SUN, 8:30AM ET
LIV2
SOU1
SUN, 11AM ET
NEW0
MCFC2
MON, 3PM ET
BUR
CHE
TUES, 2:45PM ET
BES
ARS
THU, 1PM ET
TRI
THFC
SAT, 7:45AM ET
AST
NEW

Glen Johnson’s Tackle Was Worse Than Vincent Kompany’s: Animated GIF

glen johnson tackle against manchester city Glen Johnsons Tackle Was Worse Than Vincent Kompanys: Animated GIF

Glen Johnson committed a two-footed lunge against Manchester City in Wednesday night’s first leg of the Carling Cup semi-final. However, the tackle (see above animation), which was far worse than the one that Vincent Kompany committed against Nani this past Sunday, was unpunished by referee Lee Mason.

The tackle by Liverpool’s Glen Johnson is sure to generate a lot of heated debate about the inconsistency shown by referees. How can Kompany be red carded, while Johnson goes unpunished?

The second leg at Anfield takes place on Wednesday, January 25.

H/T 101 Great Goals.

About Christopher Harris

Founder and publisher of World Soccer Talk, Christopher Harris is the managing editor of the site. He has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian and several other publications. Plus he has made appearances on NPR, BBC World, CBC, BBC Five Live, talkSPORT and beIN SPORT. Harris, who has lived in Florida since 1984, has supported Swansea City since 1979. He's also an expert on soccer in South Florida, and got engaged during half-time of a MLS game. Harris launched EPL Talk in 2005, which was rebranded as World Soccer Talk in 2013. View all posts by Christopher Harris →
This entry was posted in Leagues: EPL, Liverpool, Manchester City. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Glen Johnson’s Tackle Was Worse Than Vincent Kompany’s: Animated GIF

  1. Brian says:

    When you get the ball first and the opposing player’s first contact is with your buttocks that’s a red card now? Because that’s all I see here. Forget the Kompany foul and judge this one on its own first.

    In my opinion this is a great tackle, although flirting with disaster.

  2. suarez says:

    i was fearing the worst for glen johnson thought we might go down to ten men credit must go to the man city players for not making a big deal over it .

  3. Will says:

    brilliant tackle, in my opinion only a red if he misses the ball and hits the player. One might say the crucial difference with Kompany’s was that Nani had to avoid it, whereas Lescott was fairly beaten. But I think BOTH should’ve gone unpunished, and I’m an LFC man

  4. Jim says:

    As a Liverpool fan I agree that this challenge was far worse than Kompany’s challenge on Sunday. This is the problem with the EPL, no consistency.

    Given the way Lee Mason was officiating where he didn’t take out a card at every tackle and foul it was not surprising that he didn’t do anything for the Glen Johnson tackle. I thought Lee Mason was very good tonight and wish other officials would use more common sense.

    Also fair play to Manchester City players and coaching staff for not remonstrating. Showed class.

  5. Pierre says:

    Yeh but Mancini didnt show much ‘class’ in the post match interview

    Sorry but this should have been a straight red card by the laws of the game, if he mistimes that he could break someones ankle, the fact that on this occasion the player didn’t is irrelevant…the point of the law is to prevent players from making such risky challenges

    • Why? says:

      Pierre, WHAT? he had his captain sent off for less and watched that happen right in front of him the only person lacking class was Gerrard with his after match interview I can only say his misunderstanding comments! What would you expect Mancini to say ‘Well I’m over the moon that these tackles are red if it’s my player’??? Really what do you think he should say? Anybody would be livid!!! Get real

  6. observingthegame says:

    Kompany should have been sent off & so should Johnson. It was DANGEROUS play. So what if he didn’t catch the City player. I agree that this was different from Kompany’s challenge, because Nani actually had the ball when Vinve lunged at hi. Here, it was more of a 50-50. (Still red card offence though).
    Refereeing is a tough job, and they don’t get to see it 10 times and from 10 angles. The ref makes the decision and the teams have to live with it. I know it’s tough for the team losing a player, but just get on with it. Stop whining Mr. Mancini.

    • Why? says:

      Nani never touched the ball it came from a Giggs pass that overshot.

      What is this the definition of this ‘DANGEROUS play’? As this isn’t cited in Kompany’s sending off.

