Acole9
Outstanding
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 12,507
The term 'Tactical foul' is the most irritating in football currently, they're just fouls for feck sake.
Its the same reason why you go away to Burnley and get the shit kicked out of you as if rules doesnt exist.That is not right. It is the same thing. The reason some get away with it and others don't can only be blamed on incompetent referees who are instructed to go into games looking at narratives and judge accordingly. City is perceived as a much better team who are dangerous in attack. That means Matic get a yellow for almost stopping 1 attack by slightly touching one player, but because United are perceived to be weak the ref do not rate our chances of scoring on the break. He thinks we are lucky to not lose the ball, and that we're lucky just to maybe be awarded a free-kick. No yellow.
It isn't about how you do it, it is just about the perception. It is pure bias.
If thats a foul he may as well not bother trying to challengeThis 100%.
Also, if you are already booked, you definitely shouldn't do the foul in the first place. Idiotic foul.
A blatant foul, ie a tactical foul where you make no attempt to win the ball and are tripping someone up just to stop and attack should be a straight red in my opinion.I'd like to see football introduce team punishments for tactical fouls that are used either to break up counters or to target players.
The offending team could be given a yellow, meaning that each member of said team is then judged to be on a warning when the official is considering any further incident related to the initial team caution.
Liverpool are as bad as City for it, you'd lose half your team before half time.A blatant foul, ie a tactical foul where you make no attempt to win the ball and are tripping someone up just to stop and attack should be a straight red in my opinion.
Agreed! I'm not sure it's a popular opinion however, hence my suggestion.A blatant foul, ie a tactical foul where you make no attempt to win the ball and are tripping someone up just to stop and attack should be a straight red in my opinion.
A blatant foul, ie a tactical foul where you make no attempt to win the ball and are tripping someone up just to stop and attack should be a straight red in my opinion.
You would end up with 5 a side football. Im a fan of calling the captain over and talking to him. The ref can then explain how to proceed, ' i've seen two tactical fouls, I see any more and i'm handing out yellows. Don't care who it is, tell your team.'
Tactical cheating.The term 'Tactical foul' is the most irritating in football currently, they're just fouls for feck sake.
So you wouldn't even give yellow cards for the first two? That's an interesting approach.You would end up with 5 a side football. Im a fan of calling the captain over and talking to him. The ref can then explain how to proceed, ' i've seen two tactical fouls, I see any more and i'm handing out yellows. Don't care who it is, tell your team.'
The term tactical foul is adequate to describe the specific infringement in the laws of the game that says that a yellow should be handed if a foul stops a promising attack.The term 'Tactical foul' is the most irritating in football currently, they're just fouls for feck sake.
But the point is he got booked?Given the way the rules are I have no issues with teams doing it
I still kinda remember Herrera's foul on Barkley? in the fa cup semi final.
Just blatantly grabbed the shirt and held on until Barkley stopped. Obvious foul but rule dictates it's no more than a yellow
Refs do go into games with a bias and don't treat all fouls the same
I'm surprised more managers don't point it out. Once they do, then you will see sky sports and such start discussing it. Once that happens refs will have it in their mind
The term tactical foul is adequate to describe the specific infringement in the laws of the game that says that a yellow should be handed if a foul stops a promising attack.
So no, it’s not just a foul
I really don't see why people have such a problem with them it part of the game, taking one for the team etc. They should be treated like any other foul if its bad enough to be treated as a red its a sending off, if its a clip of the heals or such should be a yellow and any further similar challenge be sent off.
Like many others this new term fro a "professional foul" is really irritating, personally I like the idea that certain teams play in certain ways, not to the existent of kicking lumps out of teams. The ref has a protocol and should use it. This constant sanitising of football is tedious.
A professional foul is not the same. Professional foul was the last man challenge that used to be a red, now replaced by the DOGSO term. See my other reply to you.But they already had a name, its a professional foul, they have been about since man could kick a football. Its not just in football either, pretty rife in rugby too.
Tactical cheating.
So you wouldn't even give yellow cards for the first two? That's an interesting approach.
I prefer the straight red idea. Players would learn quickly.
this is why people talk about tactical fouls. “For the tactical purpose” “interfering with or breaking up a promising attack”. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
How much clearer can it be that a tactical foul should be a yellow? And why is tactical foul such an idiotic phrase invented by people on the internet?
A professional foul is not the same. Professional foul was the last man challenge that used to be a red, now replaced by the DOGSO term. See my other reply to you.
What about City's tactical diving that got Matic sent off? They're very good at it.
Right i'm starting it here to stop derailing the Pogba thread. Mods if you wanna move my posts into here to clear it that's fine, or delete them if needs be because they're ostensibly OT.
I don't think these 'tactical' or 'clever' or 'taking one for the team' fouls should be acceptable at all. It's not clever, it's just blatant cheating. You can't leg someone up when they're running at you and not go for the ball so why are these types of fouls just acceptable? Especially when they're usually from behind and any attempt to stop someone from behind is usually harshly penalised.
It's not an attempt at a tackle, it's just blatant cheating to stop the opponent and taking the easy way out to do it. It's cynical in the extreme and quite often it's not a good hack either.
Pogba yesterday did it and it should've been a red card but because of the culture of the game it's just accepted as something that happens.
