Letter of the law.

[ghostrider]

Hayden was sent off against Leicester and rightly so if the letter of the law is to be followed unbiasedly.

However, if it is to be unbiased then McTominay should've seen red over the tackle on Sean Longstaff which had the same potential as Hayden's.
Ok it's over with now and we move on...but the point stands.
Another if moment...but.....IF one of our players had done that same tackle I wouldn't have been confident of that player staying on the field.

Apparently the VAR reason for McTominay staying on was: "there wasn't enough force applied".
So basically Longstaff's leg needed to be broken before it would've been deemed a red card offence. That's what they might as well conclude.

Studs up to the leg in a tackle should not need to be guessed at in terms of what force is potentially applied. It's there to be seen, as clear as day and it's a red card in my book. I would've certainly expected any of our players to have walked over that.

[bix01]

Inevitably followed by “He’s not that sort of player” tripe from the player’s manager or pundit connected with that team. Perhaps a duty of care blanket rule should come in whereby it’s an automatic red to eliminate any doubt over intent. This could apply to stray elbows - Boly for Wolves springs to mind - as well as spitting (Jonny Evans). Probably loads of reds for a short while until players improve their tackling skills.

[ghostrider]

Inevitably followed by “He’s not that sort of player” tripe from the player’s manager or pundit connected with that team. Perhaps a duty of care blanket rule should come in whereby it’s an automatic red to eliminate any doubt over intent. This could apply to stray elbows - Boly for Wolves springs to mind - as well as spitting (Jonny Evans). Probably loads of reds for a short while until players improve their tackling skills.

That's fair comment.
It's amazing how they can refuse to be clear on this stuff.