235 replies to this topic

[Nick L]

The above 3 comments have steered this discussion to some degree of sanity.

Sportsmen know the risks involved, we don't need any health and safety nonsense ruining our game. Part of the reason they get paid such vast amounts is because of the extensive risks to their health and the fact their careers could be ended at any moment.

Football is a physical game. And I assume that those saying the laws need changing are not football fans.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There is always a tradeoff with rules: go too far in trying to reduce risk and you run into a law of diminishing returns where you're increasingly clamping down on a large range of actions just for the sake of a small risk reduction. This is no exception. The two-footed lunge is already explicitly prohibited by the rules and expanding the rules further to legislate for this type of challenge would probably already be a long way down the "diminishing returns" route.

I think we've already seen some laws of the game go down this diminishing returns route to legislate for one-off incidents, so we could really do without some more going the same way.

Stoke are normally a physical side but I do recall Arsene Wenger saying he thought Stoke's play was fair apart from that individual tackle (and given Wenger's track record of going OTT complaining about physical sides, if he says that I'm inclined to believe him), so the term "unfortunate" springs to mind more than any other.

[kold weather]

Yeah its not a great tackle thats for sure, though it does look very 50-50 IMO, you can both Ramsey and Shawcross go to kick it, its just very poor luck its turned out the way it has really to be honest.

I also think unfortunate may be the best way of putting it, clearly Shawcross must have been in shock and to be honest I doubt he'd have been able to play on anyway the state he was in, so almost the best thing to do was to send him off anyway in the end,

As for rule changes, these sorts of things will always happen, its just the nature of the game. Its not about being hard or thuggery, poorly timed tackles will always happen unless you change the actual sport itself, its just something thats quite sad when it happens to someone with such a clear future ahead of him.

I just hope he recovers quickly, and hope another player doesn't have thier career wrecked, so soon after Ashton's retirement from football due to an ankle injury.

Edited by kold weather, 01 March 2010 - 02:14 .

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Ashton was hit by Wright-Phillips in training, wasn't he? Diaby by a guy who was 11 stone. So, I agree it's not just the heavy weights who are a threat, but the heavy weights do generally cause the biggest fractures and more injuries by nature of the biophysics.

These are far from being isolated incidents. Felliani. Anichebe.

No attempt has yet been made to punish a player for not being in control of his bodyweight.

100kg flying towards you at 12 miles per is dangerous. Dangerous like driving a vehicle through a crowd.

This problem didn't use to exist so much when players were lighter and the pitches rougher, which meant the games were slower and played more in the air.

The modern game is different. Rules should change to reflect the modern game, its players, the flat pitch, is different.

TWS, give me an example of "diminishing returns" in the football rules. How does it apply to the rules of tackling? Surely you're not saying they'll be virtually no difference if the tackle from behind was reinstated.

Edited by AtlanticFlamethrower, 01 March 2010 - 14:14 .

[Jackone]

kold weather, on 01 March 2010 - 02:04 , said:

Yeah its not a great tackle thats for sure, though it does look very 50-50 IMO, you can both Ramsey and Shawcross go to kick it, its just very poor luck its turned out the way it has really to be honest.

I also think unfortunate may be the best way of putting it, clearly Shawcross must have been in shock and to be honest I doubt he'd have been able to play on anyway the state he was in, so almost the best thing to do was to send him off anyway in the end,

As for rule changes, these sorts of things will always happen, its just the nature of the game. Its not about being hard or thuggery, poorly timed tackles will always happen unless you change the actual sport itself, its just something thats quite sad when it happens to someone with such a clear future ahead of him.

I just hope he recovers quickly, and hope another player doesn't have thier career wrecked, so soon after Ashton's retirement from football due to an ankle injury.

It was a bad tackle by Shawcross, and in the circumstances, he should not be allowed to play for England against Egypt his week.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It was a bad tackle, but if Shawcross was 12 stone and had made the same tackle, Ramsey might have got up and walked away.

Shawcross is more likely to cause an injury because he is a larger size. Why punish a player because he is larger than a smaller guy, who can be twice as negative but get away with it because he never leaves anyone that badly injured?

For example, there's few more notorious for making dodgy tackles and picking up yellow cards than Robbie Savage. He's just 10 stone. Player in similar position, Roy Keane, was 12 stone - 2 stone heavier. If I'm right that Savage hasn't ended any player's career with a tackle in the course of his long career, quite possibly that can be put down to the fact he is light.

If Shawcross has to be banned for that overly-aggressive tackle where he flung his bodyweight at the Arsenal player and connected with his leg which caused an injury should we then not also ban players for similar challenges when they don't cause injury?

Or, perhaps we can simply outlaw all tackles where the player "loses control of his body-weight".

[Nick L]

I don't understand these constant references to weights of modern day footballers. Surely those in the past would have been heavier because they weren't as fit and had worse diets than footballers today?

[Paul B]

nick2702, on 01 March 2010 - 20:58 , said:

I don't understand these constant references to weights of modern day footballers. Surely those in the past would have been heavier because they weren't as fit and had worse diets than footballers today?

Not just me then. AFT is barking up the wrong tree completely IMO. Never heard anything like it before.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

No, muscle is heavier than fat.

Weights and heights of everyone have gone up over the last 100 years with better nutrition. Football players are drawn from a society that has been getting larger.

Here's the average weight by position of the Uruguay team which won the 1950 World Cup (playing 4-3-3)

Weight (kg)
G 85
D 69.3
M 74.3
F 67.3
Outfield av. 70.2

Here's the Italy team which won the 2006 World Cup playing 4-4-2

Weight (kg)
G 93
D 84.8
M 77
F 90.5
Outfield av. 82.8


The weight of the outfield that won the World Cup increased 12.8kg from 1950 - 2006, which is 2 stone.

One thing you will notice is that the midfield has increased only 3kg - hardly at all. What this means is there are a lot of huge defenders around to kick still light midfielders.

Midfielders have stayed light because to play midfield it helps to have a low-center of gravity and good foot coordination. Short, lighter people have those qualities more often than taller, larger men do, who are in turn more often better in the air.

Since 1950 defenders and forwards appear to have gained in weight and height in an "arms race". Midfielders who were the heaviest outfield players in 1950 are now the smallest.

What I've been saying is, these physical changes - much heavier players - have made 1950s tackling rules dangerous in the 2000s.

It must be said the Italian 2006 team was anomalously big - much bigger even than the Brazilian 2002 and French 1998 teams. It turned a small rise over 50 years into a huge one. However, some Premiership teams do have a lot of heavy players, so it probably does reflect modern trends, at least in the Premiership.

The Spanish 2008 Euro winners were a light team. Wenger has modelled Arsenal on the Spanish team.

Edited by AtlanticFlamethrower, 01 March 2010 - 21:31 .

[Nick L]

AtlanticFlamethrower, on 01 March 2010 - 21:22 , said:

No, muscle is heavier than fat.

Weights and heights of everyone have gone up over the last 100 years with better nutrition. Football players are drawn from a society that has been getting larger.

Here's the average weight by position of the Uruguay team which won the 1950 World Cup (playing 4-3-3)

Weight (kg)
G 85
D 69.3
M 74.3
F 67.3
Outfield av. 70.2

Here's the Italy team which won the 2006 World Cup playing 4-4-2

Weight (kg)
G 93
D 84.8
M 77
F 90.5
Outfield av. 82.8


The weight of the outfield that won the World Cup increased 12.8kg from 1950 - 2006, which is 2 stone.

One thing you will notice is that the midfield has increased only 3kg - hardly at all. What this means is there are a lot of huge defenders around to kick still light midfielders.

Midfielders have stayed light because to play midfield it helps to have a low-center of gravity and good foot coordination. Short, lighter people have those qualities more often than taller, larger men do, who are in turn more often better in the air.

Since 1950 defenders and forwards appear to have gained in weight and height in an "arms race". Midfielders who were the heaviest outfield players in 1950 are now the smallest.

What I've been saying is, these physical changes - much heavier players - have made 1950s tackling rules dangerous in the 2000s.

It must be said the Italian 2006 team was anomalously big - much bigger even than the Brazilian 2002 and French 1998 teams. It turned a small rise over 50 years into a huge one. However, some Premiership teams do have a lot of heavy players, so it probably does reflect modern trends, at least in the Premiership.

The Spanish 2008 Euro winners were a light team. Wenger has modelled Arsenal on the Spanish team.

