Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Red card or not

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,591

    Red card or not

    Difficult decision for the referee giving Struijk a red card yesterday. I think it was red as the slightest misjudgement in that type of tackle can (and did) result in injury.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,661
    An interesting one.

    If it was the tackle that caused the injury (as opposed to the player simply twisting his ankle) the red card was probably appropriate.

    However the referee didn't even think it was a free kick let alone a red card. If it hadn't been for Salah's intervention the game would simply have continued.

    The referee also didn't seem to go to a television monitor to view a replay of the tackle and form his own opinion.

    If the player hadn't been injured would the VAR observer still have instructed the referee to show him a red card?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16,777
    There was no intent, but he wasn’t in control of his trailing leg which caused a serious injury. However it was arrived at it was a straight red.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    30,525
    A two footed tackle from behind is a red card.

    The referee made a mistake first off.

    We don't know what was said to him via his ear piece, but I'm not sure of the value of him watching a replay.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,661
    So does anyone think he would have been sent off for the tackle if the player had got up and walked away uninjured?

    Would the VAR observer still have instructed the referee to send him off?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    30,525
    You could argue a dangerous tackle like this was always going to injure the player to some extent, so it's a moot point.

    But then again, it's impossible to say whether (in the event a miracle occured and) if there was no injury the VAR, or linesman would've called out the ref's initial error.

    Who knows what might have happened?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,661
    I think we all probably agree that the extent of the injury should be irrelevant.

    If it is a bad tackle it is a bad tackle.

    Amazing then that the referee thought it was a perfectly fair tackle.

    Presumably he will be given a rest from officiating until he has learned the rules?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    30,525
    I wouldn't mind seeing the tackle from the referee's perspective. They showed neither the tackle nor the injury on the highlights here (just the card) and I had to Google to find the incident itself.

    From the ref's angle he might've seen the foot connecting with the ball and the two footed nature of the tackle might've been obscured by the angle.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    30,525
    What I don't really understand is how the Leeds players can complain about the card?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •