Wanyama's red card

They can't have every specific red card offence in the rules or the list would be massive. It will come under violent conduct because it was a two footed challenge. The fact that we all know why he was sent him off is reason enough to show that he should have known two footed=red card.

Just because it didn't injure him doesn't mean it couldn't have. Two footed challenges are very dangerous and quite uncontrollable after you've committed to them which is why they're not allowed.

 

How is it a sending off if he won the ball and nobody was hurt? there was no intent to hurt Whittaker. Just a good old fashioned aggressive tackle.

 

Even Ally mcCoist admitted it wasn't a red.

 

Of course it was a red card. I find it hard to believe that anyone who follows football in any capacity at all would not be aware that two footed challenges get you a straight red these days.

 

stop making aqusations.

 

You dont have to hurt someone to deem it a red card. He lunged in two footed when he didnt need to. It was reckless and he was'nt in control. Clear sending off. If it had been the other way round, we would be saying the same thing.

It was a stupid decision from Wanyama. Good old fashioned aggressive tackles arent allowed any more. Havent been for some time. Not in the context you mean anyway.

 

didnt say that! said it was harsh but understandable

 

A poor decision from a poor ref 6 years ago has no bearing on Wanyama's challenge.

 

Its a stupid rule though.

 

Wanyama only has himself to blame, if you go in the way he did then you can't really complain about getting a red card. It's not the worst two-footed challenge I have seen, but you're asking for trouble if you go into any challenge two-footed.

 

studs werent up.

 

Be that as it may, it's irrelevant.

 

Said if it went the other way he wouldn't be happy with it.

 

Where's the violent conduct though? No violent act has been committed. He won the ball fair and clean. It's not like he scythed the player down from the back to win the ball or went through the player to get it either. It may have been two footed BUT it wasn't a dangerous tackle.

I've seen more dangerous tackles where the defending player slides in from the side-rear and wins the ball but gets the attacking players legs caught between his own. Should we stop those tackles too because there is a chance that the player can get injured?

Did Wanyama injure Shittaker? No. Was it a dangerous, wreckless challenge? No. Was it malicious? No.

Should he have got sent off? No!

 

This, i agree. There was no chance of Whittiker ever getting injured in that tackle.

Some people say "why does he need to go in two footed?", well if he doesn't then he will not get a clean contact on the ball.

 

How was he reckless and not in control if he won the ball though ? If anything he timed the tackle very well in order to win the ball, and not hurt Whittaker.

 

So by that reckoning Murray had a blinder today because he sent off Wanyama?

And doesn't matter if it was 6 years ago or 6 minutes ago. The tackles are all two-footed.

The tackle ON Henry was a two-footed challenge - much like Wanyama's - and never even got a second look. Henry's challenge LOOKED more reckless than Wanyama's because of the way he lunged in (and probably was because when he lunged like that he wasn't in control whereas Wanyama's feet were on the ground) BUT he only got a booking for it. Yet Wanyama's challenge today is deemed as a red-card offence?

Bullshit. The ref got it wrong for that AND Cha's touch on Wallace.

 

When tackling like that you are not thinking about how many feet you're going in with, all you're thinking about is winning the ball which he done, one of the harshest red cards ive ever seen. His studs werent even showing nor were his feet high.

 

It's another rule that is hugely open to interpretation and most ref's bollocks it up because they don't use common sense.

Can just imagine that if he didn't put a tackle in there and Shittaker got past him people would have moaned "Why the * didn't Wanyama get stuck into Whittaker?!"

To me, Wanyama was in control. If he wasn't then he WOULD have got Shittaker and not the ball and he would have went in feet high and studs showing.

He was in control purely because

1) he kept his feet on the ground and
2) got the ball cleanly

His studs may have been up a wee bit but no more than what we see in every match when tackles come in. And they certainly weren't up high to cause injury.

 

That doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous. There's a reason tackles are usually made with a leading foot. It allows the player to control where he's tackling and if you've got both feet off the the ground, you're completely committed from the second you leave the ground.

You can say there was no chance of him being injured but what if he decided to put a leg forward to try and knock it away from Wanyama? His leg would have been snapped and as much as we may hate, i'm sure none us would have wanted that.