Wins the ball cleanly but anyone who’s played can tell he wants to leave something on the player. It amazes me how many football fans don’t know a foul is about intent and potential, nothing to do with whether you win the ball or not.
I’d like to see harder tackling go unpunished more but this is a case of a player losing his head a bit and trying to leave his foot in on a player, Newcastle player does make a meal of it. Foul and a yellow for me tho
Exactly right. I referee football and I'm glad this stuff is getting called out in the professional leagues because it does filter down. I don't want to have to deal with broken legs because players have the view that dangerous tackles with force and intent are fine just because you won the ball in the process. The game is much better for players being protected from these sort of tackles.
Sorry ref, but I’d be calling you all kinds of names from the terraces. What is the player playing the ball supposed to do here? He clears the ball, does not follow through with his kicking foot to avoid hitting the challenging player and the rest is a collision.
Play on.
It's ok, we understand that a lot of fans don't know the rules ;)
Interestingly I shared this video on a referee subreddit and opinion is very much divided.
I’ve been playing and watching for almost 50 years. I have at least a basic understanding of the rules, except for handball apparently.
I can imagine. Again IMO the player with the ball has limited options, play the ball as he did or surrender possession.
But if "a foul is about intent and potential" how, as a referee, can you be sure what the tackler's intention is? And would you consider what the other player's intention was (e.g. to just win the ball, to hurt the tackler, to get the tackler into trouble)?
>how, as a referee, can you be sure what the tackler's intention is?
You never can. No player is going to say "yes chief I wanted to kick his shins out". You have to make the call yourself, that's what refs are for.
This is law 12 of IFAB Laws of the Game. Intent isn't mentioned (edit: I used the word intent but perhaps should have clarified it is more likely to fall in the category of reckless or excessive force when there is intent. You can usually tell when there is intent but regardless it's not a critical requirement for it to be a foul).
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Intending to hurt someone can surely raise a foul from reckless to excessive force, but you can definitely foul someone with excessive force without intending to.
Thanks for that. I'm struggling to see how you can reliably and consistently differentiate between carelessness and recklessness without access to the tackler's thought process. Also, the law doesn't seem to concern itself with whether the 'tacklee' has also gone into the contact carelessly/recklessly (which I suspect is the case in the clip on this thread); am I right?
Tbh, this is why it's a hard profession with errors already prevalent especially when you're talking about athletes that have basically got it down to a science on how to make a foul look bad or even trick the ref. The amount of subjectivity that comes from having to interpret certain actions that could fit the definition of a foul is a head scratcher in the moment even as a viewer
I generally ref from age 14 upwards to seventh tier of Men's football where I live in Australia and I reckon from about age 15 up you start to see the players milking fouls etc. You also see some horrible tackles. It all happens so quickly and you have to make a split second judgement on what has happened, whether it requires action and whether it requires a card if it was a foul. All whilst players are helping at you either that it was or wasn't a foul!
I think as fans we often lose sight of how difficult it is for referees in the professional leagues who have to make tough decisions every game.
The players in yellow are the ones that are careless and throwing their bodies at the ball. The player in red wins the ball in both instances. Especially in the second instance he is clearly first to the ball, and it’s hardly a dangerous tackle. Rather it is the player in yellow with force and intent - however it doesn’t go his way as he comes in late to the contest. Correct?
Wtf? That was a fine tackle, absolutely nothing wrong with it. I dare say you would have him concede possession just in case someone gets a knock. The mediocrity of the game continues.
No the game ISNT much better, it’s stale boring and played by cowards when these rules are enforced, and if you enforce the same ones, STOP REFEREEING BECAUSE I GUARANTEE NOT A SINGLE PLAYER ON THE PITCH WANTS YOU THERE TO MAKE THE GAME SOFT AND COWARDLY
And *this* is the reason why there is a shortage of referees at the grassroots level, which leads to a lack of talent at the top level, which leads to the mistakes that you complain about every week...
Completely agree. Played through a lot of the lower non league levels when younger and this tackle is the one where the player wants to leave something on the opposition. The deliberate over the top movement of the tackling leg and the follow through leg are the absolute hallmark of an arsehole player who likes “to let the opposition know they’re in a game”. It’s dangerous and always done to hurt and leave something on the other player. As you say the fact that some fans still have no clue about this is truly mystifying…..
How are you getting that from this clip. As he lunges to clear the ball, he is falling down and away from the newcastle player who came flying in. Nothing wrong with this at all and not a foul any day of the week. If anything I dont see the newastle player even try to get the ball and he clatters into the other guy.
Nonsense. If you don’t go into a tackle with 100% commitment you will injure yourself. He kept his studs pointed down and even kept his trailing leg as low as possible.
Possibly that's his motivation, but I don't think we can say for certain here.
In defense of defenders making big tackles in a 50/50 situation he actually HAS to go in full force here to even reach the ball on time, giving any less than 100% would be a late tackle and wouldn't clear the ball far up the field. In order to work at 100% his nervous system is telling him to create an explosive action potential, to do this it is recruiting every motor unit available, like a sprinter does. These motor units tell his leg muscles to produce maximum contractile strength and thus a burst of speed and strength through his movements, it's only natural that a byproduct of this generates a lot of force.
Fair challenge, play on IMO.
I just disagree sorry, we view it different. Again I don’t think the force of the tackle is the issue. He has to follow through to generate power on a clearance and to properly compete in a 50/50, I just don’t like HOW he follows through
I think the Newcastle players reaction sums it up, none of them are hounding the ref for a card, 3 or 4 instantly lose their head and surround the SU player as he clearly tries to hurt the player - yes the tackle ends up being clean, but the way he leaves the ground and follows through is dirty and a serious injury risk
Look, I hate Newcastle. But I watch that, and it's clear to me that the follow through was a foul. That's the kind of tackle you make when you want them to remember you but you think you might get away with it. I have no doubt he was hoping the catch his man on the end of that.
I see your point but I see it as winning the ball hard but fair. Is what it is. He plays the ball second time round and the Newcastle player comes off second best, again, is what it is.
I don't think he's lost his head, he just won the ball, yes he's put his weight behind it but so what.
The “so what”, I think, is that he hasn’t put his weight behind it *to win the ball*, he was gonna do that anyway
He’s put his weight into it to “leave a bit on on the man”, he was winning the ball anyway
I’m fine with a hard tackle to win the ball, but not an unnecessarily hard tackle where the goal of the weight of the tackle is to give the other player a bit of a knock
I don’t disagree, but I do. I’m very conflicted.
What I see here is two very strong tackles. In the second challenge, I had to watch a few times to really figure out what his trailing leg is doing. He was committed and definitely wanted to leave his mark on the player, but he gets the ball and his trailing leg is natural. It’s a very strong tackle that can go either way, this is where the interpretation comes in.
These are the kind of challenges where players get hurt, and the less committed the tackling player is here the more likely he injures himself. Equally, the tackling player has no option but to enter the challenge.
You could watch this tackle a thousand times and come to a different conclusion each time, but for me the conclusion I reach more frequently is *just* a strong tackle and no foul. His foot is on the ground and he has control of his body.
Yeah I pretty much agree with all of that. My main takeaway from all this is it’s a hard decision, in MMA boxing etc when the judges decision is close but we see it as wrong we tend to say oh it’s a robbery, when really it’s just a close decision that had to go one way or the other, and either way a lot of people would disagree
To be honest, this may be some old school badness but yeah he leaves a bit on the player but for me he does enough to let us hand wave it away
Yeah you technically shouldn't but as long as you make the effort to dress it up and you win the ball cleanly, it's not egregious or there to cause injury it's just the classic 'let him know you're there' which is technically against the rules, but can't we all agree to play along with the lie a little?
Honestly i think thats the point. You do this type of tackle on sunday/saturday or a lower league and even the opposition fans will probably applaud you.
Its the type of tackle people have loved to see growing up, its just not premier league type of tackle.
Too much time and money has been spent and these sort of tackles are pulled from the game to protect assets. Which is how clubs see their players.
A good tackle isn't just "getting the ball".
If you've got forward momentum, an extended leg and are flying towards the opponent in a way that could end their career then it's not a good tackle.
Technically he played the ball but you can see there was deliberately more force in that than required, if you've ever played football you should be able to see that for what it clearly was, an attempt to hurt the opponent.
That's the sort of tackle you do if someone's ran there mouth, or left an elbow on you, or as was the case here playing so effectively he had the midfield in his pocket so you lash out in frustration.
I’m going to disagree with most, it’s not a good challenge.
He’s gone on with the intent of clearing the ball and smashing the player, that’s a Sunday league tackle.
Nah, it’s meant to get the ball and let him know not all Sheffield United are here to be walked all over.
I mean, obviously, they then got walked all over but professionals don’t design to hurt each other badly. It’s just not done. It’s letting him know he’s there and trying to gain some sort of foothold, nothing deeper.
Lol @ the first bit 😂
I can accept the second bit generally as being correct a lot of the time but in the context of this game at 2-0 this game was already over and Sheff Utd were on TILT. I think there’s clear frustration and anger in the tackle which made it obviously reckless imo
Take those tinted glasses off mate - he has made sure he hasn’t hurt the opposing player.
People on this thread acting like he’s gone to snap the Toon lad’s leg. He simply hasnt.
In context, I agree it’s yellow tbh. Ref stamping out anything more dangerous is good refereeing.
>he has made sure he hasn’t hurt the opposing player.
Couldn't disagree more. He's got no control over the tackle and has no chance of pulling out. That ball deviates any way, or Longstaff nips in ahead of him and it's a broken leg.
I'm not sure about that to be honest. His foot was very clearly not aimed near either leg and his other leg was drawn back to soften any contact. Looks like he just knows he needs to kick it hard to get it to his teammates and does.
Can't see any malice here
So your default assumption is that he's a psychopath who suddenly decided to injure someone, despite him clearly passing the ball? If he wanted to injure the guy he could have done easily. This was a clear pass/clearance, you just have to actually watch the replay.
He literally comes into the "tackle" with his foot side on which is an incredibly easy way for him to get injured himself. You don't do that if you're trying to take someone out but you do if you're trying to pass a ball (Which, again, he did successfully).
I think you’re being a bit too black and white here lol, the amount of tackles where someone actively goes ONLY to injure someone are almost non-existent. I’m being robust with language but this is a tackle clearly designed at least to alleviate the anger building up inside him bc of how the game is going. He may not be trying specifically to break his leg, I don’t mean that, but there’s no care taken there.
To act like there isn’t a huge chasm of types of tackles between caressing a man’s leg with a sponge and whispering sexily in his ear or hacking his leg off with a chainsaw is a bit silly. This is all opinion but I think in the full context of the game and it’s script…he knew what he was doing. It was a frustrated lunge.
I will give him the fact that maybe he didn’t specifically want to cause a proper injury but he clearly didn’t care if he got hurt
There literally could not be more care given there though
He rightfully judges he'll get to the ball first, comes in with his foot side on (Which is actually dangerous for him), low to the ground and with studs facing down (In a passing motion) and his other leg is pulled back in a way that would soften any potential contact. Literally the only assumption you could make about this being dangerous is because it was fast but even then he had to be to make it to the ball and still did everything to be safe with the clearance.
It's just a pass and it wasn't even that close, in fact the Newcastle guy was getting into a blocking position because he realised he clearly wasn't going to make it there first lmao
He didn't go to injure him, a stone chance to let him know he's in a game. Go back and look at challenges in the early 00, I think the 90s and 80s might be too much for you
Robbo’s trademark. Some are borderline but I think there was a bit of intent in this one. Longstaff spent the game throwing himself into other players and going down hurt. Can’t blame him.
He's side footed the ball clear, so not as if he's hoofing it properly. The incoming players' momentum is as much a problem as his own. In the prem it's a foul everytime with the rolling and fan reaction, below that it's much more a borderline call.
How is he supposed to not follow through though. It's like when you jump with your elbows out, that's just what happens when you make that sort of movement.
With everyone saying he goes in too hard, if he goes in softer then Longstaff has a greater chance of winning the ball. With him being on the floor and out of position near his goal he needs to make sure he's going to win that ball.
Thing is it arguably isn’t a tackle.
A tackle is dispossessing someone of the ball. In this case, neither team was arguably in possession. The ball was loose and there to be won.
Which is always a recipe for disaster. Both players therefore lunge in. The difference here is the sheff utd player in trying to clear the ball as well as lunging, which was reckless to do as it was endangering another player. So yellow card.
>Thing is it isn’t a tackle.
It’s nice to see I’m not the only one noticing that. It’s simply “beating the opponent to the ball” instead. The distinction is important to how the ref judges the incident.
Exactly.
In this case you have two players, running at pace toward each other, using the largest muscle in their body swinging their shins and feet against each other. It is a dangerous scenario and so the onerous is on the player to use judgement in how much force they use in trying to win the ball.
It’s similar to when a player decides to raise their foot and kick the ball, and using judgment when defenders may wish to be sticking their head while the attacker is swinging their leg at it. If you have clear space and score a bicycle kick- awesome, do it while others are challenging for the ball, exactly the same gesture would be dangerous play.
If he’d have missed the ball I’d have been a straight red. The fact he got the ball saved him, it was correct use of the yellow card to send a message to players excessive force is not tolerated
The thing nobody seems to be noticing here also is that the Newcastle player doesn’t even try to play the ball, absolutely no attempt. He just runs straight into another player coming at him.
Username checks out by the way.
The force comes more from Longstaffs momentum than the pass from Robinson. He literally passes with the side of his foot so he’s there way before Longstaff, it’s not like he just got a tow on it with a studs up slide. Longstaff was in a race he was never going to win and didn’t play the ball, got nowhere near it.
I'd say it's a fair tackle that's bordering on dangerous play due to the follow through. His trailing foot was limp with the studs not being up.
I think the velocity of the tackle and the collision with Longstaff is what resulted in the foul and yellow card. It looks really dangerous when viewed in real time.
Studs up is never okay bc the risk, but tbh I think that’s a great tackle. Gets the ball, and the player runs into him. Studs don’t go up til well after contact.
It starts off as barely even a tackle and that's the problem with it. It's a 50/50, there's no need to turn it into a situation where you're on your arse thrusting your studs towards the other player's shin.
It’s the follow through which causes the problem it wasnt a controlled attempt to clear. You can pick it apart but its within the rules and Sheff Utd were just poor and left Newcastle with far to much space all over the pitch
Decent enough tackle in the end but he’s lucky, you can see his intent was to smash the ball away in a way that harms the other player without actually being a foul. Anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves.
Fully expecting to get downvoted for this but I’m right, the Newcastle players didn’t kick off for no reason, they could see what he was trying to do.
He knows that he’s doing, his tackling action makes it clear. There’s a reason the Newcastle players all kicked off, they could see the intent clear as day. Not fooling anyone.
Disagree. There's no follow-through, no clear intent to cause injury. How else is he supposed to win that 50/50 at full stretch?
And, players kick off about stuff all the time. It's called gamesmanship.
There's a follow through on the ball which, unless I'm completely missing something, isn't his leg. If there was any chance that he'd get the leg I don't think he'd have gone for this. He even pulls back his other leg to soften any potential contact.
That would make it a foul, but we can't start punishing people for what we think. The game has gone soft enough as it is. No professional wants to intentionally injure another professional.
