Pilgrims' Patter

The Forum => The B-Ark => Topic started by: Mr Tickle on March 08, 2011, 01:51:50 PM

Title: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Mr Tickle on March 08, 2011, 01:51:50 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUtiCXQNJks

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Hugo on March 08, 2011, 02:46:09 PM

By the letter of the law, yes. As it was an act of violence by a player during a game. Common sense would say that it wasn't however.

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Fairfax on March 08, 2011, 05:44:52 PM

The law permitting sending-off defines violence as "excessive force" and as the stewards didn't seem to think it was excessive, I wonder why the referee thought so.

I believe the inclusion of "any other person" in the law is to prevent actions such as Cantona's infamous drop-kick, and it was never intended to cover the reasonable apprehension of a miscreant.

Yet again, a case of the man in the middle believing he is above the law instead of the servant of the law. Why is an ounce of common sense too much to ask for?

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Wembley 85 on March 10, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

I think that the streakers "tackle" is worthy of a red card.  :bunny

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Fairfax on March 14, 2011, 05:26:29 PM

The F A have done it again!

They have decided that the red card was justified (so apprehending a pitch invader with a rugby tackle is excessive force amounting to violence) thereby saving the blushes of the referee, but that the normal punishment for a straight red card (three match ban) is not appropriate as there were exceptional circumstances.

So "You are a naughty boy, but you didn't do anything wrong!"

If the F A were to line up on Westminster Bridge wearing Jokers' outfits complete with bells and playing Rule Britannia with their backsides, they may look a little more logical than they appear when in the committee room.

God save us all from these idiots.

PS. The ICC decided that it is not an offence in cricket (Australia 2009).

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Pilgrim86 on March 14, 2011, 07:22:59 PM

The 'tackle' was excessive, so he deserved it. A simple trip, rather than manhandling him would have sufficed... or leave others to do their job?

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Fairfax on March 14, 2011, 11:48:44 PM

Disagee.  A smother-tackle and wrestling to the ground in one movement is extremely unlikely to cause injury. A trip on an unprotected shin or ankle is risking serious damage.

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Pilgrim86 on March 15, 2011, 12:04:06 AM

He risked a neck injury... an awkward fall could've been nasty.

Title: Re: FUNNY - Was this tackle really a red card offence?????
Post by: Fairfax on March 15, 2011, 01:41:58 AM

But surely the steward/policeman/any-other-person would have done the same thing, as they always do in these cases.

The streaker seems to have been pretty impressed with the player's skill according to his interview.