Straight red for tactical fouls

Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
17,107
Location
Somewhere out there
I don't get the controversy, hacking someone down from behind with zero attempt to play the ball is a red card more often than not these days. The fact he lunged at him studs showing just guarantees it.
This.

I’d love to see one for a Fernandinho-esque tackle or pull but would understand why some would kick up a fuss there, but kicking up a fuss for this? It’s a nasty lunge with zero attempt at the ball.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
18,565
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
There are two grounds to consider:
  • recklessness of the tackle
  • to what extent this is a goalscoring opportunity.
I don't think the force in isolation is enough to warrant a red. But he has to slide to reach him, which makes him less in control, and the risks are amplified when you're running at pace and so far ahead you cannot even see the challenge from behind. That is pushing a red for me.

It's not your typical last-man goalscoring opportunity, but Coventry have a 5v4 on the break there, with 1 man out of the game because he's slid to the ground. It's a decent goalscoring opportunity and they'd have to feck it up badly not to have a great chance at the end of it.

There's a case to be made that there are reds on both grounds. But even at a minimum, it's a yellow for the tackle in isolation and a yellow for the level of opportunity denied, so I have no issues with a red getting shown. That the commentator describes it as 'a good foul' suggests that there is a shortfall in the justice of the laws of the game. And why so many teams deploy tactical fouling as part of a wider approach. It's probably an area they'll tighten up in the future.

 

Cascarino

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
4,756
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
There are two grounds to consider:
  • recklessness of the tackle
  • to what extent this is a goalscoring opportunity.
I don't think the force in isolation is enough to warrant a red. But he has to slide to reach him, which makes him less in control, and the risks are amplified when you're running at pace and so far ahead you cannot even see the challenge from behind. That is pushing a red for me.

It's not your typical last-man goalscoring opportunity, but Coventry have a 5v4 on the break there, with 1 man out of the game because he's slid to the ground. It's a decent goalscoring opportunity and they'd have to feck it up badly not to have a great chance at the end of it.

There's a case to be made that there are reds on both grounds. But even at a minimum, it's a yellow for the tackle in isolation and a yellow for the level of opportunity denied, so I have no issues with a red getting shown. That the commentator describes it as 'a good foul' suggests that there is a shortfall in the justice of the laws of the game. And why so many teams deploy tactical fouling as part of a wider approach. It's probably an area they'll tighten up in the future.

On the first bolded part it's 100% not the case. I can't see any ref interpreting this scenario as an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, that's never been how the rule is applied. Taking into account the distance from the goal and the location of the players it's not a red card, at least with regards to the tactical foul part of the argument.

The second bolded part is interesting, but again I don't think it's something in the rules is it? Weighing up respective parts of the offence to come to a red card conclusion? (I'm less confident on this part though so could be wrong!).

The only way this offence would be deemed a red card (under the rules as they are) would be a player using excessive force or in a brutal manner while not challenging for the ball.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
6,947
I think the solution is for all tactical fouls to be given an orange card - the player is sent off but can be replaced with another if the team has any subs left. This is a definite loss for the side without it being too great.

I would also make two yellows an orange card too so that it can be kept as 11 vs 11 for as long as possible - many games are killed when it goes to 11 vs 10. Terrible straight reds should be kept as normal.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
20,563
I think the solution is for all tactical fouls to be given an orange card - the player is sent off but can be replaced with another if the team has any subs left. This is a definite loss for the side without it being too great.

I would also make two yellows an orange card too so that it can be kept as 11 vs 11 for as long as possible - many games are killed when it goes to 11 vs 10. Terrible straight reds should be kept as normal.
I'd prefer orange to be a sin bin.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
9,892
Cheers. I don't think it was for the tactical foul itself, but because it was reckless. He wouldn't have been off if it only was a shirt pull.

Reminds me of:

First thing that came to my mind too - Wayne was just too angry to commit a 'normal' yellow card foul ;)
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
6,734
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
There are two grounds to consider:
  • recklessness of the tackle
  • to what extent this is a goalscoring opportunity.
I don't think the force in isolation is enough to warrant a red. But he has to slide to reach him, which makes him less in control, and the risks are amplified when you're running at pace and so far ahead you cannot even see the challenge from behind. That is pushing a red for me.

It's not your typical last-man goalscoring opportunity, but Coventry have a 5v4 on the break there, with 1 man out of the game because he's slid to the ground. It's a decent goalscoring opportunity and they'd have to feck it up badly not to have a great chance at the end of it.