If referees started properly penalising people for what is for all intents and purposes, an assault, then eventually players would stop doing it. If in the meantime that means we end up with 7 v 7 because they crack down on it, then so be it. I don't care.
I don't like seeing it and wish it would change. It's up there with diving and not getting booked, holding a player in the box and not being penalised and not being able to touch the goalkeeper without it being a foul even if you've gone for the ball and never once looked at them as things in modern football that are just seemingly okay.
I don't want to see our players doing it and I hate seeing other team's players get away with it too. It's a shitty thing to do on a football pitch. Guardiola's teams are masters of it and didn't we fecking hate Barcelona when he was in charge for being that type of team?
if you're okay with it, you're okay with it.
Discuss.
But the point is he got booked?
If every side fouled like City the game would become a stop start shitshow
Exactly, teams who base their defensive strategy on tactical fouling are simply exploiting a clear issue in the general refereeing in England.Again its cheating and just as bad, as deliberate fouling, but again there are clear rules for such things. Its at the discretion of the ref on the day.
Exactly, teams who base their defensive strategy on tactical fouling are simply exploiting a clear issue in the general refereeing in England.
First yellow is not a yellow for me. It only justifies a booking if he makes some hefty contact there and he barely touches him.
The second is a classic tactical foul though. Not blatant and tried to be soft enough to escape the red, but it was a silly risk to take with a yellow already.
Agree with the general thrust that referees are poor at managing tactical fouling. Mostly because they lack the deep understanding of the game to envisage how a counter attack will open up, whereas players have a better sense of what's about to unfold if they don't do it.
I think if you've played the game for years you can envisage better how attacks open up. You can see three or four passes down the line and can anticipate threats much earlier. Broad generalisation but reading the game like that is why many players are professional and can see danger better than those who haven't. Refs are obviously experienced in refereeing but many do not have that same level of anticipation. Often they will judge a tactical foul in isolation, particularly those higher up the park that Liverpool and City excel in, without taking into account the breadth of vision of the full park.Do you honestly believe this? The refs have a lack of understanding of the game?
I would say they find it hard to manage because if they were to follow up on every foul the flow of the game would be ruined. They also have a seconds to make a decision on whether an incident is a foul or a simple 50/50 challenge. The only way you will get consistency is to have the VAR ref making all the calls on the pitch and simply relaying all instructions to the on field ref who will basically be a runner.
I think if you've played the game for years you can envisage better how attacks open up. You can see three or four passes down the line and can anticipate threats much earlier. Broad generalisation but reading the game like that is why many players are professional and can see danger better than those who haven't. Refs are obviously experienced in refereeing but many do not have that same level of anticipation. Often they will judge a tactical foul in isolation, particularly those higher up the park that Liverpool and City excel in, without taking into account the breadth of vision of the full park.
Ultimately that is why managers encourage their teams to do it - because the punishment meted out by referees does not reflect the benefit accrued by the teams who do it.
There is very little that ruins a game of football as much as deliberate tactical fouling. Stopping a breakaway with a deliberate foul should always be at least a yellow card. The niggly little fouls in an attritional midfield battle are covered under persistent fouling though yes, it would be better if it was made clear that it applies to the entire team.For me straight red is reserved for violent or dangerous play. Or blatant last man fouls.
I think two is fair. First game of the season Man City vs Hammers Man City had 8 fouls in the first half, like seven of them niggling tactical fouls, zero cards given out. Mike Dean is hot garbage, after two the ref should be able to summon the captain, speak to him, tell him no more or the next one is a yellow, doesnt matter who it is, it's a yellow. Then the captain can go spread the message to the team.
I don’t mean to be a dick about this but your opinion of what a professional foul is doesn’t have any relevance when the rules (used to) say otherwise.Not for me, I never heard a professional foul being a last man challenge, it was always an intentional foul to break up play. Its always been in the game.
The term 'Tactical foul' is the most irritating in football currently, they're just fouls for feck sake.
I don’t mean to be a dick about this but your opinion of what a professional foul is doesn’t have any relevance when the rules (used to) say otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_foul
As you can see there the professional foul was then changed to the DOGSO rule in 2016 saying that it’s a yellow if committed inside the box and in an attempt to play the ball. A professional foul used to be punished with a red card but only a one-game suspension as opposed to the three game suspension for violent conduct or serious foul play.
Like I said, in the current laws of the games, the lawmakers themselves refers to the tactical fouls as tactical, so I don’t really see how your annoyance at people using the term is anything but your own problem.
I saw your post later as well where you said that you don’t have a problem as long as they’re adequately dealt with, which, again, according to the laws of the game, is by showing the player a yellow card. Do we agree on that?
My problem is that referees in the premier league are obviously ignorant of the laws of the game (or biased in their reluctance to apply them as it’s the same teams getting away with this for the past three years) and apply completely different standards within the same game which, as a single among many examples, killed our chances of coming back to win the tie last night. We would’ve had a much bigger chance to come back if their players had been booked for their aggressive play or if Matic hadn’t been booked for incidents that they got away with multiple times during the very same game.
A lot of text here but it all boils down to the conclusion that English refs are shit either deliberately or non-deliberately because they aren’t following the laws of the game in relation to tactical fouling.