      Johnson did catch the City player but football is a contact sport, always was always will be. People can get hurt always have always will if tackling is taken out you can keep it. Breaks are much more common outside of football in fact I beat you they have less than most sports. In football these breaks rarely end careers as loonies will tell you sure people get injured but they do in any sport or job you cannot cover them in cotton wool! People are going over the top with this bollox and it’s gonna ruin the game. You are much more likely to end your career in a factory what should we do ban the machinery?

      Ref’s Cleary behave differently from team to team that’s not it being a tuff job that’s it being if you wrongly send a Wolves player off you will still be a premier league Ref next week but some teams and their mangers can influence the media the FA etc. It’s funny they seem to seem more angles the higher placed the team are in the pecking order in other words they turn a blind one just in case it’s a bit controversial as the wrath of Neil Warnock doesn’t have the same affect as others can and it needs to stop. Anyway rant over.

      • John says:

        Where in the games laws does it say football is a contact sport? This is a cliche used by people who fine the actual laws insufficiently back their opinions, in much the same way that “he got the ball first” is ignorantly citing as a determining factor.

        If you want the game to be played this way, that’s one thing. That’s a preference. It’s also a preference that’s in opposition to the laws of the game.

        • Why? says:

          Don’t be silly it’s a contact sport because contact is allowed that’s kinda obvious or it should be! Cliche indeed.

          The game has always been played this way it has got much less physical than it was previously. It’s not what I want it’s simply the way it is! People all over the World love the game how it is career threatening injuries are rare, maybe not according to some here where every tackle ‘could’ or ‘would’ have ended a career in the blink of an eye.
          You must think tackling is getting worse but it’s not you should see some of the 70′s stuff. Many less careers finish early in football now than any other decade the main reason for this? The fact that cruciate ligament injuries and breaks etc are now easily put right as are other bad injuries. A cruciate could go when you turn suddenly should we ban this?

          • John says:

            People all over the world love the game, but nowhere across the world do they justify horrendous tackles like they do in England. That is a uniquely and grotesquely England-centric trait. While these tackles happen elsewhere, they aren’t justified anywhere. Except England.

            Just because tackling was worse in the 70s does not mean that progress has been sufficient. There are many, many things about English football in the 70s that were horrible. Mild progress toward something less-than-horrible should exonerate nobody who tries tackles like Johnson’s.

          • Jack Tomczuk says:

            @Why? Some people just want to outlaw defenders from going to the ground to win the ball. I don’t understand it. Maybe they think that outlawing slide tackles will result in more goals being scored?

          • Why? says:

            I get it not only do you not know that football is a contact sport your also an Anglophobe, nice. where is this country that football isn‘t a contact sport? Where all contact or possible contact you can get sent off for with the crowd booing the shame of it all? What a croc! Italy is the home of strong tackles for a start. Justified? Behave.
            There were horrible things about Dutch, Italian, Turkish, Spanish and polish football in fact in most countries football . NOW how many stabbing happen in Italy every year? Man you’re bias! Neither tackle in question here is remotely needing justifying as they are nothing bad and both English, American, Italian etc think this look at any website! See what they are saying doesn’t mater if they are from England or Outer Mongolia 90 odd % disagree with you, but you of course know better!

            P.S a 100%will disagree with you on the football’s a non-contact sport thing

          • John says:

            Why said football is a non-contact sport?

            I said that it doesn’t say in the laws of the game that football is a contact sport.

            That is a big difference.

            I don’t think there’s a need to say that football is or is not a contact sport. That’s a weird, assuredly false, dichotomy.

          • Why? says:

            All through the rule book it shows football to be a contact sport! i.e.
            ‘ “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.’
            Note the words ‘necessary use of force’ what do you think that could mean? It just doesn’t use the words ‘contact sport’ because it clearly doesn’t have to, well to some it would seem it does. Some other words it doesn’t also use or even point to in the slightest are ‘Two footed’ and ‘Airborne’, Hmmm, don’t you like to use one or both of them?

  7. Jack Tomczuk says:

    Great tackle. There was nothing in the rulebook that outlaws two-footed tackles. Nowhere does it say that this sort of tackle is an automatic red card. It is possible that the FA is telling referees to get rid of this tackle, but I see no problem if the defender times it right. Kompany should not have been sent off, and the referee in the Man City-Liverpool game was right not to send off Johnson.

