'Tactical' fouls

[Harry190]

You can't give a yellow based on a previous aggregation of fouls committed by someone else. If the foul is yellow card worthy, it should be punished with a yellow card.

Yes you can. This happened to United against Hazard.

 

[Withnail]

You can't give a yellow based on a previous aggregation of fouls committed by someone else. If the foul is yellow card worthy, it should be punished with a yellow card.

This happens though. Mourinho's United were taking turns to kick Hazard. Ref warned the team and Herrera, I believe, got it in the neck as he was the next one.

 

[adexkola]

This happens though. Mourinho's United were taking turns to kick Hazard. Ref warned the team and Herrera, I believe, got it in the neck as he was the next one.

I don't remember this specific incident, but was Herrera's foul yellow card worthy on its own merits?

 

[arthurka]

It's the woeful officiating from Dean in that City game. At half time City had committed 8 fouls to Hammers 1. After half time the first two fouls Hammers committed were rewarded with yellow cards. City went through a whole half with constant fouls, no reaction.

This is the sort of stuff that needs to be addressed, Im not buying this 'it's my first time', when 90% of the team are doing it. If the ref sees a couple tactical fouls happen he should pull the captain aside and say 'no more niggling fouls, this is fair warning, the next time I see one, regardless of which player it is, its a yellow.'

Its funny then how he always knows it and gives City some quota yellow cards in the final 5 minutes, when it doesnt matters.

 

[Scroto Baggins]

You can't give a yellow based on a previous aggregation of fouls committed by someone else. If the foul is yellow card worthy, it should be punished with a yellow card.

Something needs to be done about it, at half time Hammers had committed one foul and City 8 and had zero yellows issued. Sure they are not flying into tackles late, but it is deliberate tactical fouling to prevent counter attacking play.

 

[Fully Fledged]

You can't give a yellow based on a previous aggregation of fouls committed by someone else. If the foul is yellow card worthy, it should be punished with a yellow card.

Yes you can. If you think that a team committing multiple fouls is a team tactic.

 

[Fully Fledged]

I don't remember this specific incident, but was Herrera's foul yellow card worthy on its own merits?

Nope.

 

[Withnail]

I don't remember this specific incident, but was Herrera's foul yellow card worthy on its own merits?

It was his second yellow and considered harsh at the time.

https://punditarena.com/football/sr...l-sending-off-united-vs-chelsea-cup-showdown/

Its what they do in rugby but it means you get away with a bunch of these fouls before something is done.

I would like to see a yellow card for this type of cynical, technical foul no matter it occurs on the pitch. They are often let go as it's so far from goal even though it stopped a counter attack.

 

[Irrational.]

City made 13 fouls today, but it wasn't until the 86th minute and they were 4-0 up that they got their first booking.

Read into that what you will. I don't even think VAR will protect teams from City's tactical fouling cheating.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

I don't think we can just red card these tackles; just like that. You could campaign for mandatory yellow cards. Do it twice and you're off. But sometimes it's not cynical; it just trying to win a personal duel. Last line of defense tackles are the cynical ones.

If you only want mandatory yellow cards for 'tactical' fouls how do you distinguish between bad tackle (missing the ball) and tactical foul? For example against a player trying to run through your defense with the ball? Players normally get a warning for bad tackles before their yellow.

If your answer is "mandatory yellow only for tactical fouls", then players will begin making their tactical fouls look like bad tackles to avoid the yellow! Which may result in bad injuries.

 

[Withnail]

I don't think we can just red card these tackles; just like that. You could campaign for mandatory yellow cards. Do it twice and you're off. But sometimes it's not cynical; it just trying to win a personal duel. Last line of defense tackles are the cynical ones.

If you only want mandatory yellow cards for 'tactical' fouls how do you distinguish between bad tackle (missing the ball) and tactical foul? For example against a player trying to run through your defense with the ball? Players normally get a warning for bad tackles before their yellow.

If your answer is "mandatory yellow only for tactical fouls", then players will begin making their tactical fouls look like bad tackles to avoid the yellow! Which may result in bad injuries.

I don't follow your logic.

If you aren't legitimately trying to win the ball when tackling, and take out the player, normal rules apply dont they?

 

[Full bodied red]

Rewind to Old Baldy's fabulous Barca Team and it was exactly the same tactics.

You can't help but wonder why every man and his dog can see what's happening except Riley and his Blind Boys.

 

[RedDevilRoshi]

They do it all the time.

Refs won’t do anything about it. I guess it’s because the fouls aren’t doing any serious physical harm to their opponent. They are going to always do it as they know they can get away with it.

 

[adexkola]

Nope.

It was his second yellow and considered harsh at the time.

https://punditarena.com/football/sr...l-sending-off-united-vs-chelsea-cup-showdown/

Its what they do in rugby but it means you get away with a bunch of these fouls before something is done.

I would like to see a yellow card for this type of cynical, technical foul no matter it occurs on the pitch. They are often let go as it's so far from goal even though it stopped a counter attack.

I stand corrected then.

 

[Beachryan]

It's 50% of Pep's gameplan. He has perfected it.

With Barca he'd also stop football being played after the 70th minute when they were winning. I don't watch enough of City to see if it's possible in the prem, but Barca were disgusting. If Barca were up, the match is over, you'd be lucky to get the ball in play for 5 minutes of that last 20. Injuries, cramps, walking up to, then away from throw ins, longest sub walks in history, it was a sight to behold.

Pep is the best coach in history at using the dark arts. He is the master.

He can also coach excellent interplay, but without his teams' propensity to abuse the rules, he'd have to use different personnel.

 

[beergod]

This happens though. Mourinho's United were taking turns to kick Hazard. Ref warned the team and Herrera, I believe, got it in the neck as he was the next one.

Oliver effectively took the rugby approach by tying the act to the team and not waiting for an individual player to accumulate enough infringements to be yellow carded. I want to say that is the solution to this issue, but is it enough punishment to deter it?

 

[Full bodied red]

Never watch basketball because it's, well, not me.

But when I watched a match in New York quite a few years ago, there was some rule or other where after a specific number of accumulated fouls by the team, irrespective of the individual players, it led to a Free Throw.

No idea if this rule is still there, but if something similar was introduced, say after 15 fouls every additional foul is a penalty, it would probably help put a stop to Tactical Fouls.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Surely the FA knows that City do this as a tactic, I am fairly certain most referees are aware of it as well. But why isn't anything done about it.

The only explanation I can think of is City do this in the opponents half most of the time and referees are told not to card that.

 

[Makelele]

Tactically fouling an opponent should lead to a direct yellow card. It should not matter if the foul is soft. It is such a blatant anti-football move and should be erased from the game.

 

[George The Best]

Surely the FA knows that City do this as a tactic, I am fairly certain most referees are aware of it as well. But why isn't anything done about it.

The only explanation I can think of is City do this in the opponents half most of the time and referees are told not to card that.

Have to agree. Rodri looks like he’s been brought in by City for exactly that purpose. Every time a City move broke down he’d just stop the play if he couldn’t win it fairly.

 

[Chipper]

Didn't watch today so can't comment on specifics.

Aren't the kind of fouls where if a player is pretty much beaten then trips or grabs a shirt to stop an attack almost always yellows anyway? Is that the kind of thing that wasn't given as a yellow?

Never watch basketball because it's, well, not me.

But when I watched a match in New York quite a few years ago, there was some rule or other where after a specific number of accumulated fouls by the team, irrespective of the individual players, it led to a Free Throw.

No idea if this rule is still there, but if something similar was introduced, say after 15 fouls every additional foul is a penalty, it would probably help put a stop to Tactical Fouls.

I think similar to this was experimented with once. Was watching a video compilation of free kick goals scored by dead ball specialist Juhninho (Pernambucano) and one of them was from right at the edge of the box with no defensive wall there. It looked really weird. Some people were asking why that happened in the comments section and best I can gather is that they got a free kick like that because the opposition had commited a certain number of fouls.

It was in a match similar to a super cup or the community shield. They have state championships as well as the national league in Brazil and it was a game played between the Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo state champions - The Torneio Rio - Sao Paulo.

Here's the vid, it's goal #5 at 20 seconds in:

Suppose the thing with that is that a team who commits lots of tactical fouls doesn't necessarily commit a lot of fouls altogether, as City have tended to show. Keep the ball for long periods of times and be very willing to foul when you lose possession, they committed fewer fouls than anyone last season, but more than anyone else per minute they didn't have the ball.

 

[Scroto Baggins]

Tactically fouling an opponent should lead to a direct yellow card. It should not matter if the foul is soft. It is such a blatant anti-football move and should be erased from the game.

There should be a little leeway, I dont think anyone is advocating as soon as one tactical foul happens yellow then red. But 8 fouls in the first half vs WHU's one foul and zero cards issued to City players. Surely there is a happy medium somewhere in the middle in this scenario between 8 fouls and zero cards vs a card every single tactical foul.

