But no one is having the debate you are talking about, if you want to see the debate about the SC tackle review the EPL thread.

There's a game today btw... beat 1 i'm at work
.. beat 2 i'm at work in leafy Harlesden (5 mins from wembley for those who don't know)
beat 3 i finish at 5 about when the 2nd half kicks off and it takes about 45 mins to get to my local
I can either stay at work and watch it in my office and join the mass hoards of yids heading east on the A 406 or drive home on a relatively deserted road and listen to the 2nd half on my radio choices choices fml

Yes and we had this whole debate before. Should we be results orientated with reds with the intelligent posters coming down on No and TSC on yes.

In this case the refs interpretation>>>>> the letter of the law and if the letter of the law was implemented in a no discretion fascist way it would deeply damage the game imo as players would not be able to make challanges were they could not fully predict the outcome and this would mean players staying out of every 50/50 60/40.m,.m

I'm not being results oriented - I am looking for the rules to be applied correctly (you can go back and look at my posts after Shawcross incident if you are that interested, which I doubt you are). I'm also not asking people to predict the outcome of their challenges, I'm asking them to avoid reckless, dangerous behaviour. Not being able to go in for a tackle is different from not being able to go in to contest challenges in a manner that results in an increased likelihood of injuring your opponent. The referee has no scope for interpretation in such an event.

looks like a reckless challenge and should be a red. England's Golden Boy gets away with it though.

As AT says in the commentary Terry attacks the ball the only way possible, thinking it is reckless is entirely results orientated.

Of course you think it is a red, Arse fans want to remove all the physicality out of the game to increase their chances of winning things to 0<.

I disagree, IMO it is reckless to launch yourself at the ball in the manner that he did. Who is AT?

Andy Townsend, football guru.

Ah, ex-Chelsea midfielder Andy Townsend.

No because if he had won the ball and not hit milner everyone would say great challenge, results orientated ainec. Terry has two choices.

1: Attempt to win the ball, this can only be done in a way that may appear reckless.
2: Not attempt to win the ball.

Option 1 everytime for me.

I dont know how much football you have played, but it is virtually impossible to go into a 50/50 60/40 without some risk to the opponent. The more competitive you are for the ball the greater the risk. For me all that is important is that you go in with a genuine intent to win the ball.

However the action you are calling for can only ever be results orientated because going into 50/50s challenge you can never know the outcome and the outcome is what will therefore colour everyones perspective of the challenge not the intent. To give reds for reckless play will result in numerous result orientated decisions which is why it is a bad rule, or at least badly worded.

Re the first part - if you have to go in recklessly, then you don't go in. Or if you do and you get sent off, you accept it. I'd be ****ing livid if I were Milner and I was on the receiving end of that.

I have played plenty of football, I gave up 5 years ago as my back is knackered. Like I said, I'm not asking people to know the outcome, I'm asking them to tackle in a manner that doesn't significantly increase the likelihood of injury - I'm happy to see people go in for solid tackes, Lee Cattermole and Mark Noble both did it very well yesterday (bar one from behind from Cattermole, for which he was rightly booked). What you're asking for is a rule change - which is fine. As the rules stand, I can't see why he shouldn't be sent off.

hahaha, you are priceless.

Defend him to the grave, eh?

So no genuine competitive challenges for 50/50 balls which can often look reckless after the fact.

No, because as I have said, Refs use there discretion. In this case he was correct. Often they are wrong, sending off players for perfectly fine challenges and the reverse. I think the word reckless is to open to interpretation to be really meaningful in a letter of the law kind of way, it puts the power in the hand of the Refs.

No challenges for 50/50 balls which are reckless.

Same as no 50/50 challenges because it is impossible to competitively go into a 50/50 challenge knowing it wont look reckless after the fact due to parameters beyond your control.

Leaving your studs up at knee height is within your control.

Oh wait i'm just gonna check my lottery numbers they come in and they can kiss my arse goodbye.......................................wooo hoooo i won..................

No, not when the ball is at that height and you need to extend fully to reach the ball.

laughs at the yank chelski gloryhunter trying to backup his arguement by quoting a dictionary which refers to football as soccer.

stick to baseball

Cornwall part of the states now?

LOL.

Also hope spudz win today, makes the final much more epic.

The difference between Terry's challenge and a normal 50/50 situation was how high Terry's foot was off the ground. Lunging at that height compared to lunging at ground level radically increases the chances of serious injury. I don't see how you can dispute this unless you're unfamiliar with the laws of physics. That he was contesting the ball doesn't make it OK. There's nothing in the laws of the game that specifically prohibits you from kicking near an opponent's head either, but if you take a swing at a ball that is right next to the head of an opponent on the ground and kick him full in the face, then I don't think "But ref, I got the ball first!" is going to get you very far.

Handing out reds for tackles like that doesn't mean you can't contest 50/50's in general, it means you can't launch karate kid-style flying kicks at knee height when there's likely to be an opponent on the end of them. I think the game of football would survive that restriction.

Also I have no idea what OAFK was trying to achieve with his argument over the exact definition of "tackle". If it was to make everyone think he's a nit then it succeeded brilliantly imo.

Hopefully

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdB1E...eature=related

Well you can go into a challenge when the ball is on the ground and break someones leg ala Shawcross, perhaps we should ban foot level challenges as well?

50/50s are often over bouncing balls in a no mans land between players, that will be above ankle height, the reality is a committed competitive challenge will pose some risk to another player. If you want to remove all the risk you have to reduce the game to netball or wengerball.

Terry played the ball the only way possible to win it.