Ok fair enough. But you still haven't answered my earlier question on what rule changes should be imposed?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Quote

1. A player may make any tackle from any angle towards the player in possession of the ball on the condition he retains control of his body weight as he does so.

2. Punching is allowed

This change doesn't stop players stamping on other players or kicking them in the nuts, but it outlaws them throwing the full force of their 15 stones at a 9 half stone 17 year old academy starlet.

Edited by AtlanticFlamethrower, 01 March 2010 - 23:46 .

[Mondy]

Seeing as how I can't stand Ince, the weight to height ratio is fair enough here

[Thundery wintry showers]

AtlanticFlamethrower, on 01 March 2010 - 14:09 , said:

TWS, give me an example of "diminishing returns" in the football rules. How does it apply to the rules of tackling? Surely you're not saying they'll be virtually no difference if the tackle from behind was reinstated.

An example of "diminishing returns" is easy. Banning jumping over the advertising boards to celebrate with the crowd because a few idiots went overboard in a couple of isolated cases and triggered fan invasions (there were arguments over whether stadium security should be improved, but the argument "the minority have to spoil it for the majority, because that's life" clearly kicked in among the bods at the FA). Nowadays, we get players standing up on top of one another on their side of the advertising boards to do the equivalent but a slightly further distance away from the crowd. That could still potentially trigger crowd invasions, so we could ban those celebrations too, by extension of the same argument.

Another area where it can arise is via the "dismissal for professional fouls" issue- the "last man rule" for instance was often unreasonably harsh, and while the modern "obvious goalscoring opportunity" rule is a significant improvement on that, it too can sometimes lead to harsh dismissals (I had a debate with Harry on the issue in a recent blog entry, reaching the conclusion that getting the line drawn in a good position while not making referees' judgement calls unfeasibly difficult is tough).

If I say that tightening rules too far introduces diminishing returns it does not mean that I always disagree with tightening rules (this is a common authoritarian line of dismissal). The tackle from behind does the game more harm than good, so there is a decent "return" on prohibiting it. The proposal to ban tackles where players lose control of their body weight would in practice be likely to penalise every player on the pitch. If players are running and challenging for the ball in the heat of the moment, and for example they lose their footing, how do they keep control of their body weights? Pretty much any player would be vulnerable to penalisation under that rule.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Quote

The tackle from behind does the game more harm than good, so there is a decent "return" on prohibiting it. The proposal to ban tackles where players lose control of their body weight would in practice be likely to penalise every player on the pitch. If players are running and challenging for the ball in the heat of the moment, and for example they lose their footing, how do they keep control of their body weights? Pretty much any player would be vulnerable to penalisation under that rule.

My wording of the new tackling rule should be tightened up to make it clearer. Players aren't going to get red cards for falling over untied shoe laces or beach balls because they have lost control of their bodyweight.

If you go in for a tackle to gain possession for the ball you must be in control of your body weight. This doesn't mean the player can't make any sliding tackles from the side (to sweep the ball away before the opposition falls over you as retreating defenders often have to do) or fall over while making a legitimate standing tackling.

It applies when the player attempting the tackle runs or leaps in from the front, side or from behind and cannot prevent his body in the process colliding directly with the player who is in possession. Whether they get the ball or not that is uncontrolled, unskillful and would be illegal.

Did I clarify?

Edited by AtlanticFlamethrower, 02 March 2010 - 01:12 .

[Nick L]

Looks like Wolves will stay up now. Will be great to have 5 Midlands side in the Premier League (assuming we don't self-destruct).

I also think West Ham are in serious doo-doo. Relegation will hit them hard financially and I can't see them staying out of serious financial difficulties.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The title hangs in the balance still as Chelsea soundly beat Liverpool 2-0 while Man Utd sneaked a 1-0 win away at Sunderland. Chelsea have to beat Wigan to be sure of the title. I'm hoping that Chelsea win it this year because Man Utd have relied too much upon grinding out unattractive wins while not playing well to my liking.

I thought Sunderland were quite unfortunate to get nothing out of the game against Man Utd as they had a lot of the play and created some decent chances. In the end, though, Man Utd's superior quality in both attack and defence shone through. I have no arguments with the referee over the penalty appeal- it was a ridiculous dive by the Sunderland player and deserved the booking.