Compounding Chris Foy’s highly contentious decision to issue a straight red to Man City captain Vincent Kompany last Sunday the F.A have now upheld the four-match ban the imperious Belgian must serve. Rarely has a dismissal caused such heated debate and proving that club allegiance is not immune to the disagreements we asked two blues – Matty and Rob – for their thoughts on the matter…
Against (Matty)
As we all know, Vincent Kompany was sent off after 10 minutes of the derby match this past weekend for what Chris Foy deemed Serious Foul Play, a decision that was upheld on Tuesday by the FA following an appeal by Manchester City. Those are the facts of the matter, however they fail to tell the whole story.
To say the decision was “controversial” would, actually, be inaccurate, as there was nothing debatable or questionable about it. It was plain wrong. An example of modern day refereeing at its most abject. Chris Foy, ably and unsurprisingly assisted by half-caveman half-sludge Wayne Rooney, waved the red card at Kompany for that most heinous of crimes, winning the ball, cleanly, without getting close to contacting the player.
So, why am I so convinced that Foy got it wrong? Why do I feel I know better than a highly qualified Premiership referee? Well, mainly because I’m not burdened with the pressures of appealing to my paymasters. Foy, like all referees, is answerable to the FA, and “guidance” from on high is clear, the “2 footed tackle” is to be outlawed. Any instance of using 2 feet to challenge for the ball, it seems, is shown an instant red card. So, surely that makes Foy right to send off Kompany? Well, let’s look at the FIFA definition of Serious Foul Play shall we? Note that. FIFA. Not the FA’s skewed interpretation of it, the official FIFA guidance on what constitutes Serious Foul Play:-
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
So, the law does indeed mention the use of both legs, however at no point does it state that a 2 footed tackle, automatically, necessitates the issuance of a red card. In fact it actually indicates that the number of legs used in the tackle is, essentially, irrelevant, as is the direction from which the challenge is made.
What danger exactly was Nani in when Kompany cleanly won the ball?
In order for Serious Foul Play to have been perpetrated the player MUST have committed 3 specific offences.
Firstly he must have “lunged in”. Unfortunately lunged isn’t a particularly clear word to define, what constitutes a lunge exactly? Do you need to leave the floor entirely? How does a lunge differ from a slide or from jumping in? This is one of those grey areas which the authorities leave as a “judgement call” for the referee, a referee put under increasing pressure to enforce the laws in a specific way. So, in Kompany’s case perhaps yes you could classify his tackle as a lunge. I wouldn’t, most wouldn’t, but a referee under strict instructions possibly might.
Secondly the player must have used “excessive force” when attempting the tackle. As with the lunge element of the law, excessive force is a tricky little
bugger to nail down. How can anyone accurately determine what is excessive in any given situation? Chris Foy isn’t a footballer (he’s a referee so almost by
default he was likely that kid picked last to play football because he couldn’t kick straight if he tried) so why is his interpretation of excessive better than that of professional footballer Vincent Kompany who chose exactly what level of force he was going to apply? Numerous pundits, most of whom are ex-professional footballers, didn’t deem the challenge overly excessive either. But no, Chris Foy did and, as this has been left as a “judgement call” too, it’s hard to argue Kompany didn’t use excessive force.
Finally we get to “endanger the safety of an opponent”. Here’s where Foy’s decision, and that of the FA, completely falls down, catastrophically so. What danger exactly was Nani in when Kompany cleanly won the ball? Nani didn’t actually have his feet anywhere near the ball at the time, in fact Nani wasn’t even in the same postcode as the ball when Kompany intercepted it. It’s worth noting that Nani, a footballer not normally shy when it comes to rolling on the floor, clutching non-existent injuries and screaming like a child, not only stayed on his feet, but made no attempt whatsoever to even claim for a freekick. He was as acutely aware as everyone else (apart from Foy and the newly hirsute neanderthal) that Kompany had committed a perfectly timed tackle and nothing more.
I’m still unsure about the red itself, but there is one angle that does make me side with the referee.
So, surely, with neutrals galore proclaiming Kompany innocent, and the challenge failing to meet the criteria for Serious Foul Play, the FA had no choice but to view the incident for what it was, a strong, robust, but ultimately extremely fair tackle, and rescind the red card? No, they upheld Foy’s original incompetent decision and further emphasised their complete lack of understanding when it comes to the actual game they are charged with overseeing.
For (Rob)
I was at the game on Sunday, and I was sat on the bottom tier of the Etihad Stadium, rather than in my usual position of high up on the second tier, so I didn’t get the absolute best view of the tackle. At the time I didn’t share the angry reaction of the people around me, who were shouting expletives towards Chris Foy after he produced that red piece of plastic which has become the biggest talking point of 2012 so far. But was it even a red card?
