by M.J. Webb

Created on: March 25, 2010   Last Updated: March 26, 2010

As much as I am up off my seat shouting at the opposition thug, who's reckless lunge has sent my poor, innocent player sprawling; I feel that, as much as it is hard to do so, we must endeavour to evaluate this without emotion. The debate arises often following a tackle which causes a bad injury: broken leg, ankle, foot etc.

Therefore the calls rise for action against the defender for causing such a terrible injury... harsher punishment, lifetime bans, docking of wages. Such action sets a precedent; that tackles causing severe injury are worthy of severe punishment.

But here is where the difficulty lies. For often it is not the 'leg-breaker' that does the most damage. Rather it is the innocuous tackle with the awkward landing. Take, for example, the case of Djibril Cisse who broke his leg brushing against an opponent on a sprint down the wing, causing him to land his foot at an awkward angle, snapping his leg. Was the incident dangerous? Reckless or Clumsy? Not at all.

Personally I have witnessed two broken bones during matches within the last 18 months. The first was caused while shooting off-balance, the second, an awkward fall. Neither of which involved tackles. Therefore, what do we conclude is dangerous? A tackle causing injury?

Yet we have seen that severe injury is caused by less than dangerous tackles. Likewise, it is rare for a tackle labelled a 'leg-breaker' to actually inflict the damage its title would suggest.

By punishing dangerous tackles because they cause injury would incriminate defenders making comparatively innocent tackles, and pardon defenders committing horror tackles where no-one was hurt. Consider the recent David Beckham injury with no tackle in sight.

So who is to be the judge of dangerous? What is dangerous? Surely danger involves potential. If something is deemed dangerous, we are suggesting it carries the potential to do harm or damage.

For example, lighting a match in a petrol station would be considered dangerous because of the potential to ignite, though it may never do so. Therefore the affects of a tackle should not have bearing on whether it is dangerous or not.

If a player attempts to punch another player, is it less dangerous if the punch is dodged? Should the aggressor be punished less because he failed to land a blow? In reality, my experience of football is that over the last twenty years, the strength of tackle punished by red and yellow cards has been lowered and even cheapened.

A yellow card is a harsh punishment, is viewed correctly. A red card is a very harsh punishment. How many other sports would exclude a player during a match and subsequently ban them for up to three games because of a dangerous tackle.

Imagine the level you would need to go to in order to induce a similar punishment in other mainstream sports. Just think of the countless players who have missed out on a major final because they committed a couple of yellow card offences in the previous rounds.

Red and yellow cards are harsh punishment. Dishing them out haphazardly only seeks to cheapen the fear of them and make otherwise harsh punishment seem slack.

Learn more about this author, M.J. Webb.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.