That is why I thought a verbal warning from the ref to the team captain to let the players know that the ref wants the game to flow. No more niggling fouls or someone is going to get a yellow, and if it keeps happening then another yellow to a player. That way players know they are on watch, and the next niggling foul someone, regardless of first offence, is getting a card.

 

[adexkola]

Suppose the thing with that is that a team who commits lots of tactical fouls doesn't necessarily commit a lot of fouls altogether, as City have tended to show. Keep the ball for long periods of times and be very willing to foul when you lose possession, they committed fewer fouls than anyone last season, but more than anyone else per minute they didn't have the ball.

Most fouls are committed out of possession, so a rule like a yellow card per 15 fouls would impact City the least.

 

[Stocar]

It's a perfectly legitimate tactics to counter the cynical teams waiting in low block to pounce on mistakes. If referees gave more cards for tactical fouls, football would get even more ugly, as playing the proactive game would get even more difficult and couterproductive than it is now. Why put all that work into elaborate attacking patterns based on skill and precision, when it is so much easier and effective to play on the counter?

Anyway, all teams do tactical fouling. City have to do it more due to their playing style, and they're very quick and organized when it comes to it. The real mystery is how Liverpool, arguably the most aggressive and physically intense team out there, managed to commit the least amount of fouls last season.

 

[RedB4ndiT]

Pep's possession football is so good, ALL of the big teams are using a variety of it.

Eventually, ALL of the big teams will be tactically fouling as well because it's just so good.

 

[arnie_ni]

You can't give a yellow based on a previous aggregation of fouls committed by someone else. If the foul is yellow card worthy, it should be punished with a yellow card.

Yes you can. Its be done before.. just see herrera against chelsea.

 

[Stocar]

Eventually, ALL of the big teams will be tactically fouling as well because it's just so good.

I disagree. With less games where one team decides to sit in their own half, there would be less need for this strategy. If you play a more open game, you have more passing lanes and attacking options available, so tactical fouling is not as effective. Also when a team spends more time in opponents half, fouling them is more costly. It's a perfectly legitimate protective mechanism that is essentially a reaction to a much worse kind of cynicism in football.

 

[adexkola]

Yes you can. Its be done before.. just see herrera against chelsea.

So I've been told.

Is this codified in the rules?

 

[Makelele]

It's a perfectly legitimate tactics to counter the cynical teams waiting in low block to pounce on mistakes. If referees gave more cards for tactical fouls, football would get even more ugly, as playing the proactive game would get even more difficult and couterproductive than it is now. Why put all that work into elaborate attacking patterns based on skill and precision, when it is so much easier and effective to play on the counter?

Anyway, all teams do tactical fouling. City have to do it more due to their playing style, and they're very quick and organized when it comes to it. The real mystery is how Liverpool, arguably the most aggressive and physically intense team out there, managed to commit the least amount of fouls last season.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Playing a high press game involves high reward AND high risk. Why should you get the benefits of playing a high press game and not the risks? That is preposterous. PL refs need to become better and use common sense. Look at CL refs, this sort of stuff is not allowed to happen at a systematic level. CL refs are quick with the yellow cards and it eliminates this kind of cheating. English football will only fall behind if they allow this sort of low level tactics to become widespread. It inhibits innovation and evolution in the game.

Playing a low block reduces risks but it also reduces the ability to attack. As it should be. A high block tactic should not be allowed to cop out on the risks in this manner.

 

[Stocar]

It inhibits innovation and evolution in the game.

No, that would be low block / reactive / opportunistic football that is still the easiest and most efficient route to result in football. Giving it more incentive would just further ruin the game and make it even more bland than it currently is.

 

[Rossa]

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Playing a high press game involves high reward AND high risk. Why should you get the benefits of playing a high press game and not the risks? That is preposterous. PL refs need to become better and use common sense. Look at CL refs, this sort of stuff is not allowed to happen at a systematic level. CL refs are quick with the yellow cards and it eliminates this kind of cheating. English football will only fall behind if they allow this sort of low level tactics to become widespread. It inhibits innovation and evolution in the game.

Playing a low block reduces risks but it also reduces the ability to attack. As it should be. A high block tactic should not be allowed to cop out on the risks in this manner.

Agree completely. Well written, mate!