There's a case to be made that there are reds on both grounds. But even at a minimum, it's a yellow for the tackle in isolation and a yellow for the level of opportunity denied, so I have no issues with a red getting shown. That the commentator describes it as 'a good foul' suggests that there is a shortfall in the justice of the laws of the game. And why so many teams deploy tactical fouling as part of a wider approach. It's probably an area they'll tighten up in the future.

I think it's 100% the nature of the tackle. You can't reach the ball sliding in from straight behind the player, it's just impossible. Then it becomes a straight tackle on the legs - that can easily be a red. (Even if there's always room for interpretation.)

I don't think the nature of the situation factors into it. That's not in the rules, is it? Except if the situation will immediately lead to a real goalscoring opportunity, and we're still pretty far from that here.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
9,892
Pep's entire posession masterplan is built on the fact that you don't get punished for a few tactical fouls. Even less so if you happen to be a dimnuitive attacking midfielder.

City are so good at pointless posession that they will only concede maybe 10 or so good attacking situations per match. They'll commit snide little fouls in all 10 of those situations if they can, and maybe get 2-3 yellow cards, barely ever a red.

It's brilliant, cynical and effective, and a glorious exploitation of the way rules are applied to football.
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,023
Philosophy corner:

If tactical fouls now lead to red cards, thus making them un-tactical, can we then keep calling them tactical fouls?
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
20,563
Philosophy corner:

If tactical fouls now lead to red cards, thus making them un-tactical, can we then keep calling them tactical fouls?
They could still be tactical, if the red's worth it. Otherwise they are merely cynical fouls.
 

pascell

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
10,391
Location
Sir Alex Ferguson Stand
Should always be a red, until they introduce a sin bin.

It'll teach managers not to coach the 'dark arts' into their players, it's unsportsman behaviour and should be punished accordingly.
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,023
They could still be tactical, if the red's worth it. Otherwise they are merely cynical fouls.
True, there are cases where the red card is worth it(hi Ole). These cases are rare, though.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
20,563
True, there are cases where the red card is worth it(hi Ole). These cases are rare, though.
I'd bring in penalty goals, as well. If foul play denies a certain goal then the goal is awarded. Very rarely applicable but helps when Luis Suarez decides to become a goalkeeper. Reduces the possibility that a red is ever worth it.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
6,947
I'd prefer orange to be a sin bin.
I'd be happy to trial both but I reckon you'd just get one side hunkering down for 10mins which would make the game less entertaining. Also it would mean Fernandinho would leave the pitch entirely.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
18,565
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
I think it's 100% the nature of the tackle. You can't reach the ball sliding in from straight behind the player, it's just impossible. Then it becomes a straight tackle on the legs - that can easily be a red. (Even if there's always room for interpretation.)

I don't think the nature of the situation factors into it. That's not in the rules, is it? Except if the situation will immediately lead to a real goalscoring opportunity, and we're still pretty far from that here.
It is in the rules, probably a more recent amendment to be fair. A yellow is awarded where a player:

commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
So yellow for 'promising attack' through to red for 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'. That's what I mean about effectively two offences in one tackle.

@Cascarino Yeah I agree. My view is that some refs are interpreting the rules differently than is specifically set out in the laws, in order to effect that natural justice where such tackles are deemed to be good ones to take for the team.
 

Cascarino

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
4,756
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
It is in the rules, probably a more recent amendment to be fair. A yellow is awarded where a player:


So yellow for 'promising attack' through to red for 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'. That's what I mean about effectively two offences in one tackle.

@Cascarino Yeah I agree. My view is that some refs are interpreting the rules differently than is specifically set out in the laws, in order to effect that natural justice where such tackles are deemed to be good ones to take for the team.
Yeah that’s a fair point and makes sense.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
6,734
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
It is in the rules, probably a more recent amendment to be fair. A yellow is awarded where a player:


So yellow for 'promising attack' through to red for 'obvious goalscoring opportunity'. That's what I mean about effectively two offences in one tackle.
Ah, that way. I didn't know about that part, but that's nicely worded - promising is something you can actually determine in a split-second. I was talking about the straight red tough. Or is your point that the player effectively committed two yellow-card offenses (violent tackle + the situational aspect), and hence got the red? Does it work like that?
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
5,289
Given the tactics we’re likely to use soon, I take back my previous support for this rule change :nervous: