PDA

View Full Version : NHC Flamini tackle on Corluka...



FromTheCapital
16-02-2011, 10:51 AM
Shocking tackle by Flamini and the way he lifted the crowd after the lunge and then smiled afterwards was a disgrace.... Sorry, If already posted....

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

lapsedhibee
16-02-2011, 10:55 AM
Shocking tackle by Flamini and the way he lifted the crowd after the lunge and then smiled afterwards was a disgrace.... Sorry, If already posted....

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

Straight red, no question. Don't think Flamini did that sort of thing at Arsenal, though - perhaps too much mixing with huns since? :dunno:

Randerson_4
16-02-2011, 11:08 AM
Shocker, straight red no doubt & think the ref bottled it, probably not helped with Flamini's reaction! Disgraceful

Future17
16-02-2011, 01:17 PM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.

Flamini actually won the ball and made no contact with Corluka. Corluka's injury could easily have happened even if Flamini had only tackled with one foot.

As for "lifting the crowd" and smiling afterwards - so what? He made a hard tackle, which lifted the crowd in itself and was trying to spur (pardon the pun) his team on. Hardly "a disgrace". :rolleyes:

Biggie
16-02-2011, 01:25 PM
Flamini actually getting a game for AC Milan says everything about the state of AC milan.....

Hibs90
16-02-2011, 01:38 PM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.

Flamini actually won the ball and made no contact with Corluka. Corluka's injury could easily have happened even if Flamini had only tackled with one foot.

As for "lifting the crowd" and smiling afterwards - so what? He made a hard tackle, which lifted the crowd in itself and was trying to spur (pardon the pun) his team on. Hardly "a disgrace". :rolleyes:

:agree:

lapsedhibee
16-02-2011, 01:39 PM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.


FFS Even a hun at Ibrox got red carded for a similar two footed flying tackle (against us). If that's not the very definition of something totally and incontrovertibly unacceptable, I don't know what is!

Andy74
16-02-2011, 01:49 PM
Haven't seen it yet but as for the lifting the crowd comment, so what? We all seemed pretty engaged ourselves the last couple of games when there were tackles flying in and fighting going on. Just what we needed apparantly.

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 01:52 PM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.

Flamini actually won the ball and made no contact with Corluka. Corluka's injury could easily have happened even if Flamini had only tackled with one foot.

As for "lifting the crowd" and smiling afterwards - so what? He made a hard tackle, which lifted the crowd in itself and was trying to spur (pardon the pun) his team on. Hardly "a disgrace". :rolleyes:

The reason that two footed tackles are outlawed is that they cause injury in such circumstances as last night, i.e. even when the ball is won. Flamini's was not only two footed, but he jumped in with both feet off the ground, which constitutes serious foul play, and a red card.

The tackle caused Corluka's injury, which is why his behaviour afterwards was so poor - having the cheek to go mental at the referee after being a lucky man to escape with only a yellow, then compounding that by accusing the player he has just injured of time wasting. When practically the whole Milan team got involved to try and get a player who is clearly injured moved off the pitch, it was disgusting behaviour.

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 01:53 PM
Haven't seen it yet but as for the lifting the crowd comment, so what? We all seemed pretty engaged ourselves the last couple of games when there were tackles flying in and fighting going on. Just what we needed apparantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8nV0kFVEY

Future17
16-02-2011, 02:00 PM
The reason that two footed tackles are outlawed is that they cause injury in such circumstances as last night, i.e. even when the ball is won. Flamini's was not only two footed, but he jumped in with both feet off the ground, which constitutes serious foul play, and a red card.

The tackle caused Corluka's injury, which is why his behaviour afterwards was so poor - having the cheek to go mental at the referee after being a lucky man to escape with only a yellow, then compounding that by accusing the player he has just injured of time wasting. When practically the whole Milan team got involved to try and get a player who is clearly injured moved off the pitch, it was disgusting behaviour.

The only difference between the use of one foot or two when tackling is the amount of force applied and I accept that, when applied maliciously, tackles of this nature may merit a red card. However, Flamini won the ball and didn't touch Corluka directly. It wasn't a malicious challenge which is why a red card wasn't shown.

I think Flamini's reaction to the referee was more a reflection of the referee's overall performance to that point, rather than that specific incident.