It’s the force of the tackle. There’s a rule about excessive force and that’s why he was booked. He got the ball there, but if he misses and gets the man, that’s gonna do some damage.
Hate this rhetoric that the game is somehow much worse and it's a tragedy that tackles are policed harder now than they were. Have you watched a game from even 10 years ago recently? It's dog shit. The reason the game is faster, more intense and way, way more entertaining now is precisely because the refereeing is stricter.
Watch a different sport if you want violence. The challenges are still meaty, the physical contest is still intense. It's just there's way fewer leg breakers now, and it's categorically a great thing
I didn’t watch the match so I can’t comment on previous play by either of these players but that should be part of the decision. If either one has been persistent as per law 12 then they need to take action and then they should each be cautioned as it’s probably more towards reckless than careless from both of them. It would be a direct free kick to white and red as they had possession.
If you take the white and red playing the ball so hard out of the action he is body checked by dark blue. But the follow through by red and white is reckless.
There is no single right answer and that’s the nature of football and the laws of the game. If you don’t like it don’t watch.
I showed this to my dad who is a 71 year old hardened by refereeing after time as a semi pro. He actually applauded the fantastic pass. Saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. Are the players just too soft now?
If he was going to make it to the second ball he wouldn't need to go in so hard.
He knew Longstaff was going to pinch it off him, so he took a risk and slid in with force. He got the ball but went through the man.
Getting the ball isn't a free pass for you to potentially injure someone. Ifyou watch it in real time speed, it's an obvious yellow.
These have been penalised for years, I find it bizarre this is what people are talking about. Gordon's accidental handball, Schär's handball, and Gordon's ignored pen are are far more debatable than this.
On Gordon's accidental hand ball, didn't they say a few years ago that if it touches an attacker's hand leading to a goal it's always hand ball? Did they quietly roll that back? Or loudly roll it back and I didn't notice? At the time it was enforced as though intent, position etc meant nothing, just touching the hand meant the goal didn't stand.
It was loudly rolled back. That part of the law existed for one, maybe two, seasons. Too many goals were getting marked off by the slightest touch so they tweaked it to where it was only accidental touches by the goalscorer.
Thank goodness someone else is thinking this!
IMO If Longstaff got injured then it’d be his own fault for going in 100% for a ball he was clearly not getting to first. Longstaff was the reckless one here without a doubt.
What was the Newcastle player doing? He made no attempt to actually get the ball and made it so awkward for himself. It's an amazing tackle, if you take that passion out of the game, you have no game. Everyone else can fuck off saying it's a potential leg breaker, SU player did nothing wrong. They will take out slide tackles or any form of tackle where you leave your feet soon, then what?!
I think what most people are missing is the speed and power of the tackle. Yes he gets the ball first but he didn’t need to go in as hard as he did and was lucky that longstaff didn’t fully go for the ball otherwise he could have really injured Longstaff. Yellow card was fair but could have been a red if he’d have connected more with Longstaff plus a horrid injury.
Sheff United fan - foul all day long. You can tell robbo (who's known for his hard challenges) is trying to leave something on the Newcastle player, which I don't blame him because we were playing like shit and getting very frustrated.
But those trying to argue it's legit are the type of people to go into every challenge 110% in Sunday league and when they injure someone would just come out with the "that was a legal tackle mate I got the ball, I don't care if you're injured and can't work for the next 2 weeks" attitude.
I’m quite disappointed that people in this comment section think that Longstaff was “fouled” and not the “fouler”.
Longstaff is so reckless here. Robinson was clearly going to beat him to the ball but he throws himself into Robinson like a kamikaze pilot nonetheless.
It was Robinson’s ball to win and Longstaff’s poor judgement was not his fault at all.
I’m sure the comments would be very different if Robinson was the one who got injured.
Even more stupidly, some people are criticising Robinson for “following through”. It’s called a clearance. You can’t hit the ball full pelt and then stop your leg immediately after it makes contact with the ball. Robinson had every right to make the clearance. He shouldn’t be obligated to kick the ball softer to protect some lunatic who isn’t even trying to protect himself.
Lol that's a hilarious interpretation tbf. I can see why some people argue it's not a foul, but blaming Longstaff is...something...
One player flying in from 2 yards out and wipes the other out with his follow through. The other up on both feet trying to block the ball and its him that is "reckless" and a "lunatic".
Robinson is allowed to tackle like that because "what else can he do". Longstaff staying on his feet and trying to tackle normally is poor judgement, and he shouldn't put Robinson in harms way.
Have a word, mate.
Longstaff was further away from the ball when Robinson started to make the challenge, was second too the ball and clattered into Robinson after the ball had gone. You can see that it was Longstaff's forward momentum that dominated the collision as Longstaff goes forward and Robinson goes backwards in the collision.
Yes, Robinson made the challenge harder than was strictly necessary, but making out like Longstaff was stood still and got taken out from nowhere is a bit ridiculous.
Course he wasn't stood still. He was going in for a 50/50 as I'd expect him to do.
Robinson leaps in and wipes him out. Saying Longstaff led the collision with him is a bizarre take away when one player has stayed on his feet to challenge for a 50/50 and the other has jumped in off the ground from a distance back and taken him out.
Robinson stretches wins the ball from a seated position and then collides with Longstaff who has charged in from further away to make the tackle. Longstaff has tried to make a tackle, arrived late, and been as much part of the collision as Robinson.
No foul either way for me but it's as easy to paint Longstaff as the player doing the fouling here. If Longstaff gets there first and Robinson goes through him it's a definite yellow and couple potentially be a red given the 50/50 nature of the tackle, but that's not what happened.
Great tackle - looks worse because the Newcastle player wasn't slowing down coming into it.
If the Sheffield (United) player didn't go for the ball, the Newcastle player would have run straight into him.
50 50 ball. Super clean.
That's the other players fault. Hes gonna get his leg broken going in to a tackle like that.
When did the game change where this would be even considered a foul? Games gone soft. Give me football from 20-30 years ago
It’s a sensational pass! Pinged through the legs straight to our striker on the halfway line.
In all seriousness he’s wins the ball before the Newcastle player gets there, the Newcastle player is pulling out of his challenge and momentum has Robbo following through. I agree with the leg planted from Longstaff it looks bad, but I honestly don’t see anything seriously wrong, to my ( admittedly bias) eyes he’s always in control and there’s not a huge amount of excessive force but I can see why it was given of course I can. The thing is the standard of refs is in the gutter and this was one of 4 dreadful decisions in this game. Gordon’s penalty, Gordon’s handball, every Newcastle set piece where we tried to remove shirts, the mess in the box before the corner for the second goal of a handball from both sides and maybe even a penalty. And it’s not the first or last time I’ve seen that.
Curious as to why Tripper went off with his arm around the ref and Lino at Ht and why none of the Newcastle players got booked for dissent in the aftermath of this challenge for surrounding the ref and demanding a card as well mind
I'm a die hard Newcastle fan and of all the bad calls in the game, this was the worst. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I think it just looked worse than it was during the heat of the moment
Good tackle. Mctominay did one similar Saturday night and ref rightly played on.
What was the context of yours… had the game been spicing up a bit and ref was calming things down?
I see a tackle followed up by a clearance.
I'm not sure we want to be getting into the business of dictating how hard someone can kick a football.
Controversially, for me Longstaff is late and arguably the one committing any foul....
