Let’s do a little memory and remember that players have always used intimidation tactics towards opponents. This is how we have come to see so many stomps that the protagonists call ‘fortuitous’.
There was a time when ‘tackling’ from behind touching the ball was common but at the same time, due to the effect of movement, hitting with the other leg to the ankles of the opposing player. Those actions did not seem red to us but Many players were left off the pitch. The problem was detected and the sanction began to change from yellow to red for these actions in which, I repeat, the ball was touched first. Today we can say that are eradicated.
Later the fashion of the elbows arrived. There were seasons with more than ten serious cheekbone injuries. The player always said that he jumped like this for protection and that he didn’t want to do damage. Then it was decided that this type of jumping action with arm movement to the contrary was very dangerous and we began to expel. Miracle: these harmful actions stopped being seen. Some are still produced today, but they are almost eradicated.
Now in our football we meet the fashion of stomping, masked in a ball dispute that many times is not such. Let’s go to the beginning of the spirit of the game. Playing soccer does not imply the deliberate action of stepping on an opponent with the excuse of playing the ball. Stepping on an opponent is more serious than tackling. The player must know how to measure when he puts his foot in when disputing the ball and be aware of the risk it poses to the opponent, just as it is to his team if he plays the ball with his hand in his area.
Here I see a big problem. From the technical arbitration committees They speak of red if the action occurs above the ankle. If the stomp occurs below, they advocate a simple yellow. And why do I say that it is a problem? Easy. The IFAB, which is the one that legislates, does not speak at any time of height or intention or other things. Instead, the one who dictates how to apply that rule gives a lot of parameters that take decision power away from the referee. Thus, they try to equate many actions when the rule is much simpler than all that.
It is understood that the use of excessive force occurs in that action in which the player exceeds in force and impetuosity used or endangers the physical integrity of the adversary. In that case, the offender must be expelled.
And now I quote this summer’s circular, prepared by the CTA and not by the IFAB, which is the one that legislates. In the evaluation of this type of plays, the referee must assess:
–The area of the body with which the player makes the tackle: heels, instep, leg…
–The area of the body in which it is impacted: foot, ankle, Achilles tendon, leg, body, head…
–Intensity, speed, force and risk of injury.
As you can see, the rule itself is easy and not complicated at all. Then we want to give it an interpretation and we fill it with concepts that make it the referee is increasingly an administrative and stay away from the common sense of football.
Let’s give the referee his personality again, let’s stop trying to make Olympic marks with them and, above all, let’s not make laboratory collegiates. And here I quote Criss Jami: “The role of genius is not to complicate the simple, but to simplify the complicated.”
#Stomp #common #sense