The Two Footed Challenge

Is it just me or has football become obsessed with the two footed challenge?

A tackle that has been seen as perfectly fair for over 100 years has suddenly become "assault" and every day the papers are full of twa*ts moaning about the latest "bad" tackle.

Does anyone, especially those that have played football, really think the two footed challenge should be outlawed? Isn't football supposed to be a competitive sport with the risk of injury?

As I've said before, football will be a non-contact sport in 10 years.

A two footed challenge is not a foul. It's only a foul if deemed excessive force or reckless or if you take the man out in a careless way.

Yes a lot of two footed challenges are given as fouls because most of them are excessive or dangerous.

It's quite difficult for most players to jump off the floor with both feet into a tackle and claim that they were in full control of what they did. If they are not in control it is probably dangerous. And more often than not a player does not need to tackle with both feet and it is normally done by a player using excessive force.

The Johnson tackle last night was no different to Kompany's. It's the inconsistency that pees people off.

jayjay23 wrote:A two footed challenge is not a foul. It's only a foul if deemed excessive force or reckless or if you take the man out in a careless way.

Yes a lot of two footed challenges are given as fouls because most of them are excessive or dangerous.

It's quite difficult for most players to jump off the floor with both feet into a tackle and claim that they were in full control of what they did. If they are not in control it is probably dangerous. And more often than not a player does not need to tackle with both feet and it is normally done by a player using excessive force.

You big fat tart jayjay. Football is a game for men, why don't you take up curling or something?

The kompany and johnson tackles were great challenges, both players won the ball and neither player that they tackled appealed against it.....oh apart from that tosser Rooney.

You won't be able to look at an opponent without being sent off next.

The two footed challenge is a cowards way to tackle. They don't teach you that at school so why at Premiership level?

I'm fully behind the attempts to stamp it out.

I played as a defender for years without having to resort to two-footed tackles. As far as I'm concerned, you do that when you are afraid of the player you are tackling and want to take them out of the game.

I think people over exaggerate the damage the authorities' attempts to stamp out nasty tackles is doing to the game.

I don't buy into all this "People come to football matches to see big tackles!"

The game is still good without players flying in on one another, two footed. What is ruining the game is the pressure on referees to see that these challenges absolutely get punished because when they're only 50/50 about it, they'll go with the red card. They'd rather send an innocent case off than keep a guilty case on.

Like every challenge, a two-footed challenge can win the ball cleanly or not. To remain within the spirit of the game, a challenge should be judged entirely on the outcome i.e. what actually happens - rather than systematically wiping out part of the game.

If a two-footed challenge results in a foul i.e. there's contact with the player before the ball it should be given as a foul. If it is violent conduct i.e. the challenge gives the other player no chance of not getting hit then it should be treated as such. But if the ball is won cleanly it should be allowed. Is it too much to ask refs to take back responsibility for such decisions?

I think that a bigger problem is players looking for free kicks by trailing their legs to ensure they get caught - and everyone can see when that happens as the body movement is unnatural.

All in all, there are more "fouls", bookings and sending offs than ever which slows the game and places a greater emphasis on set pieces - a fact I find irritating as FIFA use the excuse of "slowing the game down" as a reason for not allowing video technology whilst at the same time endorsing the continuous stoppages described above.

The argument against video technology is a load of codswallop. The system works perfectly fine in rugby. Goal line technology similar to the Hawkeye system at Wembley would work just as well in football.

When dodgy decisions and human error can cost clubs millions of pounds in lost revenue, it just does not make sense not to take advantage of technology.

Slightly off topic I know but the resistance of Blatter and all the other corrupt officials at FIFA to goal line camera is mystifying. The slight delay caused by a referee using this technology maybe once or twice in a game is trivial compared to the sense of grievance caused by incorrect decisions. We wouldn't have been relegated if a goal had been given against Everton in the first game at the Reebok.

wanderlust wrote:Like every challenge, a two-footed challenge can win the ball cleanly or not. To remain within the spirit of the game, a challenge should be judged entirely on the outcome i.e. what actually happens - rather than systematically wiping out part of the game.

If a two-footed challenge results in a foul i.e. there's contact with the player before the ball it should be given as a foul. If it is violent conduct i.e. the challenge gives the other player no chance of not getting hit then it should be treated as such. But if the ball is won cleanly it should be allowed. Is it too much to ask refs to take back responsibility for such decisions?

I think that a bigger problem is players looking for free kicks by trailing their legs to ensure they get caught - and everyone can see when that happens as the body movement is unnatural.

All in all, there are more "fouls", bookings and sending offs than ever which slows the game and places a greater emphasis on set pieces - a fact I find irritating as FIFA use the excuse of "slowing the game down" as a reason for not allowing video technology whilst at the same time endorsing the continuous stoppages described above.

