Thetownend.com

I have this vague recollection that in the not too distant past a professional foul (cynical, no intent to play the ball, deliberately taking a player out and similar sort of stuff) would warrant a red card no matter where it was on the pitch, or how many defenders were in the way.

Did I imagine this?

Yes, you did.

No you didn't

I just had a read of that Wikipedia article (the English "professional foul" interpretation is now in the rules as "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity").

Wasn't the original interpretation wider ranging, with the result you'd see red cards for offences that wouldn't be today due to them not being a clear enough goal scoring opportunity?

That quote only seems to be talking about when the player is through on goal though

Professional fouls are great when your team gets away with one.  Luc Nijholt was very good at this.

So are you. My fondest memory of Leeds is a guy going past you, you trying to catch him and realizing that the legs aren't going to help and just kicking him instead.

See this is where we need richtheref@hotmail.com or whatever he's called. It's just dawned upon me that I think i queued for tickets with him for Charlton away.

I love that man and his horrible challenges. I refer you to the following instances in the video clip

2m4s - His first goal in English football
3m19s - A crunching tackle on Roy Keane tackle and subsequent goading, he would smashed          Roy Keane all over IMHO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibTgrnh7AHc

Luc Luc Luc Nijholt. One of my favourite Town players ever.

'There is no such thing as a 'professional foul' -  i don't care what soccer saturday says ' would be my non-sharing wisdom answer. but, professional fouls are just fouls that 'Deny an Obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent' - which is self explanatory really. It doesn't matter if it's cynical or not; whether it was full of intent for the ball or for the man - if its any form of foul (a little push in the back, or a full on hug and grope of the bollocks, or a tackle which up-ends the attacker) and it obviously denies the chance of a shot at goal, then its a 'professional foul'. There are a number of things that a referee needs to look at before deciding whether it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity - distance from goal, defenders covering, ball position in relation to players are the main ones - i'll also add to that that any 'last-man' rule does not exist - just because a player could be seen to be covering, it doesn't mean that he would actually stop any obvious effort on goal.

There are 3 types of tackle in football, a careless one, a reckless one and a tackle that uses excessive force. Careless is just as it sounds, free-kick only. Reckless is said to be a tackle which disregards the safety of the opponent and warrants a yellow, whilst a tackle using excessive force is a tackle which uses too much force for the challenge, which disregards the safety of the opponent and could leave them seriously injured - these are the two footed lunges, the greer type challenges etc etc, and are classed as SFP, a red card.

Tackles with 'studs up' are reckless, even if its an innocuous challenge and most don't think it's a foul!

What about a fair tackle?

No such thing as a fair tackle. It MUST be a free kick to one side or tjhe other

I can't wait for any sort of reply you might get.

Fair play to div for explaining something on a forum where obviously everbody thinks they are two years old so they can pick a cyberfight.

I hope Jonny has found his answer somewhere in this thread.

Nah just having a bit of a joke at an obvious error. I knew what Div really meant due to the context of the thread, but the post amused me because it was so factual yet that last paragraph missed the obvious fact there could be a fair challenge. In turn I'd hope my post wouldn't be taken too seriously.

It wasn't picking a fight at all and it certainly wasn't as bad as Div's post the other night (which actually made me laugh). Clearly the two of you know each other though and something's put your noses out of joint.

the last paragraph says 'Tackles with 'studs up' are reckless, even if its an innocuous challenge and most don't think it's a foul! ' nothing missing from that  :clap:

Fair tackles are hard to come by, there is no longer the 'ball before man' - if a defender takes the attacker out (or just clips him) after taking the ball cleanly (by whatever force) then it's a free-kick, but, for any good reasonable man, that is going to be impossible. This is where referees (well, the majority) use common sense - some tackles look so clean that awarding a free-kick can cause more problems than good, does he really want to caution several players for dissent because he wasn't bending the laws slightly, to the tempo/behaviour of the game? Another thing to remember is that refereeing, and making these sorts of decisions, is all about 'the opinion of the referee', so there isn't any real point in arguing - he may be wrong from your angle, but he could be right from his - granted, that could be the shittest view to take but what else is he going to go on.

(i can't remember my post the other night, i'm glad it made you laugh though. as for Santas Dead, he's probably just got nothing better to do than hate the world, accusing people of starting fights, you big playground bullies, i'll get Crispy and his lads to sort you at lunch...)

Haha here is your post:

http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,39412.msg836783.html#msg836783

going back to the utd highlights there, and off topic - sorry, how on earth did a man utd team fail to win against a team boasting such talents as Frank MacAvenie, Laurie Sanchez and Brian Kilcline - I was there and obviously enjoyed the game but my word we panic signed some of the worst over-the-hill players in the history of the Premiership that season.