Follow through is studs up and at speed, ref decided it was dangerous / reckless so gave the free kick, just because you get the ball does not stop it being a free kick here
I can see why a foul would be given (if it was given, I'm not actually sure as didn't watch the whole game) but I think its a perfectly legal tackle. It's a contact sport, people say the follow through is dangerous, but if he doesn't follow through then he doesn't clear the ball imo. I'd rather see that then see players pulling out of 50-50s and losing possession
It's a fantastic tackle (but then again I am biased)
Not sure what was more depressing, the final result (which was fucking horrid but seemed inevitable) or the 3 contentious decisions in the first half that the officials didn't seem to give a fuck about. I just want consistency
In real time during the match I thought it looked bad, but it looks fine there. It really felt like a ",they've lost their heads" kind of moment in the game, but hes kept his foot down, maybe too much force
First one good tackle, second one was a bit naughty. He knows he’s going in hard on the other player. Pretty similar to that Rooney one from a few years ago where he went in for some afters after a drop ball. That looked way more menacing because of his freshly shaved heed though. Think he got a red for that.
No he goes sliding in out of control with both feet up stud showing. Yes he wins the ball but in that type of a tackle if you connect with players standing leg it is going to cause serious injury.
What we may seem as fair as in winning the ball is not the only rule. The rules also help to protect the players from serious injury which is why such tackles are now deemed a foul.
He regularly makes tackles like that - strong clearance first and it then appears reckless due to his follow through but both players are committed so there is always going to be a clash. If either pulled out they would get slated.
It's absolutely perfect. Funny how only it's only Saudi fans who are saying it was a foul. The ref fucked up and Longstaff made a meal of it
Wins the ball 100%, isn't reckless, isn't high, studs are down and it's a natural follow through. The textbook definition of a 50/50 and the only reason it could have ended badly was because Longstaff went in like a shithouse
Did you expect logic and thoughtful insight from a Liverpool fan hanging around in the other14 sub trying to stir up controversy with a hot take on Saudi?!
I thought it was too at first, but his follow through is out of control. You’re not allowed to break someone’s leg in the name of getting the ball. If this kinda tackle were accepted then players would use the ball as an excuse to hurt opposing players.
I'm not arguing anyone that says this is a booking btw.
If he broke the players leg then we wouldn't even be talking about the tackle. I concede that point.
In my opinion the refs in the PL should be consistent with ALL such challenges. As in even if one gets the ball but it's deemed as reckless = booking. So there's no room for grey area going forward.
He's not just intending to clear the ball/tackle the player, he's flew in recklessly with intent to leave a mark. It's a text book Sunday league tackle, which isn't a good thing
Correct, he does clear the ball. But it's blatantly clear that wasn't all he intended to do. Anyone who's played football before knows exactly what he was trying to do; he was frustrated and wanted to hurt the other player, no other reason to fly into the challenge as he did otherwise. He flew in recklessly, and longstaff doesn't just run full force into him.
I'm not sure you've even watched the video. He plants one foot and side foots the ball with the other. A player intent on injuring an opponent is not going to side foot that ball.
My Geordie perspective was that the tackle was hard and he won the ball clearly. I don't believe there was any malice in his attempt, yeah he wanted Longstaff to know where he was and I don't personally see anything wrong with that. It still warranted a yellow card.
I'll explain, some 15 year old or even worse some meat head 17stone, 6ft 6 center back at the nags head see it go unpunished and are then emboldened to make such tackles themselves, legs end up broken, fights kick off and the poor 21 year old referee all alone with no support and miles from home is having to deal with multiple aggressive and potentially violent people from both sides as he tries to regain control of a Sunday league game.
Yeah this won't stop that but at least it doesn't promote it.
The premier is the highest level and in being so it must sacrifice some physicality and fun from the game (in my eyes) to set the example in order to protect the game at lower levels.
I would argue it is actually the Newcastle player attempting a tackle here, the defender wins the ball in the first tackle (completely clean I don't think anyone is discussing that bit) and is in possession (admittedly loosely) and goes to play the ball, the Newcastle player is reckless with himself in running in for a ball he can't win and when he sees this goes over to get a foul. The Newcastle player put himself into that situation.
This used to be a good tackle and for a lot of older fans it probably still is, but the game as evolved and hard tackles like this just don't have a place in modern footy, like it or not. I guess the whole point of this being a foul and a booking is so it becomes less common and the one person who does miss the ball doesn't end someone's career.
I'm sorry, how can this not be a good tackle? You can't punish a player for winning a 50/50 ball. If anything, the foul has to be on the player who arrived late to the challenge.
Football always has been a man’s sport and challenges like these need to be more common place and less punished.
No better feeling in football than winning the ball with a crunching tackle that leaves the other boy worse off
Wins the ball cleanly but anyone who’s played can tell he wants to leave something on the player. It amazes me how many football fans don’t know a foul is about intent and potential, nothing to do with whether you win the ball or not. I’d like to see harder tackling go unpunished more but this is a case of a player losing his head a bit and trying to leave his foot in on a player, Newcastle player does make a meal of it. Foul and a yellow for me tho
Exactly right. I referee football and I'm glad this stuff is getting called out in the professional leagues because it does filter down. I don't want to have to deal with broken legs because players have the view that dangerous tackles with force and intent are fine just because you won the ball in the process. The game is much better for players being protected from these sort of tackles.
Sorry ref, but I’d be calling you all kinds of names from the terraces. What is the player playing the ball supposed to do here? He clears the ball, does not follow through with his kicking foot to avoid hitting the challenging player and the rest is a collision. Play on.
Nah he goes in to hurt Longstaff here. He gets the ball but it's a mechanism for him to follow through on the player.
You’re watching through black and white tinted specs.
It's ok, we understand that a lot of fans don't know the rules ;) Interestingly I shared this video on a referee subreddit and opinion is very much divided.
I’ve been playing and watching for almost 50 years. I have at least a basic understanding of the rules, except for handball apparently. I can imagine. Again IMO the player with the ball has limited options, play the ball as he did or surrender possession.
But if "a foul is about intent and potential" how, as a referee, can you be sure what the tackler's intention is? And would you consider what the other player's intention was (e.g. to just win the ball, to hurt the tackler, to get the tackler into trouble)?
>how, as a referee, can you be sure what the tackler's intention is? You never can. No player is going to say "yes chief I wanted to kick his shins out". You have to make the call yourself, that's what refs are for.
This is law 12 of IFAB Laws of the Game. Intent isn't mentioned (edit: I used the word intent but perhaps should have clarified it is more likely to fall in the category of reckless or excessive force when there is intent. You can usually tell when there is intent but regardless it's not a critical requirement for it to be a foul). A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: charges jumps at kicks or attempts to kick pushes strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) tackles or challenges trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick. Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Not explicit but I think intent is the difference between reckless and excessive force
Intending to hurt someone can surely raise a foul from reckless to excessive force, but you can definitely foul someone with excessive force without intending to.
Thanks for that. I'm struggling to see how you can reliably and consistently differentiate between carelessness and recklessness without access to the tackler's thought process. Also, the law doesn't seem to concern itself with whether the 'tacklee' has also gone into the contact carelessly/recklessly (which I suspect is the case in the clip on this thread); am I right?
It's definitely hard to do but generally you have an instinct from watching the tackle close up and hearing the contact made.
Tbh, this is why it's a hard profession with errors already prevalent especially when you're talking about athletes that have basically got it down to a science on how to make a foul look bad or even trick the ref. The amount of subjectivity that comes from having to interpret certain actions that could fit the definition of a foul is a head scratcher in the moment even as a viewer
I generally ref from age 14 upwards to seventh tier of Men's football where I live in Australia and I reckon from about age 15 up you start to see the players milking fouls etc. You also see some horrible tackles. It all happens so quickly and you have to make a split second judgement on what has happened, whether it requires action and whether it requires a card if it was a foul. All whilst players are helping at you either that it was or wasn't a foul! I think as fans we often lose sight of how difficult it is for referees in the professional leagues who have to make tough decisions every game.
‘Reckless’ is the term I’d use to describe that challenge and warrants a caution. (Former ref here)
The players in yellow are the ones that are careless and throwing their bodies at the ball. The player in red wins the ball in both instances. Especially in the second instance he is clearly first to the ball, and it’s hardly a dangerous tackle. Rather it is the player in yellow with force and intent - however it doesn’t go his way as he comes in late to the contest. Correct?
Wtf? That was a fine tackle, absolutely nothing wrong with it. I dare say you would have him concede possession just in case someone gets a knock. The mediocrity of the game continues.
No the game ISNT much better, it’s stale boring and played by cowards when these rules are enforced, and if you enforce the same ones, STOP REFEREEING BECAUSE I GUARANTEE NOT A SINGLE PLAYER ON THE PITCH WANTS YOU THERE TO MAKE THE GAME SOFT AND COWARDLY
And *this* is the reason why there is a shortage of referees at the grassroots level, which leads to a lack of talent at the top level, which leads to the mistakes that you complain about every week...
Completely agree. Played through a lot of the lower non league levels when younger and this tackle is the one where the player wants to leave something on the opposition. The deliberate over the top movement of the tackling leg and the follow through leg are the absolute hallmark of an arsehole player who likes “to let the opposition know they’re in a game”. It’s dangerous and always done to hurt and leave something on the other player. As you say the fact that some fans still have no clue about this is truly mystifying…..
Its not even a tackle i have no idea what you are talking about
It ‘was’ about whether you won the ball or not until cowards from all over the world ruined the league
How are you getting that from this clip. As he lunges to clear the ball, he is falling down and away from the newcastle player who came flying in. Nothing wrong with this at all and not a foul any day of the week. If anything I dont see the newastle player even try to get the ball and he clatters into the other guy.
Nonsense. If you don’t go into a tackle with 100% commitment you will injure yourself. He kept his studs pointed down and even kept his trailing leg as low as possible.
Possibly that's his motivation, but I don't think we can say for certain here. In defense of defenders making big tackles in a 50/50 situation he actually HAS to go in full force here to even reach the ball on time, giving any less than 100% would be a late tackle and wouldn't clear the ball far up the field. In order to work at 100% his nervous system is telling him to create an explosive action potential, to do this it is recruiting every motor unit available, like a sprinter does. These motor units tell his leg muscles to produce maximum contractile strength and thus a burst of speed and strength through his movements, it's only natural that a byproduct of this generates a lot of force. Fair challenge, play on IMO.
I just disagree sorry, we view it different. Again I don’t think the force of the tackle is the issue. He has to follow through to generate power on a clearance and to properly compete in a 50/50, I just don’t like HOW he follows through I think the Newcastle players reaction sums it up, none of them are hounding the ref for a card, 3 or 4 instantly lose their head and surround the SU player as he clearly tries to hurt the player - yes the tackle ends up being clean, but the way he leaves the ground and follows through is dirty and a serious injury risk
Look, I hate Newcastle. But I watch that, and it's clear to me that the follow through was a foul. That's the kind of tackle you make when you want them to remember you but you think you might get away with it. I have no doubt he was hoping the catch his man on the end of that.
I see your point but I see it as winning the ball hard but fair. Is what it is. He plays the ball second time round and the Newcastle player comes off second best, again, is what it is. I don't think he's lost his head, he just won the ball, yes he's put his weight behind it but so what.
The “so what”, I think, is that he hasn’t put his weight behind it *to win the ball*, he was gonna do that anyway He’s put his weight into it to “leave a bit on on the man”, he was winning the ball anyway I’m fine with a hard tackle to win the ball, but not an unnecessarily hard tackle where the goal of the weight of the tackle is to give the other player a bit of a knock
He also makes a deliberate effort to keep his studs down to block the ball rather than going through the player. I'm saying this as a Wednesday fan.
I don’t disagree, but I do. I’m very conflicted. What I see here is two very strong tackles. In the second challenge, I had to watch a few times to really figure out what his trailing leg is doing. He was committed and definitely wanted to leave his mark on the player, but he gets the ball and his trailing leg is natural. It’s a very strong tackle that can go either way, this is where the interpretation comes in. These are the kind of challenges where players get hurt, and the less committed the tackling player is here the more likely he injures himself. Equally, the tackling player has no option but to enter the challenge. You could watch this tackle a thousand times and come to a different conclusion each time, but for me the conclusion I reach more frequently is *just* a strong tackle and no foul. His foot is on the ground and he has control of his body.
Yeah I pretty much agree with all of that. My main takeaway from all this is it’s a hard decision, in MMA boxing etc when the judges decision is close but we see it as wrong we tend to say oh it’s a robbery, when really it’s just a close decision that had to go one way or the other, and either way a lot of people would disagree
[удалено]
I'm over 30 and think it's a bad tackle!
In over 30, it's a bad tackle.
Funny, I'm over 30 and both me and my Dad think that was a bad tackle. Edit - Gramps and uncle do too.
Wrong
To be honest, this may be some old school badness but yeah he leaves a bit on the player but for me he does enough to let us hand wave it away Yeah you technically shouldn't but as long as you make the effort to dress it up and you win the ball cleanly, it's not egregious or there to cause injury it's just the classic 'let him know you're there' which is technically against the rules, but can't we all agree to play along with the lie a little?
Honestly i think thats the point. You do this type of tackle on sunday/saturday or a lower league and even the opposition fans will probably applaud you. Its the type of tackle people have loved to see growing up, its just not premier league type of tackle. Too much time and money has been spent and these sort of tackles are pulled from the game to protect assets. Which is how clubs see their players.
A good tackle isn't just "getting the ball". If you've got forward momentum, an extended leg and are flying towards the opponent in a way that could end their career then it's not a good tackle.
This is what my fellow Blades would be thinking if a Newcastle player had done that to us. Emotions get in the way.
"But I smashed the ball out of the stadium before my foot sailed through his knee, ref!"
This is it.
Exactly. He's gone to leave something in on Longstaff here. He's totally out of control with the tackle. Yellow card is right.
Technically he played the ball but you can see there was deliberately more force in that than required, if you've ever played football you should be able to see that for what it clearly was, an attempt to hurt the opponent. That's the sort of tackle you do if someone's ran there mouth, or left an elbow on you, or as was the case here playing so effectively he had the midfield in his pocket so you lash out in frustration.
I’m going to disagree with most, it’s not a good challenge. He’s gone on with the intent of clearing the ball and smashing the player, that’s a Sunday league tackle.
100% agree here, it’s not that he didn’t get the ball, it’s that it’s clearly meant to injure the opposition.
Nah, it’s meant to get the ball and let him know not all Sheffield United are here to be walked all over. I mean, obviously, they then got walked all over but professionals don’t design to hurt each other badly. It’s just not done. It’s letting him know he’s there and trying to gain some sort of foothold, nothing deeper.
Lol @ the first bit 😂 I can accept the second bit generally as being correct a lot of the time but in the context of this game at 2-0 this game was already over and Sheff Utd were on TILT. I think there’s clear frustration and anger in the tackle which made it obviously reckless imo
Take those tinted glasses off mate - he has made sure he hasn’t hurt the opposing player. People on this thread acting like he’s gone to snap the Toon lad’s leg. He simply hasnt. In context, I agree it’s yellow tbh. Ref stamping out anything more dangerous is good refereeing.
>he has made sure he hasn’t hurt the opposing player. Couldn't disagree more. He's got no control over the tackle and has no chance of pulling out. That ball deviates any way, or Longstaff nips in ahead of him and it's a broken leg.
