We're ManchesteROFL United, we do what we want

[Ian Royal]

All three recent ones were 100% red cards for me. Until a current referee comes out and says that players are allowed to leap in the air thrusting both feet towards opposition player and ball, I will still think that.

Vardy's will be rescinded though. Isn't it a panel of Souness-quality ex-players that looks again at the decisions?

But there was no contact with the Rojo/Zaha incident so what do you give the red card for?

The laws don't say there has to be contact. It can be dangerous and reckless, with excessive force, without contact occurring.

[No Fixed Abode]

All three recent ones were 100% red cards for me. Until a current referee comes out and says that players are allowed to leap in the air thrusting both feet towards opposition player and ball, I will still think that.

Vardy's will be rescinded though. Isn't it a panel of Souness-quality ex-players that looks again at the decisions?

But there was no contact with the Rojo/Zaha incident so what do you give the red card for?

The laws don't say there has to be contact. It can be dangerous and reckless, with excessive force, without contact occurring.

You're incorrect Ian. You might recall this....... In a Chelsea game last season, a keeper came hurtling out of his goal, and Pedro put the ball past him, but to avoid getting clattered, he managed to hurdle the keeper but lost his balance which prevented him putting the ball in the net. Howard Webb at the time, said the referee had made the right decision not to award the penalty because there was "no contact" and his exact words were "There was no contact, so what do you give it for"......

[Ian Royal]

But there was no contact with the Rojo/Zaha incident so what do you give the red card for?

The laws don't say there has to be contact. It can be dangerous and reckless, with excessive force, without contact occurring.

You're incorrect Ian. You might recall this....... In a Chelsea game last season, a keeper came hurtling out of his goal, and Pedro put the ball past him, but to avoid getting clattered, he managed to hurdle the keeper but lost his balance which prevented him putting the ball in the net. Howard Webb at the time, said the referee had made the right decision not to award the penalty because there was "no contact" and his exact words were "There was no contact, so what do you give it for"......

Ahhh, I see. This is a whining bitter Chelsea retard thing.

"Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses
excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Nothing about contact there.

"2. Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or
attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is
stopped to caution or send off a player"

No contact required to award an indirect freekick.

HTH.

[No Fixed Abode]

Howard Webb. "There was no contact so what do you give it for?".

HTH.

So you're saying Chelsea should have had a penalty. Yep, I thought so too.

[Jack Celliers]

All three recent ones were 100% red cards for me. Until a current referee comes out and says that players are allowed to leap in the air thrusting both feet towards opposition player and ball, I will still think that.

Vardy's will be rescinded though. Isn't it a panel of Souness-quality ex-players that looks again at the decisions?

But there was no contact with the Rojo/Zaha incident so what do you give the red card for?

The reckless challenge with excessive force - something like that. I don't think there has to be contact.

Why doesn't the head of the referees clear it up for us. There are so many things about Rojo's and Vardy's tackles that just need a bit of expert comment from somebody qualified to have an opinion on them:

do two-footed tackles deserve red cards?
does it matter if there is no contact?
if you leave the ground in making a tackle is that worthy of a red card?
does it matter if you get lots of the ball?

[No Fixed Abode]

But there can't be excessive force if there was no contact.

[Ian Royal]

Howard Webb. "There was no contact so what do you give it for?".

HTH.

So you're saying Chelsea should have had a penalty. Yep, I thought so too.

Quite possibly, can't recall it and I couldn't give a flying one. Just as I don't care what Howard Webb once said on television that's got you so riled.

Thanks for conceding you were wrong. Oh wait, you're still playing stupid.

But there can't be excessive force if there was no contact.

Utter drivel.

[No Fixed Abode]

"I was backing out of my drive the other day and nearly hit a car with excessive force" - So I didn't hit a car and no crime was committed.

Now use that logic in football. No need to over-complicate things in your befuddled mind Ian.

[BR0B0T]

"I was backing out of my drive the other day and nearly hit a car with excessive force" - So I didn't hit a car and no crime was committed.

Now use that logic in football. No need to over-complicate things in your befuddled mind Ian.

I was driving around town like a complete pcunt and nearly caused a really bad accident

Should I still be on the road?

[double d]

Just proves the point of how soft and pansy football is. The fact of the matter is he did not touch him so no red card. If he did then straight red. Otherwise everytime anybody went up for a header and bumped into the man it would be a red. He two footed thin air ffs and we are all debating in. No wonder that rugby fans think we are all soft.

[No Fixed Abode]

"I was backing out of my drive the other day and nearly hit a car with excessive force" - So I didn't hit a car and no crime was committed.

Now use that logic in football. No need to over-complicate things in your befuddled mind Ian.

I was driving around town like a complete pcunt and nearly caused a really bad accident

Should I still be on the road?

Yes. Nearly isn't the same as actually.

[No Fixed Abode]

Just proves the point of how soft and pansy football is. The fact of the matter is he did not touch him so no red card. If he did then straight red. Otherwise everytime anybody went up for a header and bumped into the man it would be a red. He two footed thin air ffs and we are all debating in. No wonder that rugby fans think we are all soft.

Agreed. The ref got lambasted by some ex pro's about not sending Rojo off in the Palace game. He got it spot on really. Free kick as Zaha lost his balance hurdling the challenge and that's all that should have been given.

[stealthpapes]

But there can't be excessive force if there was no contact.

with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent

Does not need to have contact.

To be fair, whenever a ref does interpret it correctly, it all kicks off in punditland.

[No Fixed Abode]

But there can't be excessive force if there was no contact.

with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent

Does not need to have contact.

To be fair, whenever a ref does interpret it correctly, it all kicks off in punditland.

Makes no sense. Players endanger the safety of players all the time, in every challenge that is made. So you can only send someone off if there is contact imo.

[stealthpapes]

But there can't be excessive force if there was no contact.

with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent

Does not need to have contact.

To be fair, whenever a ref does interpret it correctly, it all kicks off in punditland.

Makes no sense. Players endanger the safety of players all the time, in every challenge that is made. So you can only send someone off if there is contact imo.

I do think you're conflating a number of things here. Your own opinion, a misreading of the laws on your part, a conflation of what gives rise to a freekick (and hence a penalty in the chelsea example posted) and a sending off, and the exact wording of the law.

The full wording for 'serious foul play' has been posted.

"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

There clearly does not need to be contact.

In terms of direct freekicks, the three things a referee has to judge is whether the challenge was careless, reckless or uses excessive force. Clearly, a foul can be all three without there being contact. In the case of the goalkeeper incident you posted, I'd suggest there'd be a case for a foul there, depending on the exact incident. I really don't care.

It is also clear that there is a pretty large gray area in all of this, and that's down to the referee's interpretation of the game going on ahead of them.

Ian is utterly correct in his recollection* of the laws of the game.
You are factually incorrect in saying that there needs to be contact, although you're quite right in noting that most referees avoid it, except for some of the more ludicrous attempted 'tackles' out there. A better reading of the laws on your part might result in less time trying to chase phantom cards and penalties, but I can't see you dropping that, tbh.
The lad - double d - who posted about it making the game soft? You might very well think that ...

[Ian Royal]

"I was backing out of my drive the other day and nearly hit a car with excessive force" - So I didn't hit a car and no crime was committed.

Now use that logic in football. No need to over-complicate things in your befuddled mind Ian.

UK laws =/= football laws. Also you could potentially be done for driving without due care and attention, or dangerous driving.

Read the laws. It's in the laws. And seeing as you've finished with what you'd call a personal attack, I'll add 'you oxf*rd retard'

[sandman]

Just proves the point of how soft and pansy football is. The fact of the matter is he did not touch him so no red card. If he did then straight red. Otherwise everytime anybody went up for a header and bumped into the man it would be a red. He two footed thin air ffs and we are all debating in. No wonder that rugby fans think we are all soft.

What aaare we going to do? Fans of the Sport that doesn't have even half the popularity of football think we're all soft.

[leon]

Just proves the point of how soft and pansy football is. The fact of the matter is he did not touch him so no red card. If he did then straight red. Otherwise everytime anybody went up for a header and bumped into the man it would be a red. He two footed thin air ffs and we are all debating in. No wonder that rugby fans think we are all soft.

What aaare we going to do? Fans of the Sport that doesn't have even half the popularity of football think we're all soft.

Who's fans are all wnakers

[No Fixed Abode]

"I was backing out of my drive the other day and nearly hit a car with excessive force" - So I didn't hit a car and no crime was committed.

Now use that logic in football. No need to over-complicate things in your befuddled mind Ian.

UK laws =/= football laws. Also you could potentially be done for driving without due care and attention, or dangerous driving.

Read the laws. It's in the laws. And seeing as you've finished with what you'd call a personal attack, I'll add 'you oxf*rd retard'

Tell that to Howard Webb. "If there is no contact, what do you give it for?".

He knows nothing about refereeing. No experience whatsoever.

[genome]

Bit rich of Webb to go on about contact