I don't often say this unless it's to myself, but that is a top post sir.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Like every challenge, a two-footed challenge can win the ball cleanly or not. To remain within the spirit of the game, a challenge should be judged entirely on the outcome i.e. what actually happens - rather than systematically wiping out part of the game.

If a two-footed challenge results in a foul i.e. there's contact with the player before the ball it should be given as a foul. If it is violent conduct i.e. the challenge gives the other player no chance of not getting hit then it should be treated as such. But if the ball is won cleanly it should be allowed. Is it too much to ask refs to take back responsibility for such decisions?

I think that a bigger problem is players looking for free kicks by trailing their legs to ensure they get caught - and everyone can see when that happens as the body movement is unnatural.

All in all, there are more "fouls", bookings and sending offs than ever which slows the game and places a greater emphasis on set pieces - a fact I find irritating as FIFA use the excuse of "slowing the game down" as a reason for not allowing video technology whilst at the same time endorsing the continuous stoppages described above.

I don't often say this unless it's to myself, but that is a top post sir.

I will redeem myself by chatting unsubstantiable opinionated bollocks for the rest of the week then.

As a defender many years ago I was taught to get a very early - and hard tackle in - the ref was unlikely to send you off a few minutes into a game.

The tackle had to take the ball and the man - you had to let the attacker know what the rest of the game could be like for him - many never came back for more.

Is that not just cheating / gamesmanship as well though? It's just how things were done back then. It was more of a hard man's game – but it was the players with skill who suffered the most.

I don't like the 'softy' football that they play now - but I am pleased to see 'skill' players flourish.

Somewhere in the middle of the two would be ideal football for me.

The likes of Tommy Smith, Norman Hunter, Billy Bremner would struggle in the modern game. They would be suspended more times than they played.

Sluffy wrote:As a defender many years ago I was taught to get a very early - and hard tackle in - the ref was unlikely to send you off a few minutes into a game.

The tackle had to take the ball and the man - you had to let the attacker know what the rest of the game could be like for him - many never came back for more.

Is that not just cheating / gamesmanship as well though? It's just how things were done back then. It was more of a hard man's game – but it was the players with skill who suffered the most.

I don't like the 'softy' football that they play now - but I am pleased to see 'skill' players flourish.

Somewhere in the middle of the two would be ideal football for me.

Everybody likes to see skill. Sadly, drawing fouls, diving and getting players booked are also considered skills these days.

Great article on tackling here if anyone is interested.

Good read imo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've played as a full back at both sides of the pitch and I've tackled the paint off opposing players using one foot at a time. I've never had occasion to go in with both feet and I've tackled hard but with no intention to hurt anyone. I've certainly never done this![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

wanderlust wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Like every challenge, a two-footed challenge can win the ball cleanly or not. To remain within the spirit of the game, a challenge should be judged entirely on the outcome i.e. what actually happens - rather than systematically wiping out part of the game.

If a two-footed challenge results in a foul i.e. there's contact with the player before the ball it should be given as a foul. If it is violent conduct i.e. the challenge gives the other player no chance of not getting hit then it should be treated as such. But if the ball is won cleanly it should be allowed. Is it too much to ask refs to take back responsibility for such decisions?

I think that a bigger problem is players looking for free kicks by trailing their legs to ensure they get caught - and everyone can see when that happens as the body movement is unnatural.

All in all, there are more "fouls", bookings and sending offs than ever which slows the game and places a greater emphasis on set pieces - a fact I find irritating as FIFA use the excuse of "slowing the game down" as a reason for not allowing video technology whilst at the same time endorsing the continuous stoppages described above.

I don't often say this unless it's to myself, but that is a top post sir.

I will redeem myself by chatting unsubstantiable opinionated bollocks for the rest of the week then.

Let me bring you both back down to earth. You said...

" a two-footed challenge can win the ball cleanly or not. To remain within the spirit of the game, a challenge should be judged entirely on the outcome i.e. what actually happens"

so what about throwing an elbow or a punch. Let's judge that on what actually happens too? "Well he did try to break the defenders jaw but he missed because the defender fell over before the punch landed. Play on..." Really?

Correct biggie. I know why don't I bum you while Natasha bums Wanderlust? Could be fun. Anyway back on topic.

The Kompany red card was harsh and I am not sure it was done with dangerous intent. I personally would have awarded a free kick and a yellow for being a little reckless. But I would have been close to giving nothing too.

But referring back (to Wanderlust's point and Biggie's reply) no you can't just judge on the out come of the tackle and not take into account the danger or intent. The law is not there though to get rid of tackling and it does not apply to cleanly won tackles in most cases. But you cant have an idiot deliberately jumping in studs showing, aiming to injure a player and then getting away with it just because he ends up getting the ball.

Football is worth a fortune at the moment and players are valuable to teams. Unnecessary injuries are the last thing any club wants. And any player too. If we want to have the biggest and best clubs and players then they also need a degree of sensible protection from mindlessness.