Frankly, the suggestion that the behaviour of the Milan team in the aftermath of the incident was "disgusting" is ridiculous. How about the reaction of the Spurs team and Van der Vaart in particular?

easty
16-02-2011, 02:03 PM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.

Flamini actually won the ball and made no contact with Corluka. Corluka's injury could easily have happened even if Flamini had only tackled with one foot.

As for "lifting the crowd" and smiling afterwards - so what? He made a hard tackle, which lifted the crowd in itself and was trying to spur (pardon the pun) his team on. Hardly "a disgrace". :rolleyes:

It was a disgraceful tackle! I dont care how Corluka 'could' have been injured, what happened was extremely dangerous. If Corluka had got his foot behind the ball, studs in the ground, then that would have snapped his leg no problem. I don't want to see contact taken out of football, but theres a line and it was well crossed with that "tackle".

If anyone made a tackle like that on me or anyone else in my team they'd get their head kicked off before they'd picked themselves up from the ground!

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 02:05 PM
The only difference between the use of one foot or two when tackling is the amount of force applied and I accept that, when applied maliciously, tackles of this nature may merit a red card. However, Flamini won the ball and didn't touch Corluka directly. It wasn't a malicious challenge which is why a red card wasn't shown.

I think Flamini's reaction to the referee was more a reflection of the referee's overall performance to that point, rather than that specific incident.

Frankly, the suggestion that the behaviour of the Milan team in the aftermath of the incident was "disgusting" is ridiculous. How about the reaction of the Spurs team and Van der Vaart in particular?

It wasn't a malicious tackle?! I'm done with this then, it'll get nowhere.

Future17
16-02-2011, 02:31 PM
It was a disgraceful tackle! I dont care how Corluka 'could' have been injured, what happened was extremely dangerous. If Corluka had got his foot behind the ball, studs in the ground, then that would have snapped his leg no problem. I don't want to see contact taken out of football, but theres a line and it was well crossed with that "tackle".

If anyone made a tackle like that on me or anyone else in my team they'd get their head kicked off before they'd picked themselves up from the ground!

If Corluka had got his foot behind the ball, studs in ground, then even an innocuous tackle could have "snapped his leg". Did you think Scott's tackle at Easter Road on Saturday was worthy of a yellow card? Should it have been a red?


It wasn't a malicious tackle?! I'm done with this then, it'll get nowhere.

How was it malicious?

To be malicious, Flamini would have to have been deliberately attempting to injure Corluka which, given that he played the ball and never touched Corluka, he clearly wasn't.

easty
16-02-2011, 02:46 PM
If Corluka had got his foot behind the ball, studs in ground, then even an innocuous tackle could have "snapped his leg". Did you think Scott's tackle at Easter Road on Saturday was worthy of a yellow card? Should it have been a red?



Clearly an innocuos tackle could have snapped his leg, but this tackle most definitely would have.

Scotts tackle wasn't nearly as bad, have you even bothered to see the Flamini tackle?

hibsbollah
16-02-2011, 02:50 PM
The only difference between the use of one foot or two when tackling is the amount of force applied and I accept that, when applied maliciously, tackles of this nature may merit a red card. However, Flamini won the ball an



d didn't touch Corluka directly. It wasn't malicious challenge which is why a red card wasn't shown.

I think Flamini's reaction to the referee was more a reflection of the referee's overall performance to that point, rather than that specific incident.

Frankly, the suggestion that the behaviour of the Milan team in the aftermath of the incident was "disgusting" is ridiculous. How about the reaction of the Spurs team and Van der Vaart in particular?

Agree completely. I've no time for all this ridiculous 'disgusting','disgraceful' hyperbole. He got the ball, the spurs boy got hurt, he geed up the crowd a bit. Hardly fred west behaviour.

hibsbollah
16-02-2011, 02:54 PM
If anyone made a tackle like that on me or anyone else in my team they'd get their head kicked off before they'd picked themselves up from the ground!

So its disgraceful to do a sliding tackle but you,re allowed to kick an opponents head off?

easty
16-02-2011, 02:57 PM
So its disgraceful to do a sliding tackle but you,re allowed to kick an opponents head off?

Sliding tackle suggests he slides in, rather than flies in. Theres a difference.

If someone assaults me or mines, they'll get it back.:devil:

hibsbollah
16-02-2011, 03:04 PM
Fair enough, decapitation is pretty harsh though...

Future17
16-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Clearly an innocuos tackle could have snapped his leg, but this tackle most definitely would have.

Scotts tackle wasn't nearly as bad, have you even bothered to see the Flamini tackle?

Watched the game live last night and saw the 217,728 replays that followed the incident.

Obviously we can't say for sure, but for the sake of argument - if Clancy's foot was behind the ball, studs in ground, Scott's tackle would definitely have snapped his leg. So what's the difference in your eyes? :confused:

easty
16-02-2011, 03:14 PM
Watched the game live last night and saw the 217,728 replays that followed the incident.

Obviously we can't say for sure, but for the sake of argument - if Clancy's foot was behind the ball, studs in ground, Scott's tackle would definitely have snapped his leg. So what's the difference in your eyes? :confused:

The difference would be the tackle itself.

If you're hit by a car coming round a corner at 20mph, it could kill you. If you're hit by a car going straight along the road at 40mph that could also kill you. Doesn't mean the two collisions are the same. Just like the Scott and Flamini tackles were completely different.

greenlex
16-02-2011, 03:23 PM
Agree completely. I've no time for all this ridiculous 'disgusting','disgraceful' hyperbole. He got the ball, the spurs boy got hurt, he geed up the crowd a bit. Hardly fred west behaviour.

If that tackle had been made on say...........Zemamma at Ibrox would you be so forgiving? :wink:

Future17
16-02-2011, 03:31 PM
The difference would be the tackle itself.

If you're hit by a car coming round a corner at 20mph, it could kill you. If you're hit by a car going straight along the road at 40mph that could also kill you. Doesn't mean the two collisions are the same. Just like the Scott and Flamini tackles were completely different.

I don't really understand what you're saying here because it sounds like you're agreeing with my point and that couldn't possibly be true. :wink:

For the record, I don't think Scott's challenge was a foul, never mind a booking. However, the only difference I can see is that Scott challenged with one foot and Flamini with two. I don't think there is anything in the rules of the game that states that a two footed tackle is automatically considered serious foul play (although I am prepared to be corrected). It is left to the referee's discretion. In this case, although the referee awarded a free-kick and a yellow card, Flamini won the ball and didn't directly touch Corluka.

If you're suggesting that red cards should be flashed for any challenge which has the potential to injure an opponent, games would be abandoned due to a shortage of players. Where would you draw the line?:confused:

Wotherspiniesta
16-02-2011, 03:38 PM
It was a two footed lunge with his studs showing. Wether he won the ball or not is irrelevant as that tackle has been (rightly) outlawed in football.

I see the OP's link has been taken down so here's another one for anyone who hasn't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8nV0kFVEY

easty
16-02-2011, 03:42 PM
I don't really understand what you're saying here because it sounds like you're agreeing with my point and that couldn't possibly be true. :wink:

For the record, I don't think Scott's challenge was a foul, never mind a booking. However, the only difference I can see is that Scott challenged with one foot and Flamini with two. I don't think there is anything in the rules of the game that states that a two footed tackle is automatically considered serious foul play (although I am prepared to be corrected). It is left to the referee's discretion. In this case, although the referee awarded a free-kick and a yellow card, Flamini won the ball and didn't directly touch Corluka.

If you're suggesting that red cards should be flashed for any challenge which has the potential to injure an opponent, games would be abandoned due to a shortage of players. Where would you draw the line?:confused:

It's not true, I'm not agreeing with you!:na na:

I don't think Scott's challenge was a foul either. So we're at least agreed on that. My point, though, is that the 2 tackles aren't comparable. Just because they come under the same heading (that being 'Tackles'), doesn't make them the same thing.

I've just devised a way to determine if a foul is dangerous and should be a red card offence. It's called "The Felix Test", you take a cat (doesnt have to be named Felix) and you determine whether or not the impact of the tackle would have killed the cat. Scotts wouldn't have, it would have been fine. Flaminis, well that would result in Felix exploding into 68 little pieces.

I don't think I have to say anymore, you can't argue with science my friend. :wink:

J-C
16-02-2011, 03:49 PM
Just seen it again on SSN, what a horrific tackle it is, surely the ref should be disciplined for nor sending him off for such an obvioue 2 footed challenge.

hibsbollah
16-02-2011, 03:55 PM
If that tackle had been made on say...........Zemamma at Ibrox would you be so forgiving? :wink:

Zemmama would have levitated above the tackle and made any referree intervention unnecessary:)

Judas Iscariot
16-02-2011, 03:58 PM
Superb tackle...

Future17
16-02-2011, 04:01 PM
Wether he won the ball or not is irrelevant as that tackle has been (rightly) outlawed in football.


But has it? I've not seen any refereeing directives on two-footed tackles. The "studs showing" reference is no longer mentioned in referee training.


It's not true, I'm not agreeing with you!:na na:

I don't think Scott's challenge was a foul either. So we're at least agreed on that. My point, though, is that the 2 tackles aren't comparable. Just because they come under the same heading (that being 'Tackles'), doesn't make them the same thing.

I've just devised a way to determine if a foul is dangerous and should be a red card offence. It's called "The Felix Test", you take a cat (doesnt have to be named Felix) and you determine whether or not the impact of the tackle would have killed the cat. Scotts wouldn't have, it would have been fine. Flaminis, well that would result in Felix exploding into 68 little pieces.

I don't think I have to say anymore, you can't argue with science my friend. :wink:

I can't wait to hear Craig Burley coming out with "that's a horrendous challenge that would definitely have failed The Felix Test" on a commentary. :greengrin

I think the theory needs some adapting though. I would put it to you that it possible to tackle fairly whilst exercising a level of force which would seriously harm a member of the feline species. Also, given that cats have 9 lives, they may not be the ideal subjects for the test - and that's even before the animal rights people have had their say.

I look forward to discussing matters further at the forthcoming Felix Convention.

Pretty Boy
16-02-2011, 04:07 PM
How anyone can seriously argue that wasn't a malicous tackle is beyond me.

Yes he won the ball but his sole intent wasn't to win the ball. The intent was to throw himself 2 footed with studs showing towards the player and the fact he won the ball is neither here nor there. I'm pretty sure Corluka saw the tackle coming and got partially out of the way, if he didn't we would be talking about a far more serious injury.

A tackle is deemed dangerous is the player isn't in control. Did Flamini look in control when he made that tackle? Could he have pulled out of it or slowed his momentum?

It was a dangerous and malicous tackle with the intent to hurt an opposing player pure and simple.

easty
16-02-2011, 04:08 PM
I can't wait to hear Craig Burley coming out with "that's a horrendous challenge that would definitely have failed The Felix Test" on a commentary. :greengrin

I think the theory needs some adapting though. I would put it to you that it possible to tackle fairly whilst exercising a level of force which would seriously harm a member of the feline species. Also, given that cats have 9 lives, they may not be the ideal subjects for the test - and that's even before the animal rights people have had their say.

I look forward to discussing matters further at the forthcoming Felix Convention.

I refuse to let the likes of Craig Burley reference my test directly.

Nah, cats are smart, if they thought they would get hurt they would move. That's the beauty of the test. That Flamini tackle was too dangerous even for the smartest/quickest of cats. Also, my girlfriends a vet, so collectively we do enough good for animals that I'm allowed to test (in the name of science) on a few cats.

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 04:15 PM
Agree completely. I've no time for all this ridiculous 'disgusting','disgraceful' hyperbole. He got the ball, the spurs boy got hurt, he geed up the crowd a bit. Hardly fred west behaviour.

Clearly we're talking about context here - in a football context, I was appalled by the behavior of the Milan players.

The fact that the crowd got geed up is neither here nor there as this happens in football - the fact that the player that blatantly injured Corluka had the audacity to point at his watch to imply timewasting whilst the medical staff were scared to move Corluka without a stretcher is shocking, as was the behaviour of the rest of the Milan players.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been El Hadj Diouf on a Hibs player.

Green_one
16-02-2011, 04:41 PM
It was a two footed lunge with his studs showing. Wether he won the ball or not is irrelevant as that tackle has been (rightly) outlawed in football.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8nV0kFVEY

:agree: Add in the fact the position was in a neutral area where there was no danger at all then the whole tackle was uneccessary. People are still living in the world that tackles of this sort are acceptable. They are not. It merited a straight red. His actions afterwards show that he meant it to be violent.

I watched a Liverpool Everton game from the 80s on TV recently and there must have been 6 tackles that would have got reds nowadays. Those days have gone. Two footed was always viewed as probably getting you into trouble.

