Balham_Green":2nmvdawh said:Bermudian Green":2nmvdawh said:Balham_Green":2nmvdawh said:rsp4":2nmvdawh said:As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.
The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him
Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.
That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.
Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.
So ... can you move on to finding a way for the referee not to give a pen for the fouls on Sarcevic and then Grant? :think: