Glen Johnson's dangerous two-footed lunge near the end Wednesday's victory again Manchester City has provoked a huge debate about tackling in the game, and Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish has now weighed in with his view on the issue.
If Johnson had got it wrong, then Lescott could've been seriously injured. Additionally, if you watch the tackle again, the recklessness of it really is something to behold; Johnson literally launches himself off the ground with both feet. Was such a dramatic lunge necessary in that location of the pitch?
Luckily, Johnson got away with it, but next time, he - or someone else - might not get so lucky.
Speaking to the Press at Melwood earlier today, Dalglish argued that there was 'no need to look at' Johnson's controversial tackle, and went on to question the inconsistency of referees. He noted:
"The discussion isn't about one person's tackle against another, it's about peoples' consistency, and the interpretation of the tackles, so you can take both lads names who've been involved recently [Kompany and Spearing] out of the equation altogether.
"There's laws within the game that are as clear as mud; it's the interpretation from the referees, but there is always going to be inconsistency and human error. It depends how you see it, and they [Referees] can only give what they see".
Dalglish also seemed to implicitly suggest that Johnson's tackle was acceptable:
"There's no way in this world you can do a sliding tackle without showing your studs. Someone needs to show me that one because I've never seen it before.
"If you slide in, your studs must be up. It's the intent that's the most important thing, but how do you gauge intent?"
I think it's fair to say that Johnson didn't have any malicious intent; he got the ball pretty cleanly, but the fact remains that if he'd misjudged the tackle, he could've broken Joleon Lescott's leg.
I conducted a poll on this site a few days ago, and 65% of (voting) fans felt that Johnson made a worse tackle than Vincent Kompany.
Jaimie Kanwar
If Johnson had got it wrong, then Lescott could've been seriously injured. Additionally, if you watch the tackle again, the recklessness of it really is something to behold; Johnson literally launches himself off the ground with both feet. Was such a dramatic lunge necessary in that location of the pitch?
Luckily, Johnson got away with it, but next time, he - or someone else - might not get so lucky.
Speaking to the Press at Melwood earlier today, Dalglish argued that there was 'no need to look at' Johnson's controversial tackle, and went on to question the inconsistency of referees. He noted:
"The discussion isn't about one person's tackle against another, it's about peoples' consistency, and the interpretation of the tackles, so you can take both lads names who've been involved recently [Kompany and Spearing] out of the equation altogether.
"There's laws within the game that are as clear as mud; it's the interpretation from the referees, but there is always going to be inconsistency and human error. It depends how you see it, and they [Referees] can only give what they see".
Dalglish also seemed to implicitly suggest that Johnson's tackle was acceptable:
"There's no way in this world you can do a sliding tackle without showing your studs. Someone needs to show me that one because I've never seen it before.
"If you slide in, your studs must be up. It's the intent that's the most important thing, but how do you gauge intent?"
I think it's fair to say that Johnson didn't have any malicious intent; he got the ball pretty cleanly, but the fact remains that if he'd misjudged the tackle, he could've broken Joleon Lescott's leg.
I conducted a poll on this site a few days ago, and 65% of (voting) fans felt that Johnson made a worse tackle than Vincent Kompany.
Jaimie Kanwar
I feel that the words "If Johnson had got it wrong" are key here, He did not and therefore it was a clean tackle. If you start punishing players on what may have happened, then you are getting into an interpretation minefield. And i think that is what Dalglish is alluding to here.
ReplyDeleteEvery tackle has to be considered in the context of the specific situation. In this case, it seems to me that Johnson launched himself towards the ball BEFORE Lescott started moving his leg towards it. In other words, seeing that Johnson was sliding into the ball, Lescott could have drawn back. Maybe I am misreading the situation, but if not should that not be a mitigating factor in favour of Johnson?
ReplyDeleteJohnson tackle might be the most powerful body thrown, but luckily... he got the ball very clean... but Kompany's tackle might be more aggresive yet 50-50 challenge between the ball and the leg (why didn't he get the legs anyway..?!) I couldn't say which is worse.. I can only vote Kompany's..
ReplyDeleteynwa
Test test
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with KK.
ReplyDeleteThe tackle should not be up for debate, we could argue intent and how people interpret any aspect of the game but fact of the matter is that Lescott was not hurt, you could argue any mistimed tackle, 2 footed or otherwise may harm an individual. Things like this are ruining our game and before long the premier league will be more like Serie A, complete waste of time like a game of chess, no tackling and passion whatsoever.
Dalglish has suggested the tackle was not a problem as the fact is everyone who has played the game will understand that tackle was never in danger of hurting lescott.
Kompany led with 2 feet and then both feet acted in a scissor motion so therefore looked far worse than it actually was.
Everyone is debating whether one tackle is worse than the other but as an LFC fan I was happy to see my right back putting his foot in(Or 2), 1 nil up against City away in a semi final, I would expect all my players to show some fight and channeled aggression and show City we were there to hold what we had and get in their faces.
Well said Kenny and keep worrying about our players and looking after the best club in the world!!
And Kompany deserved his? Liverpool fans thought so but that had nothing to do with our rock and captain being out for two games against your lot during his ban.
ReplyDelete"biased idiot" is the only logical conclusion to this post.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that any tackle can potentially injure someone and it is difficult to gauge what is dangerous. I am a City fan and i would have been upset to see Johnson get sent off just as i was to see Kompany get a red. I rarely agree with Kenny Dog but i do agree that while rules are blurred there will always be incosistency.
ReplyDeleteMartinez at Wigan thinks any two footed tackle should be a red - fine - but it needs to explicitly say this is regardless of winning the ball, not causing inury or showing studs. When it is so vague referees can always claim mitigating circumstances.
If you win the ball cleanly then it should be a fair tackle. You can not judge what if's. If he didn't win the ball then Red card, but he did and cleanly so fair tackle.
ReplyDeleteYNWA
I honestly think that Johnson's and Kompany's challenges were even, at worst. The major difference is the actions of the recipients of the challenges - whereas Nani hurdles the challenge ensuring his safety even if Kompany had made contact with him, Lescott just put in a weak challenge with an outstretched leg rooted in the turf, which is pretty much as precarious a position as he could have put himself in against such a robust challenge.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference is that Johnson directly put both feet on the ball, whereas Kompany came in with a sweeping scissor action meaning that he looked more out of control and it would've been impossible for Nani to fairly win the ball.
Eitherways, Johnson was lucky to avoid a red card for coming in with two feet like that though...
I would say Vinne "The rock" Kompany did not deserve a red card either. Everynody sane knows that wasn;t a red. May have more to do with the fact that City were playing Man Utd and the referee was 'influenced'.
ReplyDeleteA two-footed slide tackle is different to a one footed slide tackle.
ReplyDeleteIt was because it was a TWO-FOOTED studs up tackle, KK. Its possible to slide in with just one foot with studs up as long as there is no intent to harm but no need for a two-footed studs up tackle, as it is reckless and hard to control
Watching it again I see that Lescott comes to the ball from the side whereas Johnson dives towards the ball - so not an over-the-top type two-footer (presumably why it was let go ..) - I also think that the problem here is Kompany's excessive punishment NOT Glen Johnson's tackle ...
ReplyDeleteThe other 35% musta been off their heads on summat. It's a bad tackle but it's only debated to much coa it was a televised game and Mancinis deflected attention from his loss. Coulda broke his leg but at the end of the day he didn't. Johnnos was miles worse then company's an spearings but it was executed perfectly!
ReplyDeleteit is so simple - the ref re johnson was right so he was consistant - the ref re kompany was wrong so he was inconsistant, why should the former be derided ?
ReplyDeleteIMO the fault lies with the player who gets to the ball second and gets caught. Nowadays there are players that will put themselves in that position to draw the card on the other player which is utter bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI will agree though that intent with regards to studs and leg position should be the deciding factor.
look if booth feet leave the ground red card for everbody .then thiers no argument promblem solved
ReplyDeleteif you go for the ball and get the ball without touching the other player what is the problem ? if you catch him watch out, what is the problem ?
ReplyDeleterefs need only eyes.
bullshit. Whether he got the ball or not, his studs are fully showing. And to make matters worse both feet are together, making a human torpedo. If you look closely at lescott's ankle. A fraction of a second later and this is the end of Lescott's season. A horrendous 'carear threatneing' tackle, no matter what way you dress it up.
ReplyDeleteWe need consistency!! If any two-footed lunge was an instant red card then we'd all know where we stood.
ReplyDeleteLike 5 a side football you should be made to stay on your feet no diving in.
ReplyDeleteA proper sliding tackle you are supposed to wrap your foot round the ball get control of it, not go through the ball.
Not really, he made a an out of control lunge. There's no way around it, that tackles a red card offence in todays game, winning the ball doesn't matter anymore, its the manner in which you win it. Old school players, analysts and journalists will defend such tackles to the hilt but they're against the rules.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think it was difficult to interpret at all; seeing it live, I feared a red card being shown and I think the ref would admit to making a mistake on that call. They're as easy/difficult a call as any other foul in the game.