Future17
16-02-2011, 04:52 PM
How anyone can seriously argue that wasn't a malicous tackle is beyond me.

It would have been malicious had the intent been to injure Corluka. I don't think there's any evidence that Flamini possessed that intent. Why is that not a reasonable argument?


A tackle is deemed dangerous is the player isn't in control. Did Flamini look in control when he made that tackle? Could he have pulled out of it or slowed his momentum?

That's fair enough, but again we would be talking about a lot of red cards if that were always applied.


Clearly we're talking about context here - in a football context, I was appalled by the behavior of the Milan players.

The fact that the crowd got geed up is neither here nor there as this happens in football - the fact that the player that blatantly injured Corluka had the audacity to point at his watch to imply timewasting whilst the medical staff were scared to move Corluka without a stretcher is shocking, as was the behaviour of the rest of the Milan players.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been El Hadj Diouf on a Hibs player.

I think Flamini was questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka. Hardly audacious or "shocking" - perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been a favoured Hibs player on El Hadj Diouf.


His actions afterwards show that he meant it to be violent.

How so? :confused:

Wee Scottie Dug
16-02-2011, 05:32 PM
It would have been malicious had the intent been to injure Corluka. I don't think there's any evidence that Flamini possessed that intent. Why is that not a reasonable argument?



That's fair enough, but again we would be talking about a lot of red cards if that were always applied.

I think Flamini was questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka. Hardly audacious or "shocking" - perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been a favoured Hibs player on El Hadj Diouf.



How so? :confused:

Taken straight from the FIFA rule book regarding red cards for 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
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

So IMHO (and many other on this board) Flamini did not have a leg to stand on - Quite literally!!

Although he quite clearly attempted and in fact got the ball first you cannot turn yourself into a human projectile with no method of stopping or slowing down - its a red card 99 times out of 100 - he just got lucky in that he was the 1 in a 100 and that he did not cause an Eduardo type injury to Corluka .....

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 05:33 PM
I think Flamini was questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka. Hardly audacious or "shocking" - perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been a favoured Hibs player on El Hadj Diouf.

Given your opinion on the tackle itself you are clearly seeing all of Flamini's actions as perfectly innocent, so little point in dragging it out. I believe that it is clear that Flamini has lost the plot from start to finish in the whole incident - the shocking tackle, the ridiculous reaction to the booking itself, then finally really taking the p!ss by suggesting that the player that he has just injured (and who later appeared on crutches) was actually time wasting. Incidentally, Flamini went to the dressing room and apologised afterwards.

If it had been any Hibs player on any other player, my opinion on the tackle itself would not change - it would always be a shocker, well worthy of a red card. The only difference would be that I would happy that it wasn't on the night.

Stevie Reid
16-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Taken straight from the FIFA rule book regarding red cards for 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
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

So IMHO (and many other on this board) Flamini did not have a leg to stand on - Quite literally!!

Although he quite clearly attempted and in fact got the ball first you cannot turn yourself into a human projectile with no method of stopping or slowing down - its a red card 99 times out of 100 - he just got lucky in that he was the 1 in a 100 and that he did not cause an Eduardo type injury to Corluka .....

Says it all.

Wotherspiniesta
16-02-2011, 05:43 PM
It would have been malicious had the intent been to injure Corluka. I don't think there's any evidence that Flamini possessed that intent. Why is that not a reasonable argument?



That's fair enough, but again we would be talking about a lot of red cards if that were always applied.



I think Flamini was questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka. Hardly audacious or "shocking" - perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of some on here had it been a favoured Hibs player on El Hadj Diouf.



How so? :confused:

Well, I'd be happy to see him injured. But it'd still be a red card!

I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that tackle after seeing it on the replay. The only excuse the ref could have would be it happened really quickly or he didn't get a good view of it.

But come on, have a look at it, its a red card every day of the week.

Future17
16-02-2011, 06:31 PM
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
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.



Says it all.

It almost literally says it all. So a lunge, with excessive force, which endangers an opponent is serious foul play every time?

So Scott should have been sent off on Saturday?

I'm going to count the tackles in the next few games I watch which would merit a red card under that definition. I'd wager there will be plenty.


I believe that it is clear that Flamini has lost the plot from start to finish in the whole incident - the shocking tackle, the ridiculous reaction to the booking itself, then finally really taking the p!ss by suggesting that the player that he has just injured (and who later appeared on crutches) was actually time wasting.

I see you've decided that's what he was doing rather than questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka.:rolleyes:


Incidentally, Flamini went to the dressing room and apologised afterwards.

The story I read said that he'd gone to check on Corluka, not that he apologised for the tackle.


Well, I'd be happy to see him injured. But it'd still be a red card!

I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that tackle after seeing it on the replay. The only excuse the ref could have would be it happened really quickly or he didn't get a good view of it.

But come on, have a look at it, its a red card every day of the week.

Not in my opinion, but I accept i'm in the minority.

blackpoolhibs
16-02-2011, 06:53 PM
Flamini should have been sent off, he knew what he was doing, and knew by going in the way he did he could be giving the spurs player a real sore one. I think anyone who thinks differently is being a little naive.

FromTheCapital
16-02-2011, 08:49 PM
It was a disgraceful tackle! I dont care how Corluka 'could' have been injured, what happened was extremely dangerous. If Corluka had got his foot behind the ball, studs in the ground, then that would have snapped his leg no problem. I don't want to see contact taken out of football, but theres a line and it was well crossed with that "tackle".

If anyone made a tackle like that on me or anyone else in my team they'd get their head kicked off before they'd picked themselves up from the ground!
:not worth :top marks

FromTheCapital
16-02-2011, 08:51 PM
It almost literally says it all. So a lunge, with excessive force, which endangers an opponent is serious foul play every time?

So Scott should have been sent off on Saturday?

I'm going to count the tackles in the next few games I watch which would merit a red card under that definition. I'd wager there will be plenty.



I see you've decided that's what he was doing rather than questioning whether the referee was adding on the time being taken to treat Corluka.:rolleyes:



The story I read said that he'd gone to check on Corluka, not that he apologised for the tackle.



Not in my opinion, but I accept i'm in the minority.
But Scott's wasn't two footed

Future17
16-02-2011, 09:42 PM
But Scott's wasn't two footed

But it says "using one or both legs".

Baader
17-02-2011, 02:03 PM
Red card every time. No argument.

Once both feet leave the ground, you are not in control of the tackle.

His full weight and momentum is behind it. Surely no-one thinks that's allowed in the game do they?

FromTheCapital
17-02-2011, 02:22 PM
But it says "using one or both legs".
Scott's was across the ground and one footed,

So you can't tackle ?

Future17
17-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Scott's was across the ground and one footed,

So you can't tackle ?

I think that's the law. :greengrin

To be fair, I think "not being in control" is a fair definition of one type of challenge that should constitute a sending off offence, however I can't remember ever seeing that in the rules.

Ryan91
18-02-2011, 01:39 AM
Just had a wee lookey at this on Youtube, horrendous challenge and he did deserve to get sent off. His feet are off the ground and he looks like he's jumping into the tackle to me that would deserve a red card.

jane_says
19-02-2011, 12:18 AM
Whilst there is a lot of chat that tackling with two feet is dangerous, it isn't actually outlawed by the rules of the game IIRC.

Flamini actually won the ball and made no contact with Corluka. Corluka's injury could easily have happened even if Flamini had only tackled with one foot.

As for "lifting the crowd" and smiling afterwards - so what? He made a hard tackle, which lifted the crowd in itself and was trying to spur (pardon the pun) his team on. Hardly "a disgrace". :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
youve contradicted yourself here big style, did corluka get put on the sidelines for 4 weeks because he kicked the ball? or was it actually 12 boot studs that did the damage?

Shocking tackle and he was winding the tottenham players up after it, showing zero respect to a player that looked in agony. if diouf got slated for it against QPR then why is what flamini did ok?

Future17
19-02-2011, 06:42 PM
:rolleyes:
youve contradicted yourself here big style, did corluka get put on the sidelines for 4 weeks because he kicked the ball? or was it actually 12 boot studs that did the damage?

Shocking tackle and he was winding the tottenham players up after it, showing zero respect to a player that looked in agony. if diouf got slated for it against QPR then why is what flamini did ok?

I can't see the contradiction.

Have you actually watched the incident?

Do you think Flamini makes direct contact with Corluka or with the ball?