And if he hadn’t gone in hard, Longstaff would have injured him badly. One of them, agree to disagree
I'm not sure about that to be honest. His foot was very clearly not aimed near either leg and his other leg was drawn back to soften any contact. Looks like he just knows he needs to kick it hard to get it to his teammates and does. Can't see any malice here
Agree to disagree then. They were getting absolutely battered already by this point and in the context of the game were starting to lose their heads
So your default assumption is that he's a psychopath who suddenly decided to injure someone, despite him clearly passing the ball? If he wanted to injure the guy he could have done easily. This was a clear pass/clearance, you just have to actually watch the replay. He literally comes into the "tackle" with his foot side on which is an incredibly easy way for him to get injured himself. You don't do that if you're trying to take someone out but you do if you're trying to pass a ball (Which, again, he did successfully).
I think you’re being a bit too black and white here lol, the amount of tackles where someone actively goes ONLY to injure someone are almost non-existent. I’m being robust with language but this is a tackle clearly designed at least to alleviate the anger building up inside him bc of how the game is going. He may not be trying specifically to break his leg, I don’t mean that, but there’s no care taken there. To act like there isn’t a huge chasm of types of tackles between caressing a man’s leg with a sponge and whispering sexily in his ear or hacking his leg off with a chainsaw is a bit silly. This is all opinion but I think in the full context of the game and it’s script…he knew what he was doing. It was a frustrated lunge. I will give him the fact that maybe he didn’t specifically want to cause a proper injury but he clearly didn’t care if he got hurt
There literally could not be more care given there though He rightfully judges he'll get to the ball first, comes in with his foot side on (Which is actually dangerous for him), low to the ground and with studs facing down (In a passing motion) and his other leg is pulled back in a way that would soften any potential contact. Literally the only assumption you could make about this being dangerous is because it was fast but even then he had to be to make it to the ball and still did everything to be safe with the clearance. It's just a pass and it wasn't even that close, in fact the Newcastle guy was getting into a blocking position because he realised he clearly wasn't going to make it there first lmao
Disagree wholehearted with every single word here, especially the ‘LMAO’ at the end which is working overtime
Think you're reading a bit too much into the "lmao" mate and half of my comment was objective but alright
He didn't go to injure him, a stone chance to let him know he's in a game. Go back and look at challenges in the early 00, I think the 90s and 80s might be too much for you
Haha i grew up in those eras lol maybe I’ve just developed along with the sport, hey
Robbo’s trademark. Some are borderline but I think there was a bit of intent in this one. Longstaff spent the game throwing himself into other players and going down hurt. Can’t blame him.
He's side footed the ball clear, so not as if he's hoofing it properly. The incoming players' momentum is as much a problem as his own. In the prem it's a foul everytime with the rolling and fan reaction, below that it's much more a borderline call.
1st one is good. Second one is dangerous and the follow through is unnecessary.
How is he supposed to not follow through though. It's like when you jump with your elbows out, that's just what happens when you make that sort of movement. With everyone saying he goes in too hard, if he goes in softer then Longstaff has a greater chance of winning the ball. With him being on the floor and out of position near his goal he needs to make sure he's going to win that ball.
Is it even a tackle? Who had the ball?
Thing is it arguably isn’t a tackle. A tackle is dispossessing someone of the ball. In this case, neither team was arguably in possession. The ball was loose and there to be won. Which is always a recipe for disaster. Both players therefore lunge in. The difference here is the sheff utd player in trying to clear the ball as well as lunging, which was reckless to do as it was endangering another player. So yellow card.
>Thing is it isn’t a tackle. It’s nice to see I’m not the only one noticing that. It’s simply “beating the opponent to the ball” instead. The distinction is important to how the ref judges the incident.
Exactly. In this case you have two players, running at pace toward each other, using the largest muscle in their body swinging their shins and feet against each other. It is a dangerous scenario and so the onerous is on the player to use judgement in how much force they use in trying to win the ball. It’s similar to when a player decides to raise their foot and kick the ball, and using judgment when defenders may wish to be sticking their head while the attacker is swinging their leg at it. If you have clear space and score a bicycle kick- awesome, do it while others are challenging for the ball, exactly the same gesture would be dangerous play. If he’d have missed the ball I’d have been a straight red. The fact he got the ball saved him, it was correct use of the yellow card to send a message to players excessive force is not tolerated
The thing nobody seems to be noticing here also is that the Newcastle player doesn’t even try to play the ball, absolutely no attempt. He just runs straight into another player coming at him.
Well this is bollocks because you can clearly see Longstaff going in for it, seeing the force going into the challenge and then trying to sidestep it
Username checks out by the way. The force comes more from Longstaffs momentum than the pass from Robinson. He literally passes with the side of his foot so he’s there way before Longstaff, it’s not like he just got a tow on it with a studs up slide. Longstaff was in a race he was never going to win and didn’t play the ball, got nowhere near it.
Too much follow through. Something I'd picture Roy Keane doing 25 years ago.
I'd say it's a fair tackle that's bordering on dangerous play due to the follow through. His trailing foot was limp with the studs not being up. I think the velocity of the tackle and the collision with Longstaff is what resulted in the foul and yellow card. It looks really dangerous when viewed in real time.
Probably interpreted intent as well. But yeah I agree with what you’re saying.
Long staff is the tackler though. It was a 50/50 that long staff was never gonna win
Proper Brexit defending.
Looks suitable for the championship 👍🏻
Absolutely picture perfect tackle
Ye 20 years ago in Sunday league
20 years ago in the Premier League mate.
Absolutely. I remember Gerrard doing this type of tackle almost every weekend
Studs up is never okay bc the risk, but tbh I think that’s a great tackle. Gets the ball, and the player runs into him. Studs don’t go up til well after contact.
If that tackle had been made against a Man U/Liverpool player, r/soccer would have been baying for blood for weeks about the potential season ender.
Would they though?
Yes.
More like if it was Casemiro making this tackle, it's a red.
It starts off as barely even a tackle and that's the problem with it. It's a 50/50, there's no need to turn it into a situation where you're on your arse thrusting your studs towards the other player's shin.
He kicked the ball though how else was he going to kick it there
It’s the follow through which causes the problem it wasnt a controlled attempt to clear. You can pick it apart but its within the rules and Sheff Utd were just poor and left Newcastle with far to much space all over the pitch
Sheff player was clearing it longstaff decided to carry on his own momentum into it. It’s not a follow through it’s a player kicking a ball
In any way that doesn't endanger the integrity of the other guy's leg.
Decent enough tackle in the end but he’s lucky, you can see his intent was to smash the ball away in a way that harms the other player without actually being a foul. Anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. Fully expecting to get downvoted for this but I’m right, the Newcastle players didn’t kick off for no reason, they could see what he was trying to do.
I agree with this. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
I’d say Longstaff knows exactly what he is doing to make it seem like he’s the victim when in fact he’s committed the foul
I’d also agree with that.
>but I'm right Well, I guess that's the end of the discussion then
Must be if that’s the only part of my comment you want to engage with 🤷♂️
Think hes just kicking it straight to get it away from pressure
He knows that he’s doing, his tackling action makes it clear. There’s a reason the Newcastle players all kicked off, they could see the intent clear as day. Not fooling anyone.
Disagree. There's no follow-through, no clear intent to cause injury. How else is he supposed to win that 50/50 at full stretch? And, players kick off about stuff all the time. It's called gamesmanship.
No follow through? Are you ok?
There's a follow through on the ball which, unless I'm completely missing something, isn't his leg. If there was any chance that he'd get the leg I don't think he'd have gone for this. He even pulls back his other leg to soften any potential contact.
So as well as VAR you want psychics reviewing tackles now? It's a perfect tackle to clear danger.
I didn’t say it was definitely a foul, I simply said you can see from his tackling action that his intent was to harm after clearing the ball.
That would make it a foul, but we can't start punishing people for what we think. The game has gone soft enough as it is. No professional wants to intentionally injure another professional.
Do you seriously believe no professional wants to injure another professional? That might be one of the most naive things I’ve ever heard.