TBH, this tackle showed how commited he was to the fact of winning this match, this was not a foul intended to hurt , it was full comitment ! get it straight, to be fair, it should have been a red card if at least there was a scissor contact ''eg kompany'' but Glen's look more like to be there first on the ball !!
ReplyDeleteI thought they were all fine tackles
ReplyDeleteDalglish is talking total gibberish. It is very clear from the rules, and very clear from the chat that referees have with the players from before the start of the season, that if you jump with two feet in front of you, it is supposed to be an instant red card, regardless of what happens.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that you are not in control of what you are doing, and saying "I got the ball" or "No-one got hurt" has nothing to do with it, because once you jump you have no control over what happens, and it is only blind luck that johnson didn't smash lescott's ankle into a million pieces.
to say the rules are as clear as mud is a lie. The referee saw that tackle, johnson got away with it, and can't be punished, dalglish should have come straight out and said that it was the wrong thing to do, and that he was going to make it very clear to his players that it was not acceptable, because they are putting their fellow professionals health at risk, and by doing something so stupid, they are letting their team and their teammates down by running the risk of being sent off and banned for 3 games, for no reason.
But that is not king kenny's way is it?
Johnson got away with it, Kompany did'nt... end of..
ReplyDeleteHave not read through all the threads, as just got back from center parcs, saw the tackle on wednesday night on BBC.
ReplyDeleteJust seen it again and my biased side says, "he got the ball cleanly, no problems," but my head says, "clearly he is off the ground, he has no control of himself, with his studs up on both feet" he should have been sent off, and some might say we are lucky he was not, no we are very very lucky he was not sent off.
Oh and my wife who does not like football and does not watch it, when asked if she thought the tackle was dangerous said, " its a bad tackle could of broke the blue ones legs."
So there you have it, a un biased opinion from the missus, case closed. :)
Back in the day though, we tackled with our leading leg, and had the other bent, now that was slide tackling, i would call the 3 tackles seen lately as lunges, not tackles.
ReplyDeleteJohnson's was a red card. Kompany's wasn't. We got lucky. Pretty simple stuff there.
ReplyDeleteIf that had happened against us, I'd be fucking livid. If Stevie's tackle at OT last January was a red, then so is Johnson's.
If you get most tackles a fraction of a second late you can do damage. That is football. It is a contact sport. The boy from arsenal got his ankle snapped and the tackle was not two footed or a slide tackle or a lunge. It was a fraction late. This is football. A mans sport.
ReplyDeleteyes i agree. Johnson was always going to get that ball and Lescot knew it. He knew Johnson wasn't going to get him either that's why he put his foot in, cos he knew he wasn't going to get hurt at all. Have a look at Kompany's. I do not think it was a red card tackle at all but Nani jumped out of the way of the tackle. which means Kompany would have caught Nani. If you play or have played football at all you would know the difference. Most refs haven't spent a lot of time playing football so they don't know the difference which is why the interpretation is inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteBiased, maybe. Idiot???? I would call that prejudiced!
ReplyDeleteGot to say absolutely agree win the ball no foul.miss it red card #Mcfc
ReplyDeleteI don't think Kompany deserved a red card. I don't even think it was a foul because, firstly he didn't touch Nani and, secondly, Nani didn't even stop playing and look for the foul. The ref was blatantly influenced by that ugly mug of rooney. One he blew his whistle he would have been abused by all and sundry had he not gave a red card because, admittedly, it was a two foot challenge.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible two slide in with one foot but what I have noticed over recent years are the blatant stamping on the sliders ankle or knee. A two footed challenge protects the slider more. I dont like to see the kind of tackle that Johnson did but if you win the ball cleanly and don't break the other players ankle in the process you should play on.
ReplyDeleteI may have viewed it incorrectly, but I saw Johnson slide in front of Lescott and not into him. There was no tackle. it was an interception, although it did look reckless. Whereas Kompany slid into Nan(c)i and could easily have caused an injury to him
ReplyDeletewhat if you start off one footed and end up two footed??
ReplyDeleteWhat if you start of two footed and end up one footed?
Me too!!
ReplyDeleteIt was skill that Johnson got the ball. It takes accuracy and commitment to do that kind of tackle. When I jump to header the ball i am looking to connect with the ball only. If I miss the ball and accidently headbutt someone would that be considered as dangerous and should I be sent off for it?
ReplyDeleteDid she really say "blue one legs"???? lol!! I like that!!
ReplyDeleteBut to leave the floor is as dangerous as it sounds. You leave the floor a lot when you play football. When you shoot often both feet leave the floor, one foot then the other. When you header both feet clearly leave the floor. But I understand what you are saying.