    • John says:

      The tackle clearly falls under Law 12.

      There are a ton of offenses not specifically mentioned in the laws of the game. Instead, they’re covered by overarching terms like “dangerous.”

      • Jack Tomczuk says:

        The tackle was not dangerous. People and pundits seem to think that every defender is a reckless drunk driver who can’t control himself. This is so far from the truth. A defender needs to have excellent timing in order to take the ball away from the attacker. Johnson timed his challenge perfectly, so there was no need for a red card. Believe it or not, defenders actually have talent and awareness. It isn’t just a lottery of outcomes when they go in for tackles.

        • John says:

          When a man goes airborne, as Johnson did, he loses control of his momentum. He can’t stop himself at that point.

          Johnson took off far enough away from the ball that he put the City player at risk. Rather than being a product of intelligent determination, his tackle was a product of lucky. Had the City player continued moving toward the ball – a reasonable movement – he would have been fouled, hurt, or seriously hurt.

          Johnson putting the success of his tackle at the whim of another player’s movements is not talent and awareness. It’s an error. Placing your outcome at the mercy of other’s choices is not skill. It’s a dice roll.

          It’s also an error that football has been very specific about discouraging players from committing.

          That Johnson committed his error with two feet instead of one only adds to the seriousness of the offense.

          Ceding control of your body to the potential harm of another player is not something to confuse with good defending. Not is it something to confuse with legal play.

      • Why? says:

        Law 12 is huge and as the Ref gave a foul he dealt with it using Law 12!

        Airborne? Is this the new ‘two footed’ now? Is this because the pundits people really on so much for there opinion said there was no such rule as a two footed rule tonight? So we now say Airborne is illegal? I got news for you John it’s not illegal either! You’d be better sticking with the ‘if’, ‘buts’ and ‘could haves’ But then again ‘if’ my auntie had balls she ‘could have’ been my uncle ‘but’ she doesn’t so it’s nonsense!

        • John says:

          Neither airborne nor two-footed are illegal. They’re factors that play into the case that something was illegal.

          I think most people understand this distinction. We need not break down the logic of the case every time somebody says “two-footed” or “airborne.”

          Airborne is particularly important because once a player is, he’s lost the ability to stop his own momentum. He’s lost control of his body, and as such has lost the ability to prevent foul or injury.

          And just to anticipate, yes, there is a difference between the kind of airborne you see above – vaulting one’s self off the ground in the direction of a player – and the kind of airborne where a player is, say, leaping to head a corner kick.

          I think this is a distinction that’s easy to agree upon.

          • Why? says:

            They are not factors at all john.

            ‘Any player who LUNGES AT AN OPPONENT in challenging for the ball from the
            front, from the side or from behind using ONE OR BOTH legs, with EXCESSIVE force
            and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’

            Note ‘one or both legs’ and the word ‘lunges’. It make no difference if it’s two footed or one! And a lunge is nothing to do with going airborne Oxford dictionary. Lunge: ‘a sudden forward thrust of the body, typically with an arm outstretched to attack someone or seize something:’ make no difference if your stood or singing from a tree. You are using words that ill informed pundits do.

            So to recap it makes no difference if you use one or two feet in a tackle, fact. And a lung does not mean coming off the ground or going airborne, fact. It means making a fast motion to attack someone. Both Kompany and Johnson went to ground you could say they lunged if you wanted this would be hard to prove otherwise but you couldn’t say the lunge at a player which they have to as both only had eyes for the ball and both got the ball Johnson caught Lescott you could say but lescott was also moving towards him so more of a meeting. Now the big one that makes it sending’s off did they use ‘excessive force’ the answer is NO in both cases and you cannot say they might have do this or that because they didn‘t the very fact both went for the ball should in the context of the rules be enough, the only way around this is say they used the ball as an excuse to try to hit the player!! Which I’m sure not even the most bias could say that. They weren’t lucky to get the ball it‘s what they meant and what they did!
            Refs make mistakes Kompany didn’t even foul and Johnsons is possibly ‘Reckless’ and should have received a yellow maybe at worse. When you put them side to side one thing is for sure it makes a mockery of the Premier League Refereeing standards.

