THERE was a lot of fuss recently about a tackle by Bruno Martins of Stoke on Arsenal’s Mesut Ozil, which resulted in a penalty.

Many people thought referee Craig Pawson had made a mistake, including, not surprisingly, Stoke manager Paul Lambert.

His Arsenal counterpart, Arsene Wenger on the other hand said, ‘It looked like a penalty, I don’t think Ozil dived’.

When a player goes down however, it’s not necessarily a choice between a foul or a dive.

The problem is the laws don’t really explain what makes a tackle fair or foul. Years ago in the national referee magazine, I wrote an article explaining how I told the difference.

If the player played the ball first and the opponent then fell over his outstretched leg, that was a fair tackle – but if he caught the opponent’s leg, before playing the ball, it was a foul.

To my surprise, that wording was included in the Laws the following season. Coincidence or not, who knows, but it no longer appears.

What the Law says is ‘A direct free kick is awarded if a player tackles or challenges an opponent in a manner to be considered careless, reckless or using excessive force’.

Let’s leave out reckless, which requires a yellow card and excessive force a red one. A careless tackle, the Law says, is showing a lack of attention or consideration or acting without precaution.

My own explanation was perhaps too simple.

A player may play the ball first, but then bring his opponent down, perhaps with his other leg.

What if the player cannot play the ball, without also bringing his opponent down?

It’s not impossible but extremely difficult not to do this when making a tackle from behind as Martins did.

He played the ball first, but then his leg caught Ozil’s leg, causing him to fall. If only we had VAR, cried Lambert, the decision would have been reversed.

I’m not so sure but what we really need is a better description of what makes a tackle a foul.