There seems to have been a rash of dismissals at Premiership level for what is usually
referred to as ‘two footed tackles'.
Reading Football club have had their share with two players sent off and one who, to everyone's surprise, escaped with a yellow card. More surprising was the claim by Reading manager Steve Coppell, that managers were kept in the dark by footballing authorities over a crackdown on such tackles. He had apparently been told by a fellow manager who had also had a player sent off, that his referee admitted they had received an instruction saying these tackles must be punished, but this had not been passed to managers.
Despite Coppell’s protestations, the PGMO which controls Premiership referees, denies that any such directive has been issued, or that referees had been instructed to get tough. They were merely enforcing existing policies.
To my way of thinking, there should be no need for referees to be instructed to get tough over these tackles or for managers to be alerted that these tackles carry a penalty of being sent off. Let’s face it, we are not talking about shirt- pulling or diving, this is something far more serious.
Remember how Roy Keane admitted in his autobiography that he had deliberately set out to injure Alf-Inge Haaland with his tackle in the game against Manchester City. The result of that tackle was so severe that it ended Haaland’s career as a footballer. I’m not suggesting that all these players set out to intentionally injure their opponent but that is what they risk by committing this sort of tackle.
The constant referral to ‘two -footed’ tackles is I think misleading. It is perfectly possible to make a two-footed tackle, say from a yard away that is safe. Furthermore, some of the tackles that result in a sending off are ‘one- footed’ tackles. In other words the player goes in with one foot leading and the other tucked behind him.
Phil Neville of Everton felt that the referee had no choice but to send off Chelsea’s Mikel John Obi in their Carling Cup semi-final. ‘The rules state,’ he said, ‘that if you go in with your studs showing, you should be sent off.’ Another case, of course, of a
player who has probably never read the Laws of the Game, for no such ‘rule’ exists. However, what he describes is part of the overall picture.
I feel that if we refer to these types of challenges as ‘flying tackles’ it gives a much clearer indication of what we are talking about. Players coming in with one or both feet off the ground, from a distance and without control or thought as to the consequences of their actions. And if the studs are showing, it makes the tackle even more potentionally dangerous for the opponent.
Nowhere does anything like this appear in the Laws of the Game but what it does decree as a sending-off offence, is when tackles are made ‘using excessive force’. When a player has his feet off the ground, jumping in at an opponent from a distance, at some speed, I think it can be fairly said that he has exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. This is what the PGMO means when talking about enforcing existing policies.
Some complain that the game has gone soft and it will soon become a non-contact sport but Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers’ Association says, ‘we don’t want an ‘ice hockey type of crash, bang, wallop game’. You must protect skilful players first and foremost. We lose 50 players every year with permanent injury. There needs to be respect for fellow professionals.’
I think Referees shouldn’t shirk from sending players off for flying tackles and managers shouldn’t need to be told that they will.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2008