  8. Why? says:

    This challenge has similarities with Kompany’s as the ball was in neither players control but that’s where the comparison ends. Johnson lunges straightening his legs putting his studs up with both feet together and goes through the ball from the other angle you can see he catches Lescott’s foot with his. Was there excessive force used though? If it’s a red there must be it’s close but I don’t think so this was a reckless challenge at best which is a yellow but only a free kick at worse he could have gone but may have felt slightly aggrieved (know where near as much as Kompany) as he lunged at the ball but it was more of a red than Kompany’s then again a lot of nothing challenges are! Kompany’s was a slide tackle performed well. Johnson’s wasn’t a blatant sending’s off but be prepared for the ‘two footed‘ brigade talking rubbish.

    Jim I agree the City players didn’t make a meal of it especially after what happened the other day it seems that this is onr of the traits of the champions they haven’t picked up and I hope they never do! Gerrard’s comments on Mancini on the other hand were wrong he has every right to be angry watching that tackle not even get a booking while watching 72 hour previous his captain walk for less he was in no way trying to get Johnson in trouble merely pointing out the injustice of what happened to his captain within 10 minutes of a massive game while let‘s call it similar didn‘t even warrant a yellow, what did he think he was gonna say that’s fine and well acceptable?

  9. Alex says:

    Oh no, another SOCCER mishap…..

    it shows how inconsistent the refs are in the Premier…piss poor..

    and Tomczuh, you need to read the rule book again….its riviting…

    I guess Vinny was wrong, it’s not raining red cards….

    the rule is on the books to stop dangerous plays that lunging with both feet creates….

    snob out…..

    • Jack Tomczuk says:

      I’ve read the rulebook again and there still nothing about two-footed tackles. It’s amazing that they didn’t update it because many people seem to think that two-footed challenges are a reason to send a player off. People do not understand defending. It is an art, and timing is one of the most important factors. Johnson timed the tackle perfectly in order to win the ball and make minimal contact with the player. A two-footer can be dangerous, but this one was not.

      • John says:

        This is a ridiculously literal interpretation of the rules, and obviously (and thankfully) not one followed in any league at any level. Johnson’s tackle was clearly dangerous. Had the City player been moving toward the ball (which is always a reasonable movement) this could have been one of the worst tackles we’ve ever seen.

        Those find of decisions shouldn’t been both discouraged and sanctioned out of football. Thankfully, most of the world agrees on this.

        Johnson’s tackle was in violation of laws 12c and 12d and subject to immediate dismissal according to 12o.

        Other things not specifically mentioned in Law 12: Punching somebody in the face, stabbing them with cutlery, gouging their eyes, using firearms. In fact, no specific violent or dangerous act is described in with that level of detail. The laws seem to assume reasonable interpretation.

        • Jack Tomczuk says:

          As I have stated above, the tackle was not dangerous. It would have been dangerous if he had slid into the player, but he slid into the ball. That’s the difference. Maybe FIFA should update their rules because “dangerous” is too subjective.

  10. Alex says:

    Tomczuk,

    You can state your facts until your aunt turns into your uncle, and you are wrong…

    Lunges, one footed or two are a dangerous play…and you would know that if you been on the wrong end of one..

    This game we play is inherently dangerous, but FIFA recognized possible career ending events….and how to stop them or at least try to minimize them ..

    Past 5 years, Arsenal has had the most public bad luck, but it’s world wide….from Série A, Série B and Série C and Série D leagues world wide….and then their’s the weekend warriors who have lost a step or two and they end up in the emergency room on Sunday..

    • John says:

      I think if Tomczuk wants to say football should be interpreted as he sees it, that’s in interesting debate.

      I think it’s incorrect to imply that’s how the rules are currently written or (should be) interpreted.

    • Jack Tomczuk says:

      If Alex and John want to end all sliding tackles, they should be calling for a change to the FIFA rules. At the moment, players are allowed to go to the ground to win the ball. It should be noted that I have no horse in this race. I’m not a Liverpool or Manchester City or Manchester United supporter. I just have more respect for defenders, and I don’t want them tiptoeing around afraid to make a sliding challenge on players who dive and then roll around like they’ve been shot.