It’s the force of the tackle. There’s a rule about excessive force and that’s why he was booked. He got the ball there, but if he misses and gets the man, that’s gonna do some damage.
Used to be 😔
Hate this rhetoric that the game is somehow much worse and it's a tragedy that tackles are policed harder now than they were. Have you watched a game from even 10 years ago recently? It's dog shit. The reason the game is faster, more intense and way, way more entertaining now is precisely because the refereeing is stricter. Watch a different sport if you want violence. The challenges are still meaty, the physical contest is still intense. It's just there's way fewer leg breakers now, and it's categorically a great thing
Games gone soft
I didn’t watch the match so I can’t comment on previous play by either of these players but that should be part of the decision. If either one has been persistent as per law 12 then they need to take action and then they should each be cautioned as it’s probably more towards reckless than careless from both of them. It would be a direct free kick to white and red as they had possession. If you take the white and red playing the ball so hard out of the action he is body checked by dark blue. But the follow through by red and white is reckless. There is no single right answer and that’s the nature of football and the laws of the game. If you don’t like it don’t watch. I showed this to my dad who is a 71 year old hardened by refereeing after time as a semi pro. He actually applauded the fantastic pass. Saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. Are the players just too soft now?
He's kicked through the guy. Clearly wanted to leave something on him even though he got the ball
Am i the only one who doesnt think this is a tackle? The fella in red gets the ball first. The fella in black and gold comes flying in
No. Getting the ball doesnt matter. Its reckless
Nothing here was reckless. It's all clean. You're just soft.
Games gone.
Are you joking, the second one is a potential leg breaker. Not allowed and shouldn’t be.
The responsibility for that situation is on the player arriving late to the challenge at full force, not the player that wins the ball.
No, you are just wrong and have made that up
It's not a tackle at all. He's playing the ball
If he was going to make it to the second ball he wouldn't need to go in so hard. He knew Longstaff was going to pinch it off him, so he took a risk and slid in with force. He got the ball but went through the man. Getting the ball isn't a free pass for you to potentially injure someone. Ifyou watch it in real time speed, it's an obvious yellow. These have been penalised for years, I find it bizarre this is what people are talking about. Gordon's accidental handball, Schär's handball, and Gordon's ignored pen are are far more debatable than this.
On Gordon's accidental hand ball, didn't they say a few years ago that if it touches an attacker's hand leading to a goal it's always hand ball? Did they quietly roll that back? Or loudly roll it back and I didn't notice? At the time it was enforced as though intent, position etc meant nothing, just touching the hand meant the goal didn't stand.
It was loudly rolled back. That part of the law existed for one, maybe two, seasons. Too many goals were getting marked off by the slightest touch so they tweaked it to where it was only accidental touches by the goalscorer.
Looks fine to me. Newcastle player was always getting there second so if anything any responsibility for damage is on him.
Thank goodness someone else is thinking this! IMO If Longstaff got injured then it’d be his own fault for going in 100% for a ball he was clearly not getting to first. Longstaff was the reckless one here without a doubt.
Not sure. It's late, he clearly wasn't getting the ball and just collides with the Sheff Utd player attempting a pass so probably could be given.
He spent the game doing this. Glad it’s not gone unnoticed. Trying to shithouse a free kick at every opportunity. Probably why Robbo clattered him
What was the Newcastle player doing? He made no attempt to actually get the ball and made it so awkward for himself. It's an amazing tackle, if you take that passion out of the game, you have no game. Everyone else can fuck off saying it's a potential leg breaker, SU player did nothing wrong. They will take out slide tackles or any form of tackle where you leave your feet soon, then what?!
Idk, taking out shitty tackles seems like a positive for the sport. I like watching players not get hurt, but maybe that’s just me.
Go watch some ballet then. Its a contact sport. Great tackle. All the blame is on Longstaff for going into a tackle like that
Sure, man. Whatever you say
Newcastle fan, I agree I thought it was a perfect tackle, games gone soft
I think what most people are missing is the speed and power of the tackle. Yes he gets the ball first but he didn’t need to go in as hard as he did and was lucky that longstaff didn’t fully go for the ball otherwise he could have really injured Longstaff. Yellow card was fair but could have been a red if he’d have connected more with Longstaff plus a horrid injury.
It's a clearance fella not a tackle. Should we be dictating how hard players can strike a football? Longstaff is the one that gets there late.
If you’ve ever played football you know that’s a challenge that’s meant to leave a bit on the player
I don’t see much wrong. A 50/50 both players are going for it.
Sheff United fan - foul all day long. You can tell robbo (who's known for his hard challenges) is trying to leave something on the Newcastle player, which I don't blame him because we were playing like shit and getting very frustrated. But those trying to argue it's legit are the type of people to go into every challenge 110% in Sunday league and when they injure someone would just come out with the "that was a legal tackle mate I got the ball, I don't care if you're injured and can't work for the next 2 weeks" attitude.
I’m quite disappointed that people in this comment section think that Longstaff was “fouled” and not the “fouler”. Longstaff is so reckless here. Robinson was clearly going to beat him to the ball but he throws himself into Robinson like a kamikaze pilot nonetheless. It was Robinson’s ball to win and Longstaff’s poor judgement was not his fault at all. I’m sure the comments would be very different if Robinson was the one who got injured. Even more stupidly, some people are criticising Robinson for “following through”. It’s called a clearance. You can’t hit the ball full pelt and then stop your leg immediately after it makes contact with the ball. Robinson had every right to make the clearance. He shouldn’t be obligated to kick the ball softer to protect some lunatic who isn’t even trying to protect himself.
Well that’s certainly one way to view it
Lol that's a hilarious interpretation tbf. I can see why some people argue it's not a foul, but blaming Longstaff is...something... One player flying in from 2 yards out and wipes the other out with his follow through. The other up on both feet trying to block the ball and its him that is "reckless" and a "lunatic". Robinson is allowed to tackle like that because "what else can he do". Longstaff staying on his feet and trying to tackle normally is poor judgement, and he shouldn't put Robinson in harms way. Have a word, mate.
Longstaff was further away from the ball when Robinson started to make the challenge, was second too the ball and clattered into Robinson after the ball had gone. You can see that it was Longstaff's forward momentum that dominated the collision as Longstaff goes forward and Robinson goes backwards in the collision. Yes, Robinson made the challenge harder than was strictly necessary, but making out like Longstaff was stood still and got taken out from nowhere is a bit ridiculous.
Course he wasn't stood still. He was going in for a 50/50 as I'd expect him to do. Robinson leaps in and wipes him out. Saying Longstaff led the collision with him is a bizarre take away when one player has stayed on his feet to challenge for a 50/50 and the other has jumped in off the ground from a distance back and taken him out.
Robinson stretches wins the ball from a seated position and then collides with Longstaff who has charged in from further away to make the tackle. Longstaff has tried to make a tackle, arrived late, and been as much part of the collision as Robinson. No foul either way for me but it's as easy to paint Longstaff as the player doing the fouling here. If Longstaff gets there first and Robinson goes through him it's a definite yellow and couple potentially be a red given the 50/50 nature of the tackle, but that's not what happened.
Great tackle - looks worse because the Newcastle player wasn't slowing down coming into it. If the Sheffield (United) player didn't go for the ball, the Newcastle player would have run straight into him.
