguire didn't back in? Looked to me like he just bent down because Lacazette was barrelling into him with no hope of wining the ball cleanly.
 

Hernandez - BFA

The Way to Fly
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
17,323
Shaw also did it in yesterday's game in the second half.

Kane is the one that is a serial-offender of it though.
 

hellhunter

Eurofighter
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
18,057
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
It's a tough one because quite often the player who has jumped for the header has a running start so they are actually jumping into the standing player, rather than the other way around. The standing player has no obligation jump for the ball also, so they're left in an inevitable scenario where they're going to tip the jumping player, and if they stay standing completely upright they might get clattered.

There's definitely a lot of cases where players are going out of their way to affect the balance of an airborne player though. Refs don't seem to have a clue which scenario it is so they just spin the wheel of fortune and give 50% of the free kicks to the airborne player and 50% to the standing player.
I feel this is spot on. In theory, it sounds absolutely logical to ban backing into a jumping player, but I would expect things to be way less black and white in the real world.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,612
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Did Maguire didn't back in? Looked to me like he just bent down because Lacazette was barrelling into him with no hope of wining the ball cleanly.
From a neutral perspective I thought Maguire's was comfortably worse, and not just because of the outcome - yes Lacazette backed in, but he was anticipating a challenge with Fred who backed away and didn't realize Pogba was coming in so aggressively. If you watch the replay, he doesn't turn around from the point where Fred backs off. Maguire, in contrast, has the whole play in front of him yet still chose to endanger Lacazette.

It's not like backing into someone is inherently worse - in fact it's probably worse to undercut someone who is moving sideways or backwards as opposed to forwards. Both instances warranted yellow cards overall but Maguire's seemed more deliberate, at least from my perspective.

It's frankly ridiculous that this isn't a red card - in the NBA, undercutting an opponent is almost an automatic flagrant 2 (i.e. ejection from the game plus a fine). There's no reason it shouldn't be the same in football.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
From a neutral perspective I thought Maguire's was comfortably worse, and not just because of the outcome - yes Lacazette backed in, but he was anticipating a challenge with Fred who backed away and didn't realize Pogba was coming in so aggressively. If you watch the replay, he doesn't turn around from the point where Fred backs off. Maguire, in contrast, has the whole play in front of him yet still chose to endanger Lacazette.

It's not like backing into someone is inherently worse - in fact it's probably worse to undercut someone who is moving sideways or backwards as opposed to forwards. Both instances warranted yellow cards overall but Maguire's seemed more deliberate, at least from my perspective.

It's frankly ridiculous that this isn't a red card - in the NBA, undercutting an opponent is almost an automatic flagrant 2 (i.e. ejection from the game plus a fine). There's no reason it shouldn't be the same in football.
Does he really back in? Lacazette runs at pace and leads with his knee. That's not a genuine attempt to win the ball. All the momentum, all the contact, it comes from Lacazette. It's also why Lacazette is back to back with Maguire when he begins to go over. In contrast, Pogba jumps high and wins the ball. He isn't thinking about 'challenging,' as Lacazette does, it's a genuine attempt to win the ball, therefore the impact from the fall is considerably less. Lacazette steps beneath him. If Pogba had jumped like Lacazette did, he wouldn't kneed him in the head.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,612
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Does he really back in? Lacazette runs at pace and leads with his knee. That's not a genuine attempt to win the ball. All the momentum, all the contact, it comes from Lacazette. In contrast, Pogba jumps high and wins the ball. He isn't thinking about 'challenging,' as Lacazette does, it's a genuine attempt to win the ball, therefore the impact from the fall is considerably less. Lacazette steps beneath him. If Pogba had jumped like Lacazette did, he wouldn't kneed him in the head.
It doesn't matter if he's backing in or not - he very obviously undercuts him. Whether the player stepping underneath is moving backwards is irrelevant in my view. Maguire has the full view of everything going on but he chooses not to jump and allow Lacazette to go arse over teakettle over the top. I think there is very little between them in terms of the actual physical action, but for me Lacazette's foul is far more defensible because he clearly thinks he's challenging Fred and has no clue Pogba is coming in for the header. Maguire, in contrast, had the time to make a decision knowing full well where everyone was as the play was all in front of him yet still chose to undercut Lacazette.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,229
Players do it all the time and have done for years. Nothing about it is new.
I've always argued the fk should go against the player backing in but for some reason the refs always give it against the guy coming over the top.

It's only recently I've appreciated how dangerous it actually is and think I warrants carding.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
It doesn't matter if he's backing in or not - he very obviously undercuts him. Whether the player stepping underneath is moving backwards is irrelevant in my view. Maguire has the full view of everything going on but he chooses not to jump and allow Lacazette to go arse over teakettle over the top. I think there is very little between them in terms of the actual physical action, but for me Lacazette's foul is far more defensible because he clearly thinks he's challenging Fred and has no clue Pogba is coming in for the header. Maguire, in contrast, had the time to make a decision knowing full well where everyone was as the play was all in front of him yet still chose to undercut Lacazette.
It most certainly does matter if he's backing in. You can't tell me Lacazette is actually in control here. He jumps, knees Maguire in the back and goes over the top of him backwards. That's completely reckless.