      In a seperate incident, Glen Johnson made a fantastic challenge on Aguero to deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. If you remember that tackle, do you want that kind of challenge to be outlawed as well? Because it was a lunge, but a safe one. We’ve already gone far enough in protecting attackers (possibly too far), yet people still want to attack defenders.

      • John says:

        There have been only three mentions of banning going to ground in this thread: two by you, and then this response.

        Based on that, I was say nobody is taking the position of banning all sliding tackles. That may be another thread.

        • Jack Tomczuk says:

          Okay, fair point. I also want to make clear that I’m not someone who believes that “if he got the ball first, then it’s a clean tackle.” Many commentators say this, and it is wrong. If a players gets the ball and the follow-through is high and studs-up on the attacker’s leg, then that should be punished. But in neither of the two tackles in question (Kompany’s and Johnson’s) did this happen. In fact, there was little-to-no contact in both incidents.

          Of course, people will argue that there was intent and these “dangerous” tackles should be outlawed. But look at it this way: If a defender makes a standing tackle, where he just pokes his leg in and takes the ball, there is no foul called even though the defender could have potentially tripped the attacker. It’s the same way in this scenerio. Hardly any contact was made in the Johnson call, so there is no reason to punish it. Was it dangerous? No, because no contact was ever made and the defender may have planned it that way.

          We have to live in reality and not speculate about what could have happened based on a number of factors. If significant contact was made, it’s probably sending off. But that didn’t happen.

    • Why? says:

      Hi Alex, could you tell me whose careers have been ended in the premier league recently by bad tackles because I’m strugling to find them, I don’t want to say they haven’t happened much but it kinda seems that way. I’m sure you know a few though like these Arsenal players in the last 5 years I can’t think which ones had there careers ended.

  11. Tim says:

    Two-foot-stud-showing sliding tackles can be dangerous. Just because this one was well timed doesn’t change the fact it was dangerous. The Gaffer is correct in stating that it points to the larger problem of inconsistencies in refereeing. I understand that different referees call a different style of match and I do not want that to change, but when it comes to certain things, i.e. a sliding tackle with studs showing, there needs to be standard that will not cause inconsistencies due to individual interpretation.

    • Why? says:

      Any tackle can be dangerous Tim. The horrible leg breaking ones are usually in high over the ball to grounded feet. If a tackle is keep low it should not be to much of a problem it may look spectacular a player can go flying but the lower the tackle the less damage. The FA or FIFA are not saying anything about tackles like Kompany’s and Johnsons the hysteria is not of their doing referee’s have made mistakes that’s all.

      • dust says:

        what? really? where did you come up with that a video game? it could have shattered his ankle. If you actually play the game, lets see how your ankle or leg holds up from someone doing that while you are on the ball. You clearly don’t play, if you do, show your team mates your post or maybe the opposing team before the game. Het lads just a heas up im ok with 2 footed studs up dives at my ankles, just so you know. moron!

        • Why? says:

          Me? Really? He could have spun round in the air and snapped his neck when he landed as well or turn and away a trashed his cruciate ligament but he didn’t did he?. Clown nobody ‘dived’ at anyone ankles just because you say it doesn’t make it true its clear to all but the thickest both players went for the ball I don’t even think that’s in dispute other wise they would have caught him and he would have walked for that. What kind of cretins think that these professional players who are mostly very good friend would want to shatter some ones ankles, this isn’t your Sunday pub kick about full of beer from the night before you clown. Both players went for the ball and got the ball they didn’t shut their eyes and get lucky you pillock!

  12. M. Robo says:

    The following FIFA directive on fouls that will result in a direct free kick is as follows:-

    A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

    • kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
    • trips or attempts to trip an opponent
    • jumps at an opponent
    • charges an opponent
    • strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
    • pushes an opponent
    • tackles an opponent

    Clearly the referee did not think this tackle was careless, reckless or excessive. Fair play to him he got it right. Nowhere in the rule book does it state that a two footed tackle equates to an automatic red card. The ref who sent Kompany off got it wrong, that tackle was a yellow at most.

  13. trickybrkn says:

    GJ wins the ball. plain as day.