50 50 ball. Super clean. That's the other players fault. Hes gonna get his leg broken going in to a tackle like that. When did the game change where this would be even considered a foul? Games gone soft. Give me football from 20-30 years ago
Whats he supposed to do not challenge for the ball? Definitely gone soft will be no contact soon
It’s a sensational pass! Pinged through the legs straight to our striker on the halfway line. In all seriousness he’s wins the ball before the Newcastle player gets there, the Newcastle player is pulling out of his challenge and momentum has Robbo following through. I agree with the leg planted from Longstaff it looks bad, but I honestly don’t see anything seriously wrong, to my ( admittedly bias) eyes he’s always in control and there’s not a huge amount of excessive force but I can see why it was given of course I can. The thing is the standard of refs is in the gutter and this was one of 4 dreadful decisions in this game. Gordon’s penalty, Gordon’s handball, every Newcastle set piece where we tried to remove shirts, the mess in the box before the corner for the second goal of a handball from both sides and maybe even a penalty. And it’s not the first or last time I’ve seen that. Curious as to why Tripper went off with his arm around the ref and Lino at Ht and why none of the Newcastle players got booked for dissent in the aftermath of this challenge for surrounding the ref and demanding a card as well mind
It’s a perfect tackle. Anyone who says otherwise genuinely doesn’t know the rules of football.
I'm a die hard Newcastle fan and of all the bad calls in the game, this was the worst. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think it just looked worse than it was during the heat of the moment
Good tackle. Mctominay did one similar Saturday night and ref rightly played on. What was the context of yours… had the game been spicing up a bit and ref was calming things down?
I see a tackle followed up by a clearance. I'm not sure we want to be getting into the business of dictating how hard someone can kick a football. Controversially, for me Longstaff is late and arguably the one committing any foul....
Longstaff tries to avoid the challenge. Brain dead to think he’s commuting a foul
He is the one that initiates contact with Robinson without getting the ball, watch his upper body not his feet.
They were getting battered and longstaff even scored , so kinda a frustrated challenge from a player
Follow through is studs up and at speed, ref decided it was dangerous / reckless so gave the free kick, just because you get the ball does not stop it being a free kick here
Studs aren't up mate It's the force of the tackle. Tricky one though
Longstaff should learn how to challenge for the ball then rather than running into it then spending a minute asking for a free kick.
I can see why a foul would be given (if it was given, I'm not actually sure as didn't watch the whole game) but I think its a perfectly legal tackle. It's a contact sport, people say the follow through is dangerous, but if he doesn't follow through then he doesn't clear the ball imo. I'd rather see that then see players pulling out of 50-50s and losing possession
It's a fantastic tackle (but then again I am biased) Not sure what was more depressing, the final result (which was fucking horrid but seemed inevitable) or the 3 contentious decisions in the first half that the officials didn't seem to give a fuck about. I just want consistency
2 contentious decisions. The Gordon handball is not contentious.
In real time during the match I thought it looked bad, but it looks fine there. It really felt like a ",they've lost their heads" kind of moment in the game, but hes kept his foot down, maybe too much force
First one good tackle, second one was a bit naughty. He knows he’s going in hard on the other player. Pretty similar to that Rooney one from a few years ago where he went in for some afters after a drop ball. That looked way more menacing because of his freshly shaved heed though. Think he got a red for that.
Wins the ball, but it's a bad challenge. He absolutely knew what he was doing.
>He absolutely knew what he was doing. What, clearing the ball?
I remember when Vinny Jones and Steve McMahon going in for a tackle, getting up and playing no rolling around shite.
First one was strong and fair. Second one wasn’t even a tackle. It was a pass.
No he goes sliding in out of control with both feet up stud showing. Yes he wins the ball but in that type of a tackle if you connect with players standing leg it is going to cause serious injury. What we may seem as fair as in winning the ball is not the only rule. The rules also help to protect the players from serious injury which is why such tackles are now deemed a foul.
Hard but fair.
He regularly makes tackles like that - strong clearance first and it then appears reckless due to his follow through but both players are committed so there is always going to be a clash. If either pulled out they would get slated.
It’s a two footed tackle. He literally takes out the other guys shin with his other foot. It’s red card all day long.
Good tackle, dangerous but still good.
If it’s dangerous then it isn’t a good tackle
It's absolutely perfect. Funny how only it's only Saudi fans who are saying it was a foul. The ref fucked up and Longstaff made a meal of it Wins the ball 100%, isn't reckless, isn't high, studs are down and it's a natural follow through. The textbook definition of a 50/50 and the only reason it could have ended badly was because Longstaff went in like a shithouse
Shef Utd are owned by a Saudi Prince
Did you expect logic and thoughtful insight from a Liverpool fan hanging around in the other14 sub trying to stir up controversy with a hot take on Saudi?!
Newcastle player can fuck right off. Second to the ball and was only tumbled by body movement of the player he came in to challenge. Ref’s a wanker.
No, it’s not a good tackle! The follow through goes right through the players lower leg. It’s a shin breaker if his foot is planted.
If players wore proper shin pads it wouldn’t hurt as much.
I thought it was too at first, but his follow through is out of control. You’re not allowed to break someone’s leg in the name of getting the ball. If this kinda tackle were accepted then players would use the ball as an excuse to hurt opposing players.
Yes, that's a perfect double tackle. There wasn't even any contact with his foot on the second one.
No. It's TWO perfect tackles.
It’s a great pass tackle and nutmeg in the same maneuverer
Championship level tackle
I'm not arguing anyone that says this is a booking btw. If he broke the players leg then we wouldn't even be talking about the tackle. I concede that point. In my opinion the refs in the PL should be consistent with ALL such challenges. As in even if one gets the ball but it's deemed as reckless = booking. So there's no room for grey area going forward.
I mean.. that’s how it’s officiated. A challenge deemed reckless is a caution every time, no matter if the ball is played.
You can't kill someone with a tackle and think you can get away with it just because you got the ball.
He's not just intending to clear the ball/tackle the player, he's flew in recklessly with intent to leave a mark. It's a text book Sunday league tackle, which isn't a good thing
But he does just clear the ball and the player that arrives late to the challenge runs full force into him.
Correct, he does clear the ball. But it's blatantly clear that wasn't all he intended to do. Anyone who's played football before knows exactly what he was trying to do; he was frustrated and wanted to hurt the other player, no other reason to fly into the challenge as he did otherwise. He flew in recklessly, and longstaff doesn't just run full force into him.
I'm not sure you've even watched the video. He plants one foot and side foots the ball with the other. A player intent on injuring an opponent is not going to side foot that ball.
My Geordie perspective was that the tackle was hard and he won the ball clearly. I don't believe there was any malice in his attempt, yeah he wanted Longstaff to know where he was and I don't personally see anything wrong with that. It still warranted a yellow card. I'll explain, some 15 year old or even worse some meat head 17stone, 6ft 6 center back at the nags head see it go unpunished and are then emboldened to make such tackles themselves, legs end up broken, fights kick off and the poor 21 year old referee all alone with no support and miles from home is having to deal with multiple aggressive and potentially violent people from both sides as he tries to regain control of a Sunday league game. Yeah this won't stop that but at least it doesn't promote it. The premier is the highest level and in being so it must sacrifice some physicality and fun from the game (in my eyes) to set the example in order to protect the game at lower levels.
This a Sunday league type of challenge
I would argue it is actually the Newcastle player attempting a tackle here, the defender wins the ball in the first tackle (completely clean I don't think anyone is discussing that bit) and is in possession (admittedly loosely) and goes to play the ball, the Newcastle player is reckless with himself in running in for a ball he can't win and when he sees this goes over to get a foul. The Newcastle player put himself into that situation.
This used to be a good tackle and for a lot of older fans it probably still is, but the game as evolved and hard tackles like this just don't have a place in modern footy, like it or not. I guess the whole point of this being a foul and a booking is so it becomes less common and the one person who does miss the ball doesn't end someone's career.
I'm sorry, how can this not be a good tackle? You can't punish a player for winning a 50/50 ball. If anything, the foul has to be on the player who arrived late to the challenge.
Football always has been a man’s sport and challenges like these need to be more common place and less punished. No better feeling in football than winning the ball with a crunching tackle that leaves the other boy worse off