Because he doesn't need to jump. The ball is running through to Lindelof and are we guaranteed possession. He shouldn't have to jump just because Lacazette had decided to throw himself at him.

Conversely, Pogba is jumping for the ball. He wins the ball. Lacazette isn't holding his ground nor is he trying to win the ball.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,612
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
It most certainly does matter if he's backing in. You can't tell me Lacazette is actually in control here. He jumps, knees Maguire in the back and goes over the top of him backwards. That's completely reckless.

Because he doesn't need to jump. The ball is running through to Lindelof and are we guaranteed possession. He shouldn't have to jump just because Lacazette had decided to throw himself at him.

Conversely, Pogba is jumping for the ball. He wins the ball. Lacazette isn't holding his ground nor is he trying to win the ball.
So you think that not knowing someone is behind you and backing into them inadvertently is worse than a player deliberately undercutting an opponent as the entirety of the play is unfolding in front of him solely because of the angle the undercutting player took? That's ridiculous.

And no, I'm not saying Maguire had to jump, he could have just as easily not challenged for the ball. As you say, it's a completely non-threatening situation for United, and so why did he opt to position himself in the most dangerous way possible for his opponent?

The mental gymnastics you're undertaking to defend your player is admirable but from a neutral perspective your defense doesn't hold water.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
So you think that not knowing someone is behind you and backing into them inadvertently is worse than a player deliberately undercutting an opponent as the entirety of the play is unfolding in front of him solely because of the angle the undercutting player took? That's ridiculous.

And no, I'm not saying Maguire had to jump, he could have just as easily not challenged for the ball. As you say, it's a completely non-threatening situation for United, and so why did he opt to position himself in the most dangerous way possible for his opponent?

The mental gymnastics you're undertaking to defend your player is admirable but from a neutral perspective your defense doesn't hold water.
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying Lacazette intentionally stepped beneath Pogba. You want mental gymnastics? You're genuinely trying to tell me Lacazette had no idea someone was coming in behind him to challenge here. Not only that, you try to justify it by saying he thinks he's challenging Fred, when it's abundantly clear he steps away from Fred, and turns his back in a different direction. The thing is, even if it is Fred he's trying to challenge, the result would be no different. He's deliberately stepped beneath a jumping player.


The reason why Pogba doesn't a.) knee Lacazette in the back and b.) doesn't end up on top of Lacazette, back to back, is because Pogba is in control. It's not a reckless challenge. He's not jumping into Lacazette as Lacazette is with Pogba, which coincidentally is why Lacazette's fall is much harder. Lacazette clearly makes no attempt to ensure Maguire isn't hurt from his reckless challenge, but you want Maguire to ensure Lacazette isn't hurt? Neither challenge is great, but one is infinitely more understandable than the other. There's a reason why Maguire was awarded a freekick and Lacazette was not.
 
Last edited:

Corey

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
333
Does anyone have clips of the two Lacazette incidents being discussed?
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,612
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying Lacazette intentionally stepped beneath Pogba. You want mental gymnastics? You're genuinely trying to tell me Lacazette had no idea someone was coming in behind him to challenge here. Not only that, you try to justify it by saying he thinks he's challenging Fred, when it's abundantly clear he steps away from Fred, and turns his back in a different direction. Sure...


The reason why Pogba doesn't a.) knee Lacazette in the back and b.) doesn't end up on top of Lacazette, back to back, is because Pogba is in control. It's not a reckless challenge. He's not jumping into Lacazette as Lacazette is with Pogba, which coincidentally is why Lacazette's fall is much harder. Lacazette clearly makes no attempt to ensure Maguire isn't hurt from his reckless challenge, but you want Maguire to ensure Lacazette isn't hurt? Neither challenge is great, but one is infinitely more understandable than the other. There's a reason why Maguire was awarded a freekick and Lacazette was not.
Lacazette's eyes never left the ball in between the time when Fred steps back and Pogba comes in. Lacazette clearly seems to still be thinking Fred is on him; he may or may not know Pogba is there. Maguire has no such excuse as again, the play is all unfolding in front of him.

The reason why Maguire was awarded a free kick is the refs are incompetent and there hasn't been a clarification of the rules that is badly needed. I don't know where you're getting this notion that Lacazette's challenge was somehow more reckless than Pogba's when both clearly are focused on playing the ball. It also makes perfect sense from a biomechanical perspective that when jumping sideways and backwards your leading knee comes up more than when jumping straight forwards. You're trying to argue one of these challenges is worse based solely on the trajectories of the players going into it, when I'd argue that both are equally bad collision-wise and the worse of the two is from the player who clearly knew what he was doing.
 

Lewnited

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
888
This seriously needs to get looked at, it's only a matter of time before we're looking at a broken neck.