    • nicc says:

      which means squat according to the laws of the game.
      Kompany won his ball plain as day too…

      • trickybrkn says:

        It means that he won the ball, and thus wasn’t tackling Lescott. And I really don’t care about Vinny Kompany in this regard. Different game different ref.

        • Evan says:

          “And I really don’t care about Vinny Kompany in this regard. Different game different ref.”

          Why comment on an article comparing it to Kompany’s then?

        • nicc says:

          I’ll repeat myself – and add a little context – because apparently you didnt see it the first time:
          winning the ball has no bearing on whether a foul is a foul or an innocent tackle according to the laws of the game. similar to how there is no “last man” rule.

          just because pundits and announcers say something doesn’t make it so…

  14. SPURS!! says:

    this is a conspiracy! FA can suck my none-bias balls

  15. Ryan says:

    I don’t think you can start comparing tackles. Does a ref really have time to go “Now, that card last week some other ref gave that other player was not as bad as this, so THIS is a red card, too!” …?

    I’ll admit, that’s a bad tackle. He launches into the air, two feet first. Can’t tackle with both feet. That’s illegal…

    He DID get to the ball first though.

  16. Patrick Starr says:

    GIF = animated picture no?

    Animated GIF = redundant.

    and i thought we were already use to different referees with different officiating standards

  17. dust says:

    Anyone that feels this type of challenge is ok clearly hasn’t played the game above pub team level. This isnt even a challenge for the ball a “tackle” is not leaving the ground with 2 feet in the air with studs up. It just isn’t, there is no technique absolutely zero technique coached that says this is how you challenge and morons that say he got the ball first are just being ridiculous and probably a Liverpool fan. In this instance he got the ball because the other player used some Jedi like powers to not have his foot on the ball at the time, thats the only reason he is not out for the season with a compound fracture.

    If a player goes to punch another player and misses should that be allowed. There are certain acts in football that are considered too dangerous for the game. Feet to high even though you get the ball, using your elbows for anything really, TWO footed lunged at a player!

    I cant believe that this is even being argued as not a violent challenge that only sheer luck has limited any season ending injury. Glen Johnson is a regarded as a dirty player anyways all this does is reinforce it. I’m by know means a city fan but this is just not on. “He got the ball”…please….absolutely moronic, stick to FIFA 12

  18. FCAsheville says:

    I’m a Liverpool fan and I think both challenges should have been yellows as they were both the first offense of each match. I will say Johnson should consider himself lucky!

    Managers need to tell their teams plain and simple – “No two footed tackles ever!” They simply aren’t worth the risk and they are illegal.

  19. Chicken Vindaloo says:

    d..d…d…d…dd…ddd…dddd…ddddd…do the two step!

  20. reidscott says:

    Hard tackle. Period.

  21. Gaz says:

    One referee interpreted player A as being dangerous in his tackling.

    Another referee interpreted player B as not being dangerous in his tackling.

    The game and its rules have been purposely constructed so that they are open to interperation by the referee. It’s not the fault of the referee that he doesn’t judge fouls exactly like his peers. On the contrary, he is encouraged to use his interoperation of the law when making calls. Consistency should be judged on an individual referee basis, not throughout all referees.

  22. Evan says:

    It’s the inconsistency that is the problem.

    You don’t see the FA calling Johnson to a hearing to issue him a ban, and yet just a few days ago they somehow decided that Kompany’s tackle was worth a ban and rejected his appeal.

    This problem needs to get fixed soon.
    The FA are making themselves look like a joke to the world right now.

  23. Frank says:

    Looking at it this way, if the Man. City player was a split second faster and got his foot on the ball, Glen’s feet would have landed on that player’s ankle instead of the ball. The result from that tackle would have been devastating to say the least.

    The tackle itself was reckless and it was only shear luck that no one got hurt. Once Glen lunched himself at the spot, there was no way he could have stopped if a foot/ankle was at that spot instead of the ball.

  24. Terry Becker says:

    What is with referees these days? Bloody hell having double standards.

  25. Imran says:

    who cares?

  26. Dan Lott says:

    Don’t care for Gerrard and his attempt to vilify Mancini for what he had every right to protest. Gerrard’s intelligence was demonstrated by his statement a few years ago that England loses because they let too many foreigners in the league.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>