 

[Makelele]

No, that would be low block / reactive / opportunistic football that is still the easiest and most efficient route to result in football. Giving it more incentive would just further ruin the game and make it even more bland than it currently is.

That is a popular view but it is completely wrong and shows a lack of understanding of how not only football works but the world.

Low block football has spurred some of the most innovative attacking play in the world as it has forced the greatest minds to come up with ways to counter it. If everybody played free flowing football the game would be a lot less advanced than it is today.

 

[Stocar]

That is a popular view but it is completely wrong and shows a lack of understanding of how not only football works but the world.

Low block football has spurred some of the most innovative attacking play in the world as it has forced the greatest minds to come up with ways to counter it. If everybody played free flowing football the game would be a lot less advanced than it is today.

No, that's not a popular view. Popular view is that proactive, possession based teams are boring and have no "plan B". That they're suffocating the game and sabotage "proper, direct football", along with true "tactical diversity".

That would be the popular view, and it is utterly ridiculous and misguided. Either low block or high press are default features of the game. Opportunistic low block football certainly won't go anywhere. If anything, there's too much of it, which makes football dull. It requires less skill, less risk, and is generally much more simple.

But it seems that vast majority of fans have preference for bland and simplistic. Not that surprising, when you think of it.

 

[Velvet Revolver]

Maybe a rule which where if a team commits these tactical fouls too many then a yellow card to the captain or manager?

 

[adexkola]

No, that would be low block / reactive / opportunistic football that is still the easiest and most efficient route to result in football. Giving it more incentive would just further ruin the game and make it even more bland than it currently is.

I agree with this.

I do think it says a lot that this thread is about City and Liverpool, teams who sit at the bottom of the table when it comes to number of fouls conceded. The ire stems from the viewpoint that these sort of fouls prevent other teams from "getting at City or Liverpool". Probably. It also exposes your one-dimensional attack strategy.

 

[Stocar]

The ire stems from the viewpoint that these sort of fouls prevent other teams from "getting at City or Liverpool". Probably. It also exposes your one-dimensional attack strategy.

That's exactly what's behind it. It's just amusing how teams that get called out the most for being "cynical", "one-dimensional" and plain "boring" are exactly those that play exactly the most skillful, sophisticated and adventurous football.

 

[arnie_ni]

So I've been told.

Is this codified in the rules?

Well if its not Herrera's red would have been appealed and rescinded

 

[arnie_ni]

I agree with this.

I do think it says a lot that this thread is about City and Liverpool, teams who sit at the bottom of the table when it comes to number of fouls conceded. The ire stems from the viewpoint that these sort of fouls prevent other teams from "getting at City or Liverpool". Probably. It also exposes your one-dimensional attack strategy.

Liverpool have hardly been mentioned in this conversation, if at all.

City is the only team that does this.

Also, city may be near the bottom of the table in foul charts but sorry to tell you, your looking at the wrong stats.

They are no.1 in the league in fouls per minute out of possession. You can't foul when you have the ball.

https://www.football365.com/news/dirty-city-solskjaer-was-right-to-call-man-city-on-tactical-fouls

 

[Chipper]

So I've been told.

Is this codified in the rules?

Not specifically.

In the laws of the game under cautionable offences it says, among other things:

A player is cautioned if guilty of

• Persistent offences (no specific number or pattern of offences constitutes "persistent")
  
• Unsporting behaviour

I suppose you could do it under persistent offences, although I'd have thought normal interpretation of those words would be persistent offences by an individual player rather than a team.

There is a list of things that come under the umbrella term of unsporting behaviour. One of them is "shows a lack of respect for the game". Guess you could interpret a team making lots of fouls to be doing that, or at least a lack of respect for the spirit in which a game should be played in. Still a fuzzy interpretation in my opinion, and that's the only thing listed under specific examples of unsporting behaviour that could even possibly count.

They might be able to book players for things that they personally consider unsporting behaviour over and above what is mentioned under the general principle of game management. There's nothing I can see in the laws of the game that says they can though.

With the Herrera one, it's the first and only time I've ever seen a ref do that and I've been watching football for 35 years. Nobody else has named another incidence of it happening either so I think it must be exceptionally rare. At the time I imagine this was forum was outraged by it.

 

[Treble]

Why should the rules of the game support counter-attacking teams? They should be neutral regarding styles of play.

Besides, it's not easy to define 'tactical foul'. One can argue that any intended foul obstructing the movement of the opposition team towards own box is tactical. Why count as tactical only fouls which stop counter attacks and not fouls which stop attacks?