Yeah and I agree. But like I said earlier, player are doing two footed chalenges as a way of protecting themselves from stamping.
ReplyDeleteAgreed!
ReplyDeleteI think you will find Lescott's foot arrives a split second after Johnsons feet go past, a split second later and he would have broke his ankle.
ReplyDeleteIt was a reckless tackle/interception and he was lucky to get away with it, i will stick up for Liverpool players, god knows i get a bit of stick on here about being biased.
But i do not want to see players launching in uncontrollably like that, and injuring or maiming a fellow professional, tackle yes, but two footed lunges are a no no.
Just like the tackle Johnson did in the area on Kolarov great timing.
ReplyDeleteboth challenges in my opinion were fair its just the red card was totally out of order and ruined a good game
ReplyDeletefair enough, but if the ref saw it the way I saw it, I can understand why he didn't do anything. In both the Spearing case and the Kompany case, the tackler made contact with the opposition player (even tho' Nan(c)i vrtually hurdled the tackle, Kompany still made contact with him), but I thought that Johnston wasn't sliding into Lescott but cutting the ball out in front of him
ReplyDeleteCan it be called a tackle when the ball in open play? The city didn't have tha ball under control so was it a tackle?
ReplyDeletejust to throw one in, what about Lampard's shocker against the Wolves chappie? Only a yellow ?!
ReplyDeleteIts an interpretation nightmare! Just look at u all arguing backwards and forwards, for and against! it was wild yes, but all ball! U could argue that kompany fouled johnson by being late...i love the irony of that! That said Johnson was like a missile! My point...who the **** knows??? Well teh F.A and refs dont know and the fans are caught up in all the uncertainty! Nonsense..just play football!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Glen was going for the ball, he had no intention to hurt Lescott.
ReplyDeleteI just think these tackles need to be cut out.
I am all for tackling, and i think the game has gone to the pansies, just touch a player and they go down quicker than a 10 dollar whore.
But the 3 tackles being talked about, could have broken each players leg.
Imagine that happening to one of our players, say Suarez, or Stevie, unthinkable.
So although no one was hurt, the ball was won in each case, they where all sendings off in my view as they were all reckless and dangerous.
Forgot about that one, a deffo sending off, and if he had of gone, Chelsea may not of won as Lumpard scored, and if i remember rightly, Cole delivered a nasty one in the same game.
ReplyDeleteI am a City fan and yet I didn't want Johnson being sent off for what was a straightforward tackle that was nowhere near Lescott.
ReplyDeleteSame applies to Kompany- he was no where near Nani who jumped over Lescott moments after Lescott had taken the ball cleanly.
Videos can show the players are close to each other but in the real action being 12 inches away from an opponenisinglass a tackle is like aeroplanes being a mile apart.
Both Kompany's and Johnson's tackles were both dangerous. Whether they injured their opponents or not immaterial. When you lunge in with 2 two feet like that, its dangerous. The intent will almost always be to get the ball, so even that is immaterial. As far is consistency is concerned, that is an issue. But that doesn't mean that either of the tackles were NOT dangerous play. imagine a you getting caught by a 15 stone man lunging into your feet. Its scary and shoudn't happen. The FA rescinds ridiculous red card but it did not because it could be interpreted as dangerous play and the ref had full view. And also because the FA is fergie's puppet of course.
ReplyDeleteoh god !! A man's sport !!! Why don't we give each of the 22 men some bamboo sticks as well to hack each other to the floor in order to reach the goal. Whoever is 'man enough' will win. A contact sport doesn't mean no holds barred tackling like that. there are rules which must be respected.; Johnson is a lucky guy but I think Fergie has a bigger plan and he told the refs to him off because he had some bigger plan in mind. If I were a liverpool fan Id be careful.
ReplyDeleteIf a formula 1 driver 'misjudges' an overtake he risks killing several people. You don't ban overtaking though. Risk is part of nearly every sport. Good judgement and extreme skill are why we watch sport. There is always the risk of getting it wrong.
ReplyDeletejohnson was miles away from lescott - can't see the problem really - none of the tackles were dangerous - johnson wasn't lucky - spearing and kompany were both very unlucky to come across pedantic refs
ReplyDeletewhat ref isn't - rooney should have been yellowed for waving an imaginary card - that is in the rules too !!
ReplyDeletered card for potential injury - what might have been? - how about a goal for hitting the post - might have gone in
ReplyDeleteyou wouldn't say that if your player scored a goal with two footed lunge - i've seen many scored like that with no-one in sight - also clearances - the point is how far away is the opponent - lescott was miles away when johnson took the ball - kompany clipped nani - but i still don't think it was a red
ReplyDelete