The first thing I did when I got home was ask my dad, who had watched the game on TV, if it was a red card or not. He said he didn’t think so, but he did say that one camera angle helped him understand Foy’s decision. And to be honest I can see where Foy and my dad are coming from. I’m still unsure about the red itself, but there is one angle that does make me side with the referee. Kompany leaves the floor, and is therefore not in control of his own body, thus putting Nani’s leg potentially in danger. Luckily for Kompany, at first, and Nani, Kompany lands before making contact with the ball. The crowd applauds and Kompany is a hero. But wait… the ref blows the whistle and I know exactly what’s going to happen next. What I thought was a clean tackle does not get pulled up if the end result is a simple pat on the back and a warning. The red card is brandished and the stadium erupts in disbelief. But I think I know why Foy gave this decision…
Last week, Frank Lampard escaped with a yellow card after crunching into Wolves’ Adam Hammill, with a tackle that could have potentially broken his leg. The referee for that game was Peter Walton, and he came under heavy criticism from all teams when he didn’t send Lampard off. This may have passed through Foy’s mind as he saw Vincent slide underneath Nani. Did Foy want potentially bad press for something he did give, or something he didn’t? As it happens, he’d prefer bad press for something he gave. It did change the game and it probably knocked us out of the cup we were trying to defend, but inconsistent refereeing is part of football.
Final verdict: harsh, but fair.
The key to understanding these types of decisions is in how you interpret ‘excessive force’ and what you consider to be ‘endangering the safety of another player.’ The ‘lunging’ which is referred to is essentially irrelevant, as lunging is allowed if it does not involve excessive force against another player, and does not endanger them. For example lunging to convert a cross is fine, so we can set that aside. I don’t know why FIFA even mention it, other than to address the misconception that a lunge must be two-footed or from behind to be considered serious foul play (when in fact, as they clarify, a one footed challenge, a challenge from the side or front, can be just as serious). Nevertheless, I’m not sure the Laws of the Game should be in the business of addressing misconceptions. (Or should it?)
The first thing to be said is that the law is a good one. Endangering the safety of a player, or using excessive force against a player should result in ejection from a game. I love a good tackle as much as the next man, and I’m not even opposed to a tactical foul (the sort Carvalho might commit to put a stop to an attack before it has started) but risking injury to players because of needless aggression deserves punishment.
Did Kompany’s tackle fulfill the above criteria? Did he use excessive force against an opponent? No. He timed his lunge perfectly to intercept the ball. If he had lunged faster than necessary (which is the definition of excessive) then he would have got there too soon and blocked the ball rather than kicking it. We can only conclude that he used ample force.
It could be argued that using two feet is always excessive force. But that’s just wrong. Sometimes, the full extension of a lunge is the only way to reach far enough to make a tackle. That makes it the exact opposite of ‘excessive’ — that is, ‘necessary’.
Did he endanger the safety of Nani? Possibly. While he took the ball cleanly it is certainly the case that Nani had to hurdle the tackle in order to prevent contact. However, I think that because the tackle was side-on Kompany was able to slide through in a way that allowed Nani to avoid being hurt. Therefore he did not endanger Nani.
As it happens, I think that forcing an opponent to avoid being injured in a tackle is unfair, even if they manage to get out of the way as Nani did, but that only applies if you do not get the ball. Then it would fall under ‘attempting to foul’ and should be punished accordingly. But if you win the ball, while leaving the opponent in a position to avoid contact then you cannot have committed serious foul play.
Kompany used ample force in a way that did not endanger Nani. He should not have received a red card.
To the question at hand. Should the FA have lifted the ban. That’s a tough question. Their policy prevents such action. The ref saw the incident and interpreted it, so the FA should not have overturned it. That would undermine all decisions by all refs in the future.
But that doesn’t solve the problem that Kompany is serving time for a crime he didn’t commit.
In a perfect world it would be the referee himself who overturned it. Referees should watch a video of their performance and should review all decisions on cautions and ejections after each game. Referees rescinding cards after games could be a simple addition to their duties. And giving the referee the chance to correct long term decisions which affect future bans, is a way of allowing them the best available evidence, and the dignity of doing the honourable thing and changing their mind. This would help in avoiding the necessary stubbornness which is now exhibited by referees and the FA.
Or the short response.
A two footed tackle is always reckless, as you can’t pull out. Therefore it is an automatic yellow card.
If contact is made then it should be judged by a ref whether it was more than reckless, and in fact endangered another player. If so then it’s a red.
I don’t know where the two-footed = red card idea emerged